Speech: Globalization vs Environmental Sustainability

I’ve been asked to address a “not-often-enough” debated area affected by the current model of Free Trade. My topic is Globalization vs. Sustainability.

 

May I begin by defining sustainability like this: “Meeting the needs of our generation, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.

 

What we have seen in recent times is a trade model known as Free Trade. I am a proponent of Fair Trade. I am adamantly opposed to our current model of Free Trade, or “free flow of capital”. Some call that model “let the markets rule”.

 

 

(the following involve Chapter 11 of NAFTA: Expropriation and Compensation – the ability of a MNC to sue a sovereign jurisdiction, the taxpayers – because of threat to that MNC’s “investment”)

How many of us, when we hear a friend or family member say: "my sister-in-law, my mother, my wife, or even, my friend's child, has cancer…

 

wonder, “How is it, we've spent all this money in the fight against cancer, and we continue seeing victims, younger and younger, being afflicted with this major cause of suffering and death?”

 

Under trade agreements negotiated by appointed -- not elected -- representatives, (with lobbyists sitting at their side at the negotiating table), we see further depletion of our resources, violation of human health and safety laws, and continued poisoning of our environment.

 

This lustful "race to the bottom" mentality, (profits over people), is wreaking environmental and human damage beyond comprehension.

I’d like to point out a few prominent cases:

 

 

An international tribunal working behind closed doors to arbitrate a dispute between a U.S. company and Mexico, ordered Mexico to pay nearly $17 million in compensatory damages for failing to protect the company's rights as a foreign investor.

 

The tribunal, citing investor-protection measures in NAFTA, found the government's actions amounted to an expropriation because they prevented Metalclad from making full use of a multimillion-dollar hazardous waste treatment and disposal site it built in San Luis Potosi. (What about the rights and health of the citizens of San Luis Potosi?)

 

The Metalclad dispute and the $16.7 million judgment, represent the latest turn in the way NAFTA is used since taking effect in January, 1994. Several U.S. and Canadian companies have used NAFTA to challenge unfavorable actions of local governments.

Methanex Corporation of Vancouver, British Columbia, filed a $970 million claim against the US because California banned imports of Methanex’s gasoline additive, MTBE, a known carcinogen.

 

An international tribunal is considering a claim that the US pay a foreign investor $1 billion because of California’s measure to prevent water contamination. The Canadian challenger has argued that a plan to remove the toxic chemical from California's gasoline violates NAFTA. Methanex claims that under NAFTA, it is owed $970 million in profits it loses if California bans MTBE. The Methanex case is a clear illustration of NAFTA's gravest flaws.

 

According to Earthjustice attorney, Martin Wagner, "Methanex's claim is tantamount to extortion. They’re demanding a billion dollars if California insists on keeping its drinking water free of toxic contaminants."

 

California banned the additive because it appears in 10,000 groundwater wells in the state and is suspect in causing health disorders.

 

In 1997, Virginia-based Ethyl Corp. challenged Canada's ban on MMT, a gas additive produced only by Ethyl.

 

In this second Chapter 11 case, Ethyl effectively demolished Ottawa's attempt to protect citizens’ health and the environment from "a neurotoxin" contained in the company's additive.

 

The power NAFTA gives corporations over governments is further illustrated by these facts:

 

In 1991, Jean Chrétien urged the government to ban MMT on the grounds that "some of our leading neurotoxin scientists...detail the truly horrific effects that allowing continued use [of MMT] could have on the Canadian people."

 

As part of the settlement of its complaint, Ethyl forced Chrétien to repudiate his statement. In 1996, Canada introduced Bill C-29 to place an embargo on imports of MMT. The Bill was passed by the House of Commons and the Senate, then given Royal assent. Ethyl forced the government, in effect, to cancel a “law of the land”. The government's response was to capitulate and reimburse Ethyl in an out-of-court settlement.

 

Ottawa may be forced to pay up to US$50-million in compensation to Ohio-based SD Myers after a NAFTA tribunal ruled the company was damaged by a ban on exports of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from Canada.

 

S.D. Myers, which treats PCBs, sued Ottawa for wrecking its Canadian business.

 

Myers's lawyer, Barry Appleton, had this to say: "I don't think this is a good day in Ottawa. This is a good day for consumers, because consumers were forced to pay two to five times more to destroy their PCBs." (It is curious to note here – Barry’s “consumer” clients are the likes of General Electric and other “corporate consumers like SD Myers.”! If he did mean consumers, literally, were consumers originally responsible for development of and contamination from those PCBs?)

 

 

Each country’s resources (air, water, natural resources) would be protected and valued at their true worth – fair prices would be paid for resources and their use

Each country’s citizens’ health and safety would be safeguarded

Each sovereign country’s right to their own determination would be honored and respected – (democratic peoples’ self-determination – “we the people” would govern ourselves and determine what is best for us, not determined by MNCs)

Citizens of each trading partner country would have a voice in their children’s health – safeguarding the planet for the next generations to come – we’d see attainment of sustainability (in other words…meeting the needs of the current generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs)

 

Trade attorneys win - Congress members - Multinational Corporations - Trade Lobbyists - US Chamber of Commerce wins - National Assn. of Manufacturers - Resource Extraction intensive MNCs win – NIKE wins– Disney wins – MTV - Rupert Murdoch wins

 

 

 

 

What would trade look like in a “sustainable model”?

 

(resulting in)

            Little fuel needed to transport goods and services

            Use only local, (then regional) sources of materials

            Reuse of deconstructed, locally-collected materials

            In-season foods and produce

            Local culture, customs proliferate

            We learn to “live within our means” (we live off the interest,

never depleting the principal in our ecological/natural capital bank account)

Retention of abundant resources and a quality of life for our children’s future (we currently consume at a rate it takes the equivalent of 3 earth’s to replenish)

What can you add to this list?

 

Producer/Farmer gets paid “Fair wage” for their product

 

Money/Currency gets recirculated/reinvested in local community/region

           

Consumer knows who producer is, and how goods and services are produced – producer gets held accountable – unlike absentee owner/producer