Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Maude Barlow

GET UPDATES FROM Maude Barlow
 

New Free Trade Deals Threaten the Environment

Posted: 06/04/2011 9:20 am

The world is running out of a lot of raw resources.

From fish in the sea and old-growth forests to minerals, conventional energy and freshwater, ours is a planet needing great care.

While scientists and environmentalists warn us that we have to preserve and protect the natural world with more local, sustainable food and industrial production and more local, alternative energy sources, most of our governments are pursuing free trade agreements that promote faster and bigger transportation grids, carve up more wilderness for exploitation, increase the volume of sheer "stuff" coming from ever-farther away places, and tear through declining energy and water supplies.

Like Obama, the Harper government is aggressively pursuing trade agreements with developing countries in the wake of failure at the WTO's Doha Round.

Canada has shamefully beaten the U.S. to the punch with its FTA with Colombia, where coal and other mining, and plantation agriculture, continue to displace communities and wreak havoc on ecosystems, and where more union leaders are now murdered annually than anywhere else in the world.

Both Harper and Obama have their eyes set on Panama, a notorious tax haven of little real economic value to either country. But none of these deals are bigger or potentially more damaging to the Canadian environment than the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement.

CETA is Canada's version of the Trans-Pacific Partnership -- Obama's next-generation free trade deal with eight Pacific Rim nations, which will include stronger investment and more intellectual property protections than past agreements. While the U.S. president looked west, Harper turned eastward to craft a deal that goes well beyond what the WTO had dreamed of in terms of limiting the powers of publicly elected governments to protect the environment.

CETA will, for the first time, open up all levels of government procurement to corporate competition and challenge. The close to $200 billion that Canadians spend annually on provincial and municipal programs, schools, hospitals, parks, security, water delivery and public services, is all up for grabs in this deal. The big European water, food, transportation and energy transnationals are eagerly supporting CETA, as the deal with Canada is seen as a forerunner to the big prize, a U.S.-EU CETA.

But this deal is a lose-lose for all but the big corporations on all sides. The North and First Nations communities are ripe for resource exploration and exploitation as Europe seeks permanent and secure access to our raw resources such as oil, minerals, fish and forests in its growing completion with China. Greenhouse gas emissions from the tar sands will increase as Europe intensifies its investments there. Canada's water is being used as a draw to water intensive industry from other countries and our water services are clearly on the table, ripe for privatization and takeover by the two biggest private water utilities in the world, Suez and Veolia of France.

The Wheat Board and supply managed dairy and poultry systems are on the table, putting family farms into even greater jeopardy. Laws that protect local economies or give preference to local food production will be seen as unfair barriers to trade and will have to go. And European corporations will now have the same rights that American corporations have under NAFTA to sue the Canadian government if any level of government tries to re-establish democratic control by protecting communities or local resources from corporate exploitation.

Massive new free trade agreements such as CETA and the thousands of existing bilateral free trade deals undermine the role and reach of elected governments. That's why the Harper government loves them. Steven Harper is both a neo-Liberal, therefore open to the freest markets possible, but also a neo-Conservative, wanting the smallest possible role for government.

For him, big trade deals like CETA are a dream. He can always blame privatization of public services and deregulation of natural resources on them. No wonder the Harper government doesn't talk about CETA much. If Canadians find out what is in it, they would turn it down.

 
FOLLOW CANADA
 
 
  • Comments
  • 21
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
01:58 AM on 06/06/2011
When I read arcticles by Maude Barlow and others like her that share similar views, I find myself struggling to comprehend what world these people live on and how they came to have such a disconnect with reality.

Maude and others like her seem to want to kneecap our economic recovery/growth at a time when it is most fragile by imposing regulations on just about every aspect of our lives, what we consume and how much of it and what it should it cost, our freedom of movement and our right to livelihood. It is easy to sit in a office on a computer isolated from the daily grind that the vast majority of the population has to go through each day to survive and pass judgement. How dare we demand "stuff" as she eloquently puts it from other countries, anything you cant grow or carve or weave shouldnt be needed!

In this disconnect from reality, Maude sees only the negative aspects of industrialization and only with the viewpoint of an arrogant, western academic. Where she sees destruction I see development, job creation and economic growth. They are trying to come into the 21st century, resource extraction and agriculture are the foundation for a stable economy which is what Columbia needs. I suppose Maude would prefer Columbians eek out a living as hunter gatherers and subsistence farmers battling warring drug lords, disease, famine and poverty so her own misplaced idealism can be justified here in NA.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Counterintuitive
We'll steer by the beacon of our 100 year forecast
10:29 AM on 06/05/2011
As the Conservatives become the New Republicans, the NDP become the New Democrats.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sdgreen
12:54 AM on 06/05/2011
Lefty Maude Barlow, straight out of the 1930's doctrine of stage fright, tries to justify her introverted isolationist stance. Lefties just do not get it, international trade is the in thing, without such Canada would not have bananas, or a whole bunch of other tropical and seasonal vegetables. Nor would we have fish. Barlow's feeble attempt to discredit the Harper Conservatives is laced with uproven data and threats that do not exist.

Barlow, like Green Party Lizzy May are nothing more than false alarmists whose screeches attract minimal attention in the real world; well except fot NDP Jack Layton and his merry gang of leftist minstals.

Fact is that the world is now fully immersed in trade between nations, and that is a good thing. It was not long ago that these troubled leftists were screaming about the 'poor peoples of the world' and in a huge number of cases, trade between Nations, certainly of the so-called 3rd world has been beneficial.
11:25 AM on 06/05/2011
NO COUNTRY EVER DEVELOPPED WITH PURE FREE TRADE. Everey succesful country, had an industrial policy including either tariff, sponsoring innovation, fostering infrastructure, bounty to exportation, internal competition, cheap creadit, etc. USA became the first world economy with the highest tariff in histroy (from the 1800s to 1930s), you should read real american economist (not britist one) as Alexander Hamilton, Raymond, Henry C.Carey, etc. And in fact, protectionnist US and Germany were more innovative than free trade empire UK in the end of 19th!! UK adopted FT in the 1840s only when it was already developped and an industrial nation. Germany, Fr, Belgium, Canada, bit later Japan, South Korea much later and now China. Globalisation, for those countries following too much the Free Trade mantra as Mexico, Peru, Equator, Mongolia, almost all Africa, Russia after the collapsed of communist, etc. went poorer. China, making the world gdp growth up, yes export (who enough stupid to think that protectionnist is closing all border??), but big interventionist state policy in many matter, as for pushing export! You should know that at end of the 19th, trade increasing with big protection : why? Because of growth with protectinnist! Trade was not the cause of growth, but the effect (people getting more weatlhy with good wage, not the cheap labor of FT). International trade is just a small factor of developpment (and could be of the contrary effect as in India, Ireland, Turquey, South America, China that were FreeTrade in the 19th).
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
MyTake
Release the Hydrogen Economy now!
11:13 PM on 06/04/2011
Sorry, while you provide excellent analysis of these SYMPTOMS of the problem, you are nowhere near to the CORE of the problem.

CETA ( as was NAFTA, as was the failed Union of the America's) was designed and prepared by a committee assembled from that ELITE 4000 membership at The Pratt House (NY) as funded, organized and controlled by David Rockefeller, Chairman Emeritus.

Here is one of the most despised Vice President's in U.S. history talking to his real BOSS at Pratt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbnpN07J_zg
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:35 PM on 06/04/2011
Free trade deals with developing countries are the most effective aid programs you can implement. Rich countries refusing to trade with poor countries dooms them to poverty.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GuyCybershy
03:49 PM on 06/04/2011
So called "free trade" deals are just institutionalized Corporate welfare programs.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:41 PM on 06/04/2011
Fine. Close the borders. And we can all wallow in poverty.
07:24 PM on 06/04/2011
What a joke!!! Ask to the mexican how 'opening' their economy was good for them!!! Since 1982 (after the 'debt crisis), they went on IMF, privatization, dereglementation and FT (with the culmination in 1994 Bush, Salinas and Mulroney). The result? Mexico have LESS growth annualy from 1982 to 2010 that the 1950-1982 protectionnist internal improvment: the trade increase with US, but only cause of the Maquilladoras (super cheap labor: they are paid less than 1$ an hour) that increase from 100 000 to 1.2 millions in 2004 (fluctuate with year). But meanwhile, the national industry, with much higher wage loss more than a millions of better job! The country litteraly have a desindustrialisation. The unemployement his higher than never before and poverty for more than 50% of the population (was under 40% before). The Agriculture went super bad: the country was self-sufficient in food in the corn, rice and 'Frijoles': now, they import and even more expensive the food than before!! (but the local can't go back in Agriculture, thank to IMF, no more loan by a bank of Ag, etc.). Only 0,2% of Mexican left the country in 1982: today: more than 10%!!! This, is without talking about the robbery of the century (that was before the 2008 crisis) that was the 1994 crisis, and they bailout the banker and the US investor on the back of mexican people.
Same more poverty for Peru, Mongolia, Equator, Africans countries, etc.
09:14 PM on 06/04/2011
The PAN governments in particular have been very open about their method of development - send as many people as possible to the USA. Calderon was very open about this and Bush helped him to steal the election - so the anti illegal immigrationists amongst the GOP should bear this fact in mind. Both PRI and PAN have been neoliberal since De La Madrid. Salinas stole the election in 1988 as is widely accepted and his disfigurement of Mexico was as consequential as anyone else's and he is reviled over there.
01:13 PM on 06/04/2011
What do you expect, when we have a Reformist majority federal government? Like Diefenbaker, Harper sells Canada out and turns Canada into the 51st state of the US!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sdgreen
12:34 AM on 06/05/2011
Now that is pure nonsense! Please provide some examples of where Canada has even looks like a 51st State of the US. Secondly, please indicate what Canada has sold out under the Conservatives.
02:07 AM on 06/05/2011
When FTA was announced on the radio that US and Canada signed the agreement on October 4th, 1988, I was in the MId-West regional office of ORACLE at Chicago. As soon as the announcement was over, the VP of Marketing said, "Welcome Canada, the 51st state".

Many Albertans claim to be Canadians, but they think and act like Americans. Diefenbaker and Harper are Albertans, they sell out Canada. They act like a third class citizen of US, one class lower than Puerto Rican!

Where were you when Mulroney sold Canada out in 1988.

Do you know that Alberta sells oil and gas to the US below world market price? We, in the eastern part of Canada, have to buy oil at the world price in the open market! We need someone, like late Pierre Trudeau, to bring back something similar to the NEP. Quebec was smart by not signing the Canadian Constitution. Quebec is now the only province that can stop Harper from selling Canada out. His next move will be selling Canadian fresh water to the US with American ownership of the lakes!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GuyCybershy
02:19 PM on 06/06/2011
I wonder what will happen when the $US dollar has to be devalued? I suppose we will just give them the oil.