Leonardo Balieiro - Trade and Environment

In the Desombre and Barkin's article the authors discussed cases in which the US tried to unilaterally use trade restriction as a means to enforce its environmental policies and in doing so they analyze the relationship between trade and environmental policy

Although the first US attempts of using trade as a means to enforce environmental policy were met with rejection by the World Trade Organization, such cases (Sea Turtles and Dolphins) were essential in establishing precedents for how the WTO, a trade organization, could be essential in the environmental debate.

Such precedents, one could argue, are essential in establishing the role of the WTO as an organization with an enough teeth to make sure that environmental regimes involving trade restrictions are successful. One could also argue that because trade restrictions are such a compelling tool in ensuring that countries comply with environmental policy, that there is no need to create an entirely new international organization to deal with environmental issues.

The usual critique of environmental regimes, such as the Kyoto protocol, is that they lack enough power to force countries into complying with its provisions. Countries are either giving to much freedom in how they implement environmental policies envisioned in the regimes, or they are given too much freedom of interpretation. The result is that countries might even agree to become part of the talks, but eventually they might just back out. A more stern approach would be necessary to ensure that countries not only agree to be a part of the regimes, but that they actually do that which they set out to do. For that approach to be feasible, an international organization needs to have the mechanisms to put it into action. The WTO has mechanisms built into it that have been proven to be very efficient in dealing countries’ natural propensity to not comply, namely trade restrictions. Trade restrictions create the urgency necessary to propel countries into action and compliance. However, some might argue that trade restrictions benefit countries differently and that they might put some countries at a disadvantage. Taking that into consideration, some might say that the WTO is in fact not the best medium to dealing with environmental policy. But that is not the case. The WTO also has a mechanism to deal with disputes between member nations. Such a mechanism is essential to ensure that both developed and developing nations have their needs met and one doesn’t profit at the cost of another’s demise. Critics of the WTO’s dispute mechanism say that richer nations often get better deals while others are left with losses, but that is also not the case. All member nations, developed and developing alike, have an interest in preserving the organization’s legitimacy and authority; as such, it is essential that richer nations adhere to the decisions made by the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism so that other countries will do so as well when they bring a case before the organization.

Some have spoken of the need for an entirely new organization with authority over all issues environment. While decentralization is in fact a big hindering factor in advancing environmental efforts, the creation of an entirely new international organization may not be necessary. Perhaps the best alternative would be to have a branch of the WTO that deals with environmental issues alone, and that branch would benefit from all the mechanisms already present within the organization. Trade and environment are inherently connected. Therefore, it makes a lot of sense to have a trade organization that is also responsible for environmental policy. The WTO has proven that it has the right tools for the job, we don’t need another organization. All we need is to adapt the WTO to deal with environmental issues as well as trade.

 --Leonardo Balieiro

The Ebola Crisis and Its Implications For Intergovernmental Cooperation

     Disorder. Death. Confusion. These are all words that could be used to describe the beginnings of the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. With over three-thousand deaths thus far and many more infected, the disease has taken a devastating toll on the developing nations. To combat the epidemic, the U.N. Security Council organized the creation of a new cabinet—the United Nations Mission for Ebola Emergency Response. Which, as of yesterday, officially established its office in Accra, Ghana. In somewhat of a twist on the sentiment “the environment is not going to be saved by environmentalists” – it has thankfully been recognized that diseases cannot be cured by scientists alone. While organizations such as Doctors Without Borders have seen success in their efforts to combat the illness, the majority of civilian organizations do not possess the necessary resources to halt the international spread of disease on their own. And to take it a step further, especially in cases such as these, the nations themselves do not even possess the federal infrastructure necessary to control the outbreak themselves. Thus, the importance of non-governmental organizations and transnational advocacy networks is clearly shown.

     Though many individuals appear to believe that a separate environmental agency established for the purpose of solving many of the world’s environmental problems is not likely to be effective, I believe instances such as this are proof that the issue only requires the correct framing in order for solutions to be met. While it is true that there are certain issues where domestic policy has the ability to result in more groundbreaking action than that of steps taken by an external body, the existence of an intergovernmental third party can help to provide many needed resources and infrastructural development to aid in lessening the costs of sustainability for developing nations. And that is not to say that current organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) are ineffective. But rather, it is meant to challenge their efficacy.

     Take, for example, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Senegal, Nigeria, and Liberia. All of these are not only nations in various stages of the Ebola epidemic, but also countries possessing Human Development Index ratings between 152-183 (Nigeria and Sierra Leone respectively). Which on scale of 1-187, does not aid in establishing an optimistic perspective for the United States’ Center for Disease Control, which believed that over 1.5 million individuals could be diagnosed with the disease by the first quarter of 2015 if measures to seriously respond to the issue were not soon taken. And measures were taken. The disease is an issue recognized internationally as a problem, with research being done across the globe to slow its spread. The same can be said for environmental issues, such as climate change, and ecosystem management (both issues that UNEP is attempting). The only discrepancy between the two is the sense of urgency felt for the former.

     This is not to say that any measures being taken to halt the spread of a deadly disease are over-the-top or unnecessary, but rather, to suggest that we perhaps do have the tools for the creation of more effective intergovernmental environmental organizations, but, have not yet discovered the proper manner in which to use them.
     Additionally, the United States’ massive weight of involvement cannot be ignored. Its presence as either a pusher or a dragger and the effects in the environmental sphere because of those instances cannot be ignored. (Climate measures, wildlife conservation, waste disposal, ecosystem management. Commercialization of the Ebola vaccine.) Past measures have been met with success largely when they have sided (or at least moved) toward the economic success of a nation, which is a vital component to recognize when attempting to incentivize relatively uninvolved nations. Thus, the question is not how much more of a risk must the aforementioned environmental issues pose, but how much more must be proven to those with the power to affect trans-domestic policy. The efficacy of organizations cannot continue to be determined by how many factors they are able to predict, or how many conferences they are able to organize, but by the actions that they are able to take. Given the international levels of consensus about problems such as land degradation, deforestation, and carbon emissions, it should be recognized by now that solutions are not going to appear strictly through abatement, but though definite measures of replacement and revitalization. Which requires holding the unappealing hand of mitigation investment.
   
     Within the last day, it has been confirmed that a case of Ebola has been diagnosed in Dallas, Texas. Meanwhile, testing for additional vaccines is occurring at a gruelingly slow rate. The manner in which the World Health Organization and countless scientific teams have been able to respond to the worsening outbreak-- even in the face of so many obstacles-- is the result of years of research and coordination. The same amount of development has occurred in the world of environmental science. Yet, because of coordination issues, efforts to set across-the-board regulations fail continually. So abandon that notion. Learn from mistakes. Intergovernmental organizations should not attempt to act so unilaterally when dealing with such a diverse body of issues. Economic measures-- especially strategies such as market diversification—are admittedly taxing for developed nations. However, the longer the burden of the cost is delayed, and nations choose to shrug off intensive policies in favor of alternate political gains, the more challenges will mount as conditions outside of legislative control worsen. The creation of an intergovernmental cabinet that chooses to take seriously the responsibility of meeting nations halfway in their needs (or one could say “demands”) to lessen their environmental impact is necessary in order for any significant gains to be made within the next decade. The tools are available. We should not hesitate to use them.

-
Sources:
http://news.sciencemag.org/africa/2014/09/ebola-vaccine-tests-needlessly-delayed-researchers-claim
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/09/30/cdc-confirms-first-case-ebola-diagnosed-us
http://healthmap.org/ebola/#timeline

The WTO as an Environmental Regulator and Decision Maker

Matthew Burk

The World Trade Organization as an Environmental Regulator and Decision Maker

              One of the biggest problems in the modern day environmental debate is the lack of power that can enforce laws and protect the environment. Many NGO’s such as Greenpeace or the Wildlife conversation society have the power and influence to get things done, but anything on such a large scale seems nearly impossible to accomplish. The WTO is one of the only organizations that has worldwide authority of the power to get things done is the WTO and they are a trade organization. While it is great that the WTO has the power and makes these environmental decisions, it seems backwards that a trade organization is one of the most powerful entities in environmental regulation and decision making. A trade organization should not be making environmental regulations and decisions on its own, and a separate panel for environmental issues should be created by the WTO.

            While it is great that the WTO makes the environmental decisions that they do, such as the shrimp-turtle of tuna-dolphin cases as discussed in class, are they really the best ones to be doing so? While some may say that the WTO is necessary as an environmental regulator since they are the only ones who can get anything done. Take for example the shrimp-turtle and tuna-dolphin cases discussed in readings and class. When it came down to the end in the shrimp-turtle case, the WTO made a balanced decision that at first disagreed with the U.S., but supported them on the second vote. For the tuna-dolphin case, the WTO ended up ruling against the United States, causing many to believe that the WTO is biased and has a massive conflict of interest

            The tuna-dolphin case is a perfect example of how the WTO can be seen as biased against any environmental regulations that interfere with trade or restrict the flow of business. When the United States began to require dolphin-safe labeling for all tuna, the WTO’s dispute settlement system had to get involved because non U.S. fisheries thought it was discriminatory and that the United States did not have the authority. The WTO ended up ruling that the dolphin-safe labeling that the United States requires is fine for any tuna caught in U.S. waters, but foreign fisheries could not be held to the same standards.

            While I don’t believe that the WTO is a good environmental regulator in its current state, with a little bit of change they could certainly be so. The WTO’s dispute settlement system is what currently makes decisions on issues such as tuna-dolphin or shrimp-turtle, but this settlement system does not take into account sustainability or preservation, only trade issues. When the WTO ruled on tuna-dolphin, they did so in terms of trade, with almost no regard for the environment. If the WTO added another board or settlement system that is based upon the environment and sustainable practices, it could be even more effective than it has previously. Since the WTO has the power to make decisions that affect the environment, doesn’t it make sense than environmentalists should have something to say about the environmental issues and repercussions?

            As said by Maurice Strong “The environment is not going to be saved by environmentalists. Environmentalists do not hold the levels of economic power.” Ecological modernist theory states that trade leads to growth, and that growth leads to the protection and sustainability of the environment. If you combine this theory as well as Maurice Strong’s previous statement, it makes sense that the WTO would be the organization to help save the environment, considering that they have the economic power and can advance trade. The bias is the only problem and creating an additional dispute system or sub-committee would be the perfect solution to the criticisms of the WTO. With the addition of this new system, the dispute settlement system could get a further recommendation from a sub-committee of environmentalists which would help them in their decision, helping solve the problem.

            Having this additional sub-committee of environmentalists or a new settlement system that keeps the environment in mind would undoubtedly help the WTO as well as the environment. Through economic sustainability the WTO could actually improve economic trade and growth between countries while simultaneously calming down the critics and environmentalists who believe that if is not fit to make such decisions. Critiques such as the WTO hiding their true goals and having little civil-society access would immediately go away. This sub-committee of environmentalists would finally hold the WTO accountable for issues that it seems to overlook. This could even help the economy and bridge the North-South divide that the WTO is often accused of encouraging with its practices. Currently the WTO is one of the only worldwide organizations that has to power to make enforceable environmental regulations and end disputes, but the bias is to strong. Creating an additional sub-committee or revising the dispute settlement system would allow the WTO to make powerful environmental decisions and silence the critics.

Women and #Climate2014

The first thing that came to mind when I was assigned this blog post was the issue of climate change. I thought to myself: what environmental issue would be easiest to research? Climate change that is. So I took to the Internet, and I googled “#Climate2014.” To my surprise, one of the first search options linked to an article titled “Women and #Climate2014.”  I took a moment and thought to myself, how on earth can you combine the issues of women’s rights and climate change? However, after taking a closer look at the article, it made complete sense. The article is not classically formatted; instead it is a collection of social media tweets and videos. After reading the tweets and watching the videos, I now see that the women’s rights movement and climate change have a lot in common.

            First of all these two issues are extremely salient. If you are a human being living in the 21^st Century than you have been touched in some way by both issues. You have either heard of the polar caps melting or heard about the injustice that women are facing each day. Apart from their salience, both issues are also extremely controversial. As obviously true and relevant these two issues are to our modern and global society, people still choose to be ignorant and claim that neither issue actually exists.  Or, people do acknowledge that they exist, but just choose to be ignorant. 

            In my individual opinion, I believe that people are struggling to grapple with these two issues because they both lack strong regimes. However, especially for the women’s rights movement, groups and individuals behind both of these issues are working to create strong regimes that can develop and enact actually domestic and global policy changes.

In class we discussed that climate change is a global issue in the sense that it is a global common, trans-boundary externality, and a linked issue. Climate change is a global commons issue because it is an issue that relates to physical and biological systems that lie outside the jurisdiction of any individual state or region. It is also a linked issue because it is greatly impacted by consequences from other policies that are not directly related to the environment. Climate change is also an issue of trans-boundary externality because one state’s environment can be impacted by another state’s policies or actions.

I believe that women’s rights can also be categorized as a linked issue, trans-boundary externality, and global commons. It is a linked issue because particular policies or decisions such as the Supreme Court decision of Hobby Lobby undeniably had unintended consequences on women’s rights. The concept of women’s rights can also be regarded as a trans-boundary externality because if one woman suffers in a developing nation than women in developed nations are affected as well. As the women’s rights movement grows, more and more women are standing in solidarity. For example, I genuinely care about the lives of women in the developing world. There is no reason why they do not deserve the same rights as I do. I genuinely feel less of a person, when I hear about women in other countries loosing their rights. While the idea that women’s rights can be regarded as a global commons may be far fetched, bear with me as I try to make the comparison. While many organizations and institutions try to treat women as objects, they are not. Women belong to no one and yet states continually try to create laws that make them into objects.

If people want to make serious changes and developments in the areas of climate change and women’s rights then stronger regimes must be created. Just like the Sea Shepherds used ethos to spread the word about saving the whales, nongovernmental and intergovernmental organizations must use ethos in relation to climate change and women’s rights. The women’s rights movement is currently making strides to impact state and private sector policy. For example, the United Nations is putting familiar faces to spread the necessity of feminism and women’s rights. Just last week popular actress Emma Watson gave a speech through the UN on women’s rights.  Climate change is also using celebrities to spread the word, just a couple of days ago Leonardo Dicaprio gave a speech on climate change.

Putting popular faces to these issues, allows these issues to become relatable. If a young Harry Potter fan sees his favorite actress advocating for women’s rights, then he will become more aware of what he does and what values he supports.  When NGOs and IGOs affect and change the values of people, then people will change they way the act.

They will stop buying products that hurt the environment when they are produced. They will stop shopping at stores that do not value women’s rights. The key is getting ordinary people all over the world—in developed and developing nations— involved to make a difference. Ordinary people will affect corporations and in turn the corruptions will affect international states that finally have the ability to change and develop policies. 

The article, “Women and #Climate2014,” focused on the social media conversation behind the United Nations Climate Summit. Tweets from many NGOs and IGOs are documented. For example one tweet from the United Nations states, “Women are the first and last line of defense when it comes to climate issues.” I completely agree with this, because if women are given more option and educations then they can take on important roles. By given more important roles then women have the change to become active members in their society. When women become active members of society, then states’ economies will grow. If economies grow then people will have the luxury to worry about climate change and develop concrete solutions.

Wedo Worldwide tweeted, “Just transition must build gender into design. Formalize jobs to ensure rights, benefits 4 women #Climate2014, health & jobs.” 

The Elders tweeted, “If we take away the barriers to women’s access to power we’d solve #climatechange much faster!”

These tweets are just some of the many that explain whey women’s rights and climate change are strongly related. They are two of the most relevant and defining issues of the 21^st Century.  As Hilary Clinton once said, “Women’s rights are human rights.” I have to agree with Ms. Clinton, and I would also like to take her point further to incorporate climate change.

If we take climate change seriously and make strides toward solutions and energy reductions then we will create a healthy and prosperous environment for our future children. If the earth is in good shape for our children, then they will be able to focus on nourishing human rights. People, especially women in this case, deserve to live in a world were they do not have to worry about their own individual rights and the environment.  States and corporations need to put away their differences and use their common sense to create a global society in which all people can live safely and happily. If people are content with their lives then more people will work to create innovative technologies that will further advance and progress our global society.

“Women and #Climate2014” — https://storify.com/un_women/climate2014