BIO 317
Conservation of Wildlife Resources
Lecture Notes 4

Environmental Economics and Politics

Economic growth:


What is the GDP?

Americans are urged to buy & consume more so the GDP will rise, making the country (& world) a better place. But, is the GDP a good measure of the quality of life (i.e., does all economic growth enhance the quality of life)?

Despite the nation's strong economic growth, the income gap between the rich and everyone else is growing wider. Income gaps between high- and low-income families have widened in 46 states since the late 1970s. In the late 1990s, the average income for families in the top 20% of income distribution was $137,500—10 times more than the income of the poorest 20 percent of families, whose average income was $13,000.
The gap not only has widened between rich & poor, but between the rich and the middle class. In two-thirds of states, the income disparity between the richest one-fifth of families and the bottom fifth grew between the late 1980s and the late 1990s.  Meanwhile, the gap between the wealthiest 20% and the middle class (the middle 20%) has grown in 45 states. Throughout the 1990s, the average real income for the wealthiest one-fifth grew by 15%, while the middle class saw less than a 2% increase—and the lowest-income families saw no growth at all. In addition:
  • Incomes of the poorest fifth of families declined in 18 states between the late 1970s and the late 1990s
  • Income increases for the top 5% of families in 11 large states ranged from 35% in Texas to 75%  in Pennsylvania. 

At what point does growth cost more than its worth??? An economy's optimum size is not its maximum size!



Regulation vs. Market Forces:


Global Free Trade: Solution or Problem?

GATT


PROPONENTS of GATT:


OPPONENTS of GATT:

Among the most fetid examples of political cowardice and collusion between elected representatives and big business of the past thirty-five years are the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the revised General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) into federal law. These agreements have little to do with the benefits of trade for citizens of member countries. The agreements were designed, largely by corporate lobbyists, as a "pull-down" mechanism and to facilitate the movement of capital across national boundaries. Such one-dimensional monetized logic tramples long-standing efforts around the world–some very successful–to protect the environment because environmental safeguards are very often considered 'non-tariff barriers to trade' and thus become targets for removal. Five years of WTO operation have made clear what a grave threat the trade organization is to the world environment. Already, corporate interests have used the WTO to undermine or threaten to meddle with US Clean Air rules, our Endangered Species Act, the Kyoto global warming treaty, an EU toxics and recycling law, our long-horned beetle infestation policy, EU eco-labels, and US dolphin protection. Global trade should provide nations with the familiar benefits of securing products and services not easily available within their borders. In the long run, trade agreements that protect the environment will prove to be the most prudent for the global economy. Unfortunately, as NAFTA and the WTO have shown us, the current Administration adheres to a nearsighted 'trade uber alles' philosophy which harms the environment in order to secure massive short-term profits for giant multinational corporations. The WTO is so committed to corporate commerce at the expense of the global environment, due process and openness, that it cannot be internally reformed. I advocate initiating the six month withdrawal procedure to end US membership in the WTO. Promptly re-negotiating global trade treaties so that their architecture is designed to raise global environmental standards is necessary to ensure protection of our air, water, forests and climate.

Ralph Nader

The standards recognized under GATT and NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) are set by two international bodies—the Codex Alimentarius (Codex) and the International  Standards Organization (ISO)—which are dominated by corporate interests. Under  GATT and NAFTA, any standard set by a member nation that exceeds the Codex or ISO standards are considered to be an “actionable violation” of the agreement.

That means another nation can bring a complaint to the WTO or the NAFTA Council against the country of origin. If the complaint is upheld (as nearly all have been), the country of origin has three options:

The Codex sets standards for food safety, food additives, pesticide residues in foods, and pharmaceuticals.  It operates in secrecy, holding closed meetings where 80% of the participants are industry representatives and only 1% represent public interest organizations. Moreover, the United States’ governmental delegation to these meetings routinely includes representatives of food giants such as Hershey, Nestle, Kraft, & Coca Cola. There is no public review until the standards are nearly complete, and no public input beyond that which their government includes in their official comments.

Many Codex standards are weaker than US food safety standards. For example, Codex standards allow for residues of pesticides which have been banned in the U.S., including DDT in milk, meat, and grains.  In several instances, they allow much higher residue levels (up to five times higher) than are allowed in the U.S. Now the Codex wants to set standards for how member nations may set standards, potentially undermining the very system by which our federal agencies ensure the safety of our  food and medicines.  The ISO is similar, except that it is entirely industry-dominated and operates completely in secret. It sets standards for products, manufacturing  processes, environmental products, “eco-labeling”, and humane fur production.

Global Trade's Anti-Environmental Record:

Politics & the Environment:


Environmental and Anti-Environmental Groups

Useful links:

If the GDP is Up, Why is America Down?

Back to BIO 317 Syllabus