Is fighting against " FREE TRADE " the best way to be green ?

Question

I see a lot of people in this forum concerned on how they can reduce their energy consumption, reducing green house emissions, blaming the problem on our society , or even complaining about their tenant refusing to recycle. I would imagine if we were to band together and fight to have NAFTA shut down, the positive impact to the global environment would be 10 folds greater.

When a company transfers it operations out of the U.S. , it has to follow the regulations of its host country. A lot of countries laws show little regard for the environment, and these companies will cut what ever corners they will be allowed to.

Should we not strive to bring them back onto the U.S., so we can keep a closer eye on them ?

Answer 1

"Free" trade is never "free".  It is not even even exchange.  It is a deal, and in the so-called deal all parties lose out.  They all have to make concessions that they wish they did not have to make.  When NAFTA first was launched, Canadians thought it was meant for the benefit fo the Americans, and that Canada's prime minister at the time, Brian Mulroney had sold them out.  He continues to receive criticism for it.  It is only recently that I have begun to hear that the Americans feel done out as well.  I di not hear much about the concerns of Mexico, with its high population at the time.

I am not sure whether either Canada or United States shows sufficient or appropriate regard for the environment.  I understand that forests are eing cut down at a faster rate than they can be replaced in Canada as wwell.  As you know, it takes a long time for a seedling to grow int a tree.

I am not sure whether politics, one way or another, is the solution to the problem  People have to modify their life styles and not use so much lumber.

You, as well as others, indicate that you feel NAFTA is a restriction on the rights and freedoms of a company because it has to follow the regulations of its host country.  However, forcing a company to operate only within a certain country also is restricting its freedom.  Either way, the company is forced to follow regulations, some of which you can be sure are not in agreement with its plans.  It is the nature of its operation that I feel is at stake.

I do not agree with NAFTA.  Like other "deals" such as NATO. it does not seem to be working out.  However, I do not think that politics will make much difference in the long run on the environment.  It is the individual sacrifices and the grassroots modifications that count the most.

Answer 2

The only flaw in your thinking is that a truly ethical company would strive to exceed the standards of the host country.  Also, many who are based in the USA also have to adhere to our standards even if they have plants or facilities in other countries. I see higher taxation of big businesses as a bigger issue because the companies will then move all their facilities to other countries, leaving no control what so ever.  When a company moves all operations to a host country, then everyone loses.  

Answer 3

Also, consumers can simply refuse to purchase goods from a company that has such practices.

Cutting off any form of free trade always destroys jobs and reduces everyone's quality of life on average. This would leave us in a distinctly less advantageous position to use our production capability and technology to combat future environmental issues.

In short, this would be at best foolish, and at worst catastrophic.

Answer 4

Yes, that is an issue that is openly discussed so you're not the first person to think of that. many companies move out of the us and into mexico because they can get away with more polluting there. it's not that mexico cares less about polluting but they have less means with which to enforce their pollution standards.

I'm with you and I think that that should be an issue that leaders of both countries need to discuss more