Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, November 13, 1995 TAG: 9511140018
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Fear of foreign competition extends beyond traditional business and labor interests to environmentalists who worry that lowering trade barriers with developing countries will lower environmental standards as well.
The simple solution some are calling for: Build nontariff trade barriers in the form of environmental regulations on imported goods. Some of these are reasonable and desirable. Imported cars, for example, should have to meet U.S. emission standards.
But restricting imports that meet U.S. environmental standards, yet are produced in countries where manufacturers do not, would be a simple solution with the opposite, unwanted effect.
As trade barriers have fallen since World War II, numerous global-trade studies reveal no evidence that nations have had to weaken environmental regulations to remain competitive.
On the contrary, a 1992 study on trade and the environment by the World Bank points to the opposite effect. More open access to foreign markets has improved the economies of developing nations, raising living standards - and environmental standards along with them. It makes sense that, as a nation's wealth increases, it can afford to devote more resources to protecting the environment.
Yes, expanded trade has worsened some environmental problems. Simply transporting more goods has increased the use of fossil fuels and thus pollution - not to mention the risk of accidents in transportation.
But each nation trying unilaterally to impose its standards on all of its trading partners is no solution at all. Trade restrictions aimed at achieving environmental goals should be negotiated and coordinated, and should rely on international trade rules and dispute-resolving mechanisms.
Going it alone is as misguided an environmental-protection policy as it is trade policy.
by CNB