NAFTA

Thesis Statement

On January 1, 1994, the (NAFTA) North American Free Trade Agreement between the Canada, Mexico, and United States took effect. An environmental side agreement was added to NAFTA because of concerns that its main provisions did not do enough to ensure environmental protection and sustainable business practices. The paper discusses controversies against NAFTA in a holistic manner.

Introduction

Even during the planning and later on during its implementation stage environmentalists have debated NAFTA's environmental costs and benefits and remain divided over the issue. The side agreement allows private individuals, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), corporations, and governments to challenge lax environmental oversight as well as to challenge government environmental legislation or regulations that interfere with NAFTA free-trade provisions making it an entity which is not perfect and open to criticism (these shall be provided below). (Schiffman et. all, pp. 350)

Key NAFTA measures included a gradual phasing out of barriers to the international trade like, tariffs, etc. and the liberalization of international investment regulations. NAFTA also included several key side agreements, including an agreement with regard to environmental issues critics felt were not sufficiently covered by the main body of NAFTA. Among the numerous controversies that arose before and since the implementation of NAFTA, was the debate over whether NAFTA would have a positive or negative effect on the environment. A treaty which is producing dissent before it was even implemented practically advertises its shortcomings for all to see, however, Proponents of NAFTA viewed it as a key development in international law because it addresses the interconnections between trade and environmental policies as well as economic growth (Audley et. all, pp. 90).

Environmental groups that have been divided over the implementation of NAFTA since its earliest proposal remain so to this day. Well-known environmental groups that have spoken out in support of NAFTA include the World Wildlife Fund, Conservation International, the National Wildlife Federation, the Environmental Defense Council, the National Audubon Society, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Nature Conservancy. Well-known environmental groups that have spoken out in opposition to NAFTA include Greenpeace, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG),the Sierra Club, and Student Environmental Action Coalition (Faber et. all, pp. 567) (Hellman et. all, pp.01)

Some of the products and industries with possible environmental benefits and consequences that are affected by tariff eliminations under NAFTA include agricultural products, energy, and transportation. Agricultural products that are raised with the use of harmful chemicals, inadequate safety protections for workers, or inhumane methods of confinement and slaughter may find their way onto a greater number of international tables. U.S. and Canadian firms have the ability to invest in alternative-energy industries in Mexico, facilitating their expansion. The establishments of international transportation routes for trucks and other vehicles may result in the increase traffic and along with that, the side effect 'pollution' will also take a rise in the country. These are just a few examples of the environmental costs and benefits associated with NAFTA, leading to division over its support.

Criticisms on NAFTA

Initial criticisms of NAFTA's ...