Back in the old days when the governments of North America were still negotiating the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), one of the major concerns raised by opponents of the deal was its environmental impact. The primary concern was that companies in one country might be forced to bend their environmental standards in order to compete with businesses working in an area with less stringent rules.
At the time, in these pre-Kyoto accord days and greenhouse emission targets, it was primarily Canada and the United States concerned about whether Mexico's standards would be so slovenly that they would be able to produce products far cheaper than corporations in either of the two biggest players.
Environmentalists were concerned that their uphill battles to regulate aspects of manufacturing for environmental reasons would be for nought as companies slashed budgets in these "non-essential" areas, leading to a return of the bad old days. In an effort to appease both the business communities and the environmentalists a side deal was struck allowing for the creation of the Commission for Environmental Co-operation (CEC) to monitor how well environmental standards were being maintained.
Some things never change for business people. It doesn't matter to them if they dump mercury in the English River system in Northern Ontario (as the Reed Paper mills did in the seventies), provided it ensures they can compete with polluters elsewhere. The same arguments are being use against the reduction of smokestack emissions and other poisonous wastes into the air we breathe, as a reason by the Bush government for not signing the Kyoto accord and the Harper government for reneging of Canada's signature.
"We can't compete," they bleat like lost little sheep. "What about all those countries that don't sign," they say, "we can't compete." That argument is as spurious as it selfish. If a country outside of North America hinted toward not signing the Kyoto Protocol on the dotted line, then they should be threatened with huge tariffs so our borders could effectively be closed to them. Watch how quickly they'd sign on and fall into line.
Within North America the means for ensuring that all countries and companies are complying with the aims of the accord, and that everyone is suffering equally from having to pay for the one time retooling of their equipment exists. That's what the CEC was created for in the first place, right?
In theory yes, but in practice it doesn't seem to be the case. First of all there is the budget. With the money they receive, they are supposed to conduct investigations, hire staff, perform research, etc. etc. Activities that run in double digit millions per annum are still being covered by the same $9 million dollar budget they were given when they were established.
Article comments