EU in new trade dispute with US

[Timber Loftis]

Today's NY Times:

February 19, 2004
Edwards Calls Trade 'A Moral Issue'
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 11:52 a.m. ET

NEW YORK (AP) -- John Edwards, his campaign boosted by criticism of U.S. trade policy and the loss of jobs to overseas markets, on Thursday called trade ``a moral issue'' that sets him apart from John Kerry in the race for the Democratic nomination.

``When we talk about trade, we are talking about values,'' Edwards said in a speech at Columbia University as he tried to build on a surprisingly strong second-place showing in the Wisconsin primary.

The North Carolina senator focused on the economy and jobs while campaigning in Wisconsin, largely by making the case that trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement have led to a flow of high-paying jobs to China and other low-wage countries.

Edwards said he believes the same theme will work in the 10 states holding ``Super Tuesday'' primaries March 2. He is targeting Georgia, Ohio and the industrial regions of upstate New York.

While Kerry has been critical of the way free-trade deals have been carried out, the Massachusetts senator voted for them, setting the stage for the loss of jobs in the United States, Edwards said.

``There is no question that our current trade policies are good for the profits of multinational corporations,'' he said. ``They are good for some people in the financial sector here in New York City -- not all, but some.''

Edwards walks a fine line between waging an upbeat and positive campaign -- a pledge for which he has gained voter support -- while pointing out differences with Kerry.

``When it comes to bad trade agreements, I know what they do to people,'' he said. ``I have seen it with my own eyes what happens when the mill shuts down.''

Edwards, whose father worked at a mill in North Carolina, said he has a better understanding than Kerry of blue-collar issues. He told his college audience Thursday that his disagreements with Kerry extended well beyond NAFTA and include many trade agreements he has opposed.

``Those trade deals were wrong,'' he said. ``They cost us too many jobs and lowered our standards.''

As he pushed forward into the March 2 round of voting, Edwards was forced to set aside precious campaign time to raise money. He attended a fund-raising event in New York and was heading to Florida on Thursday for another.

The difficulties Edwards faces in exploiting the trade issue were underscored Thursday when the AFL-CIO endorsed Kerry, a signal that key segments of the party establishment think the nomination fight is essentially over.

Edwards said that while union leaders may be coalescing behind Kerry, he is winning the battle for rank-and-file members who face the daily pressures of jobs losses.

``I've done extraordinarily well among union households,'' he said. ``If you look at what's happened in the early primaries, I have not had the endorsement of labor unions and I've done very well. I will continue to speak directly to union households and working people.''

Although Edwards said he had strong support in union households, exit polls conducted for The Associated Press showed that such voters tended to support Kerry by narrow margins in Iowa and Wisconsin and by substantial margins -- from 20 to 40 percentage points -- in Missouri and Delaware.

The exit polls were conducted for the AP and television networks by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: So, the US can't force Bangladesh to adopt its labor standards, but it would be fair to place tarrifs on goods from Bangladesh to make up for the benefit Bangladesh gains by using lower standards.

Benefits??? Like poor quality housing, bad school coverage, little in the way of public services, rare health coverage, low standards of health and low life expectancy etc. etc.? Taht's what they get out the deal now - and you call that benefits?

But perhaps the comparison between the US and a third world country is a bit too stark - let's make the comparison fairer, say between, the US and the EU/Japan. The EU has HIGHER standards than the US in almost every field, whether it is labour regulations or environmental standards - all of which both industry and workers have to pay for.

Now your argument is in reverse. Would it be fair to make the US pay additional tarrifs to make up for the benefits that the US gains by adopting lower standards? How about an environmental tax on all US steel imports - since the US has refused to implement Kyoto treaty standards? And ditto for Japan?

[Timber Loftis]

You used semantics to turn a very logical argument on its head. The "benefits" are the "economic benefits" of price reduction.

If you think the EU has higher standards than the US, you've got your wires crossed. Now, I'm not too versed in the labor differences, but on the environmental side, say what you will, but we've got the strictest standards there are. You guys don't even have a CERCLA/Superfund analog as far as I can tell.

Now your argument is in reverse. Would it be fair to make the US pay additional tarrifs to make up for the benefits that the US gains by adopting lower standards? How about an environmental tax on all US steel imports - since the US has refused to implement Kyoto treaty standards? And ditto for Japan?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Of course, only the nations that actually HAVE committments under Kyoto would be eligible to apply such a tarriff.

Oh, and ONLY to the extent it is necessary to make up the fraction of price avoided by not limiting CO2 emissions. Again, my notion is a narrow one.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis : If you think the EU has higher standards than the US, you've got your wires crossed. Now, I'm not too versed in the labor differences, but on the environmental side, say what you will, but we've got the strictest standards there are. You guys don't even have a CERCLA/Superfund analog as far as I can tell

Considering that the Cercla fund was set up to clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites (there are **NONE** in the EU) and provide a fund in case that liability could not be confirmed, it would be pointless to have such a fund.

This is not a control - it is firefighting an existing US problem - one not shared by the EU.

If you want REAL environmental controls, take a look at the EU's Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals legislation (effective 01/01/2004) - which puts the emphasis on industry to PROVE FIRST that their products are safe (both for the environment and user) rather than the other way around (as is the case in the US), and attempts to remove the most hazardous chemicals out of production.


[ 02-20-2004, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Night Stalker]

I'm not up on trade law or industrial law, but Skunk, do you realize that requiring an industry to prove that a product is safe is the equivilent of trying to proove that it does not harm and prooving a negitive is logically impossible? If the EU is taking that stance, it just sounds like political fluff to make it appear that they are taking care of the ingorant unwashed masses while business continues as normal. I know, I'm cynical.

Prooving something is harmful is possible, though, sometimes the timeframe to proove it though is very very long.

[Timber Loftis]

abandoned hazardous waste sites (there are **NONE** in the EU)

Really? [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] I remember noticing many likely abandoned sites when I was in London. Guess I was mistaken.

Or you are:

http://www.cfg-lawfirm.com/articles/barnett1.html

2. Host nation waste remediation laws. A 1987 report estimated the United Kingdom and Germany each have 50,000 sites requiring remedial action, Denmark and the Netherlands had 10,000 and 6,000 respectively. National laws include civil and criminal provisions for protection of the environment. As mentioned above, eight (8) EC Member states have signed a Convention imposing non-retroactive, strict, joint and several liability for environmental damages caused by waste. The Dutch program was established in 1982, giving the Dutch Minister of Environment authority to recover cleanup costs from responsible parties. A 1974 law in Belgium holds producers of toxic wastes strictly liable for all damages those wastes may cause, even during final disposal. The NATO Supplementary Agreement regarding forces in Germany, signed in 1959, provides that NATO forces in Germany may apply its own regulations in the fields of "public safety and order" where such standards are equal or higher than those of Germany. German regulators argue this provision requires application of German environmental regulations in some instances. Criminal protection of the environment became a matter of real concern in Europe in 1978, when the European Community adopted Resolution (77) 28 on the contributions of criminal law to the protection of the environment. The United Kingdom, France and Italy generally do not employ criminal law for the protection of the environment. However, Germany has been more receptive to the use of criminal law for prosecution of environmental violations. After Resolution (77) 28, Germany amended its Penal Code to include a chapter composed of seven articles, entitled "Crimes against the Environment." The mental element is an essential feature of German penal law, and strict liability is inadmissible under the German Constitution. The nations of Eastern Europe, including Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic, and the nations comprising the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia have adopted Constitutions explicitly granting environmental rights.

The EU employs no retroactive liability mechanism. The EU generally does not use criminal law to enforce environmental law.

I know of a French company that found out it had contamination on a property here and thought it could just walk away from it or bankrupt the holding company. I had to say, "Nooo, it doesn't work like that here." I know of a Russian company that intended to.... wait, I better not say, it's specific enough you could find out who they are. [img]graemlins/angel.gif[/img] I'm also aware of several lead-acid battery facilities, lead smelters, ironworks, and power plants in the EU that absolutely must be contaminated based on historical operations. I'm pretty sure Europe made manufactured gas around the turn of the century as well, and that industry necessarily had to be located in each small area of the countries and tended to leave truly horribly toxic contaminants that "sink" into the ground and then spread through groundwater.

While I appreciate the new law placing the burden of proof of safety on the chemical producers, I note we have similar systems over here under the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. RCRA also requires cradle to grave management of hazardous waste (including having to dispose of it at a specially-permitted site) and EPCRA requires you to report every speck of hazardous waste you "release" (i.e. send out for disposal) to the federal government annually by March 1 (I'm helping some clients with this currently). And, most of these laws allow for civil enforcement -- meaning each citizen impacted by breaking environmental laws may step in as "mini attorneys general" and sue the company to enforce the law -- I think in the EU if the regulators turn a blind eye the citizen has no recourse other than tort remedies.

Look, I respect the efforts EU countries have undertaken in the past decades in environmental law. But, you must understand in most respects the US is far more advanced and strict. There are exceptions: for instance, our agriculture industry practices are not as well regulated (though resulting contamination is).

The one problem I have, though, is your statement I quoted above. It's the sort of thing that ruins your credibility, and makes me roll my eyes. It's almost not worth my time telling you how wrong you are.

I wasn't just making shit up. I was relying on what I'd been told by environmental experts from all over Europe I've worked with, including czech regulators, instructurs at the College of Europe, environmental attorneys in London firms, and international environmental law experts I worked for when interning with FIELD in London.

[ 02-20-2004, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Timber Loftis]

Back on topic, I note The Economist disagrees with me that "job migration" is a worry.

ARTICLE

However, this article does not address my most important hack, the simple application of adjustment measures contained in the WTO/GATT to account for environmental and labor externalities. Of course, the Economist likely has addressed it at some point, but I haven't seen it. I am PRO free trade generally, but I think the very sensible exceptions contained in article XX of the WTO/GATT (and the side agreements expanding upon the ideas, such as the Sanitary/Phytosanitary ["SPS"] Agreement) have been WAY TOO NARROW.

For instance, if something will affect health, the SPS Agreement says you can place tarriffs or restrictions on it. When the UK tried to do this with beef hormone, the WTO wouldn't let it because it could not affirmatively prove harm. You mentioned the new law requiring "proof of no harm," skunk -- the WTO ruling against the UK in Beef Hormone was decided based on the exact opposite burden of proof, and that's a problem that nearly hamstrings the SPS Agreement.

[ 02-20-2004, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Davros]

Back off topic for a minute and onto the abandoned hazardous waste sites thing. I think there is a distinction between what the 2 of you are debating. In Australia (and I believe in Europe) a hazardous waste site would be one that is set up for the storage of hazardous wastes, or one on which hazardous wastes have been illegally stockpiled and dumped. This is distinct from a contaminated industrial site, which is the ex location of a factory or business that has departed the scene and is required by law to meet certain remediation standards on departure.

You may be talking apples and oranges on this one guys.

[Timber Loftis]

Another good story about the job trends in the USA can be found HERE.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Davros: Back off topic for a minute and onto the abandoned hazardous waste sites thing. I think there is a distinction between what the 2 of you are debating. In Australia (and I believe in Europe) a hazardous waste site would be one that is set up for the storage of hazardous wastes, or one on which hazardous wastes have been illegally stockpiled and dumped. This is distinct from a contaminated industrial site, which is the ex location of a factory or business that has departed the scene and is required by law to meet certain remediation standards on departure. You may be talking apples and oranges on this one guys.

We may have a semantics problem, but we do actually disagree on this one. The US is not as environmentally impacted as Europe -- it's that simple. It has not been inhabited as long, the air and water are cleaner, etc. Just a fact. Europe has had a lot of different polluting phases of history to experience. Did you know one of the biggest red flag enviro problems is "UXO" or "unexploded ordinance." I think this would be an issue in Europe. The former soviet block countries just dumped crap everywhere -- that's what a czech regulator tells me.

But, yes, Davros you are right that there are different sites. There are sites containing historical contamination (CERCLA addresses these), sites where hazardous substances are stored for use (RCRA imposes rules on these), and sites where hazardous substances are disposed of (RCRA permits these sites and imposes a cradle-to-grave manifest system on every unit of waste to track proper disposal). A particular piece of property may be one or two or all three types of sites.

I've seen the compliance practice in the US (which I actually am a professional in and have been since 2000) and I've inquired as to the compliance practice in other countries, and on most fronts it's a bit stricter here. I'm not euro-bashing, I'm just pointing it out.

[ 02-21-2004, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]