Why Are Environmentalists Opposing Mexico Free Trade?

In a recent letter to members of Congress, 24 of the most respected U.S. academic experts on Mexico expressed their support for a free-trade agreement between the two nations, and Canada, describing it as a “win/win/win situation for the three countries involved.”

That is distinctly un-academic language. But nobody has put the argument for a free-trade system in North America more succinctly, or any better. There is so much good that can come from it, in terms of business for the United States and Canada, and badly needed economic development for Mexico, that it’s hard to imagine how anyone but the most narrow-minded protectionist could oppose it.

SINCERE CRITICISM: But among opponents to the free-trade proposal that’s been put forward by President Bush, with the support of Mexico’s President Carlos Salinas de Gortari and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, there are sincere critics who have no hidden anti-free-trade agenda. They include environmentalists who worry that a free-trade pact focusing strictly on growth could create even more environmental problems than all three countries already face, from the acid rain that has caused so much political friction between Ottawa and Washington to the terrible smog that hovers over Mexico City. So questions about the environmental impact of a free-trade pact are worth raising.

But some environmentalists have joined forces with those knee-jerk protectionists who would oppose a free-trade pact no matter how good it was. They are trying to shoot it down before it even has a chance to get off the ground by pressuring Congress to deny Bush the “fast track” authority the Administration needs to conclude a free-trade agreement as rapidly as possible. That’s terribly shortsighted.

One can understand the environmentalists’ concerns. Even with Mexico’s current weak level of economic development, it already faces severe ecological problems. Some of the most recent ones have emerged where Mexicans have their closest contact with U.S. business, principally along the 2,000-mile-long border between the two countries. Southern Californians are well aware of the persistent water-quality problems faced by San Diego and Tijuana. Raw sewage and other forms of pollution generated south of the border inevitably have an impact on people living north of it, and the ocean waters off both cities. On a smaller scale, a similar challenge is faced by the desert cities of the Imperial Valley and neighboring Mexicali. And there is a history of shared air pollution problems between El Paso and Ciudad Juarez.

Lately those old problems have been exacerbated by new challenges posed by the rapid growth of maquiladoras, foreign-owned manufacturing plants based along the U.S.-Mexico border. During the 1980s, the number of these plants quadrupled. Many of them are light-manufacturing plants that generate toxic wastes, like the paints and lacquers used by furniture manufacturers or the hard plastics used by high-tech companies. And at least some maquiladoras were built south of the border to get away from restrictive ecological regulations in the north. Environmentalists in this country and Mexico fear a free-trade pact could set off a stampede by companies moving from Los Angeles to Tijuana, or Michigan to Monterrey, impelled by the notion that they could not just produce, but pollute, to their hearts’ content in Mexico.

OTHER CONCERNS: But that doesn’t have to happen. There is a very active ecological movement in Mexico, and Mexican environmentalists have had enough clout to pressure their government into enacting regulations that are every bit as tough as those in this country. The problem in Mexico is not the lack of will to tackle environmental problems, but the lack of means to do it. The Mexican government’s equivalent to our Environmental Protection Agency, known by the acronym SEDUE, has only 300 inspectors to cover the entire country (and it hired 200 of them in just the last year).

Mexicans want a clean environment as much as Canadians or U.S. citizens do. But they can’t do much to keep it clean as long as their nation, and its government, remain poor. That is why farsighted environmentalists should support a free-trade pact rather than oppose it. A free-trade pact could generate the added wealth Mexicans need to improve many things in their country.

A free-trade pact would also open the door to more collaboration between the EPA and SEDUE. They have already shown an encouraging ability to work together. In the mid-1980s, both agencies agreed to cooperate in monitoring emissions from two copper smelting plants on the border between Arizona and Sonora. The Arizona plant has since closed, but the Mexican plant still operates, in conformity with U.S. regulations. That suggests Mexico can develop and operate the industry it needs and still meet environmental standards--not just those this country wants but those its own citizens demand.

CYNICAL INSISTENCE: It would be disingenuous to argue that environmental issues are of no concern to the free-trade talks. But to insist they be part of the talks is also at best disingenuous and, at worst, downright cynical. Environmental issues can be dauntingly complex. Putting them on the table during trade talks is a sure a way to slow the talks down and maybe even sabotage them. A better idea is offered by the 24 academics who support the trade pact. They suggest having experts negotiate a broad environmental agreement on a parallel track to the trade talks. Such an agreement has been needed for a long time, anyway. It would deal with problems both sides know must be solved eventually, without derailing the talks that could provide the wealth that helps pay for the solutions.