Page 198 - Environment: The Science Behind the Stories

TABle 7.2 Major international environmental Treaties
YEAR IT CAME NATIONS THAT
CONvENTION OR PROTOCOl INTO FORCE HAvE RATIFIED IT U.S. STATUS
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 1975 175 Ratified
Fauna and Flora (CITES) (p. 315)
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (p. 423) 1975 159 Ratified
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal 1989 196 Ratified
Protocol), of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the
Ozone Layer (p. 490)
Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of 1992 172 Signed but has not
Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal (p. 644) ratified
Convention on Biological Diversity (p. 315) 1993 168 Signed but has not
ratified
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (p. 402) 2004 152 Signed but has not
ratified
Kyoto Protocol, of the UN Framework Convention on Climate 2005 184 Signed but has not
Change (p. 528) ratified

The European Union The European Union (EU) seeks WEIGHING tHE ISSUES
to promote Europe’s unity and its economic and social pro- traDE BarrIErS aND ENvIroNMENtal ProtECtIoN If
gress (including environmental protection) and to “assert Nation A has stricter laws for environmental protection than
Europe’s role in the world.” The EU can sign binding trea- Nation B, and if these laws restrict the ability of Nation B to
ties on behalf of its 27 member nations and can enact regu- export its goods to Nation A, then by the policy of the WTO
lations that have the same authority as national laws. It can and the EU, Nation A’s environmental protection laws can be
also issue directives, which are more advisory in nature. The overruled in the name of free trade. Do you think this is right?
EU’s European Environment Agency addresses waste man- What if Nation A is a wealthy industrialized country and Nation
agement, noise pollution, water pollution, air pollution, hab- B is a poor developing country that needs every economic
itat degradation, and natural hazards. The EU also seeks to boost it can get?
remove trade barriers among member nations. It has classified
some nations’ environmental regulations as barriers to trade, Nongovernmental Organizations A number of
arguing that the stricter environmental laws of some northern nongovernmental organizations (NGos) have become interna-
European nations limit the import and sale of environmentally tional in scope and exert influence over international policy.
harmful products from other member nations.
These groups are diverse in their size and mission; those that
advocate for aspects of environmental protection are known as
The World Trade Organization Based in Geneva, environmental NGOs (“ENGOs”). Groups such as the Nature
Switzerland, the World trade organization (Wto) represents Conservancy focus on accomplishing conservation objectives CHAPTER 7 • Envi R onm E n TA l Poli C y : mA king D EC i si ons A n D s olving P R obl E m s
multinational corporations and promotes free trade by reduc- on the ground (for example, purchasing and managing land
ing obstacles to international commerce and enforcing fairness and habitat for rare species) without becoming politically
among nations in trading practices. The WTO has authority to involved. Other groups, such as Conservation International,
impose financial penalties on nations that do not comply with the World Wide Fund for Nature, Greenpeace, and Popula-
its directives. These penalties can sometimes affect environ- tion Connection, attempt to shape policy through research,
mental policy. education, lobbying, or protest. NGOs apply more funding
Like the EU, the WTO has interpreted some national and expertise to environmental problems—and conduct more
environmental laws as unfair barriers to trade. For instance, in research intended to solve them—than do many national gov-
1995 the U.S. EPA issued regulations requiring cleaner-burn- ernments.
ing gasoline in U.S. cities, following Congress’s amendments
of the Clean Air Act. Brazil and Venezuela filed a complaint
with the WTO, saying the new rules discriminated against the International institutions wield influence
petroleum they exported to the United States, which did not in a globalizing world
burn as cleanly. The WTO agreed, ruling that even though the
South American gasoline posed a threat to human health in As globalization proceeds, our world becomes ever more
the United States, the EPA rules were an illegal trade barrier. interconnected. As a result, human societies and Earth’s
The ruling forced the United States to weaken its regulations ecological systems are being altered at unprecedented rates
of gasoline. Not surprisingly, critics have frequently charged and scales. Trade and technology have expanded the global
that the WTO aggravates environmental problems. reach of all societies. Those, such as the United States, that 197

M07_WITH7428_05_SE_C07.indd 197 12/12/14 2:57 PM