Enviormental Concerns in the "Battle For Seattle," at World Trade Organization Talks Why you should buy organic coffee: It helps Migratory birds and other forest species What's good for salmon is good for people
Environmental Concerns in the "Battle
For Seattle," at World Trade Organization Talks December, 1999
Seattle, Washington
The "Battle for Seattle" received extensive media coverage in late November
and early December, 1999, when protesters demonstrated at the World Trade
Organization (WTO) meeting in Seattle. Tens of thousands of protesters
gathered in Seattle streets, blocking the opening sessions of the WTO
meeting, and police and national guard forces used tear gas and rubber
bullets to subdue protesters. The protesters gathered to bring attention
to many grievances against the WTO, including labor rights and the closed-door
decision making process. Also angering protesters at the WTO meeting were
environmental concerns-should the WTO be able to undermine clean air legislation,
or outlaw turtle-safe shrimp or dolphin-safe tuna? Environmentalists fear
that the WTO will gradually lower all the world's environmental standards
to the lowest level, forcing many countries to go back on the environmental
gains they have made in recent decades.
![](/sites/dl/free/0072452706/22973/traffic2.gif) Traffic2 (40.0K)Traffic2 The WTO has already ruled against clean gasoline standards in
the US. |
The World Trade Organization is a body of representatives from corporations
based in the world's major trading nations. Nations that are members of
the WTO give rights to the organization to make decisions that will ensure
free movement of goods and money between countries. The WTO facilitates
trade by forcing member nations to reduce taxes on traded goods, to remove
rules blocking trade, and to reduce subsidies that give "unfair" advantages
to domestic corporations, thereby disadvantaging foreign producers of
trade goods. The justification of this power is that free movement of
capital makes everybody wealthier, and therefore happier.
Countries frequently appeal to the WTO to reduce labor and environmental
regulations that act as "barriers" to trade. For example, the United States'
clean air laws require the use of relatively clean-burning gasoline, to
reduce pollution associated with low-grade fuels. In one of the first
appeals to the WTO, Venezuela and Brazil argued that the clean gasoline
legislation was a trade barrier, preventing the sale of lower quality
Venezuelan gas in the US. The WTO agreed, and the US has been forced to
roll back related clean air legislation. Similarly, the US banned the
import of shrimp from countries that refused to ensure that endangered
sea turtles were not being wantonly destroyed by shrimp nets. Several
shrimp exporting nations appealed to the WTO, arguing that the turtle-friendly
shrimp ban was an obstruction to trade. Last year the WTO agreed, overturning
the US legislation and forcing the US to allow shrimp imports regardless
of sea turtle mortality. The US has also appealed to the WTO to reduce
environmental and health trade barriers. Most notably, European countries
have restricted the sale of genetically modified agricultural products
and beef treated with growth hormones. These laws have been instituted
at the insistence of consumers who distrust the environmental and health
effects of genetically engineered soy beans, corn, wheat, milk, and other
products. On behalf of American genetic engineering corporations, the
US is suing the European Community to drop these barriers and open European
markets to genetically modified food products.
The long-term effects of WTO decisions on the environment, labor, and
society remain to be seeen, as do the impacts of environment and labor
protesters at the WTO. It is important, however, that citizens understand
the implications of these international bodies on local conditions-beneficial
as well as detrimental. The protests in Seattle have helped bring some
national attention to these powerful, often unobserved, processes.
To read more, see Environmental Science, A Global Concern, Cunningham and Saigo, 5th ed.
Economic growth rates: page 177
Trade, development, and jobs: pages 173-177
International trade: page 173
Environmental Science, Enger and Smith, 6th ed.
Science versus policy: page 6
Interrelated nature of environmental problems: page 5-7
For further information, see these related web sites: Environmentalist's
Guide to the WTO (review of the WTO, its organization, and environmental
concerns), from the West Coast Environmental Law group Review
of environmental concerns with the WTO, from the Seattle WTO protest organizers
(see links at end of article for further information) Environmental Media
Services review of Environmental the WTO protests Top
Ten reasons to Oppose the World Trade Organization (from Global Exchange, a
populist view point concerned about environment and labor rights) Why You Should Buy Organic Coffee: It Helps Migratory Birds and Other
Forest Species September, 1998 ![](/sites/dl/free/0072452706/22973/myrtle.gif) Myrtle (14.0K)Myrtle The cup of coffee you drank this morning was closely tied to the fates
of warblers in your home state, and to ecosystem health in Central and
South America. Whether your morning coffee helps or hurts these birds
depends on whether or not you bought "shade-grown" coffee beans.
Coffee beans are really seeds from berries that grow on shade-loving
understory bushes. These bushes need the shade of mature trees, the same
trees that provide habitat and food for many birds and insects. Across
Central America and other coffee-growing regions, birds, bats, butterflies,
and other forest-dwelling species, have found shelter in the open forests
of coffee plantations at the same time as local farmers have earned an
income from the land. Coffee plantations have been called one of the most
sustainable and environmentally benign agroecosystems in Central America.
Many of the migratory birds that brighten North American forests in the
summer are included in the long list of species that survive in shaded
coffee fields. ![](/sites/dl/free/0072452706/22973/birdmigr.gif) Birdmigr (15.0K)Birdmigr
All this has radically changed in recent years, however. Starting as early
as the 1970s, coffee growers began breeding plants that prospered in the
full sun, rather than in the shade. With sun-tolerant coffee bushes, growers
could remove trees, slightly increasing the profitable area of their fields
and the yield of each plant. Some growers also argued that fungus and
beetles are reduced in the full sun. Sun-tolerant coffee varieties are
becoming more widespread today, as coffee consumption increases around
the world and big coffee producers take over more and more of the production
areas.
Sun-tolerant coffee plants are more expensive to grow than traditional
varieties because they require a steady diet of agricultural chemicals.
With no leaf litter to enrich the soil, fertilizer must be applied to
maintain yields. With full sun exposure, weeds invade the fields, and
herbicides become necessary. Fungicides also remain important despite
the sun exposure. These chemicals are expensive, so that it is mostly
the larger, better-financed coffee companies that use them. Competition
with highly-capitalized producers is driving smaller coffee farmers to
copy the new methods or give up farming. Furthermore, the trees in a shaded
plantation provide alternative sources of income (such as fruit and wood)
for farmers dependent on the sometimes volatile prices in the world coffee
market. At the same time chemicals threaten the health of plantation workers--and
the health of wildlife that live in the plantations. What can you do? Buy "shade tolerant" coffee, or ask your favorite coffee
shop to buy it. Organic coffee is also shade tolerant. Shade tolerant
coffee is often available already at organic food stores. Sometimes it
costs slightly more than sun-tolerant varieties sold by larger producers,
but the cost difference is often modest. For further information, see these related web sites: Migratory birds
and coffee--info from the Audubon Society Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center:
check out the Coffee Corner and the Cocoa Corner Declining
numbers of migratory songbirds To read more, see Environmental Science, A Global Concern, Cunningham and Saigo, 5th ed.
Deforestation in South and Central America: pp. 297-300
Map of vegetation zones: p. 296
Map of desertification risks: p. 309
Agricultural economics and coffee: the down side of cash crops
Environmental Science, Enger and Smith, 6th ed.
Tropical rain forests and farming: p. 81
Forests and deforestation: pp. 194-96
Economics and sustainable development: pp. 337-45
What's Good for Salmon is Good for People (we hope) March 1999 Seattle supports listing of Salmon as Endangered Species Seattle, Washington The city that celebrates salmon now has the chance--and the obligation--to
make sacrifices to help save the fish. On March 20 the federal government
announced that it would add nine species of Pacific Northwest salmon to
the Endangered Species List. A key component to helping the salmon recovery:
controlling urban growth. Seattle residents have overwhelmingly supported
efforts to designate salmon as endangered. Now both supporters and opponents
of listing the salmon are waiting to see whether Seattle will accept or
fight the restrictions needed to help the species recover. ![](/sites/dl/free/0072452706/22973/salmon.jpg) Salmon (27.0K)Salmon Salmon are a key icon for the city and the region, and the millions
of migrating fish were once an important economic asset. Their numbers
have dwindled as the rivers in which they migrate and spawn have been
dammed, polluted, and clogged with silt from road building, logging, and
building construction. Restoring the Puget Sound Chinook salmon, probably
the best known of the designated species, will require cleaning up rivers
that run through urban and suburban areas, restricting suburban sprawl
along salmon spawning streams, controlling residential fertilizer use,
and possibly placing limits on water use in drought seasons. Skeptics foresee that these restraints will cause a backlash against
the Endangered Species Act. This is by far the largest population and
largest geographic area affected by any listing in the Act's 26-year history.
Optimists, though, hope that listing salmon will help bring about innovations
in urban development. They hope that protecting the salmon will help make
Seattle a cleaner and more livable city all around. Less suburban development
should mean less freeway expansion, less long-range commuting, more efficient
use of tax money on infrastructure, and possibly a livelier urban core.
At the same time, the rivers should run cleaner with more pollution controls,
Puget Sound will be healthier, and ultimately the region's residents should
be able to see the salmon once again in significant numbers in local rivers.
Also, because of the large area and large population affected, the burden
of recovery efforts will be spread thin, so that individuals may feel
little personal impact. Seattle-Tacoma is one of the fastest-growing urban
regions in the US, and growing pains could be worse, and prices higher,
with environmental restrictions. But supporters of the salmon listing
point out that it's high time that more attention was paid to environmental
concerns in growing urban areas. How the costs and benefits play out will be seen over the next few years.
In the mean time, there is great enthusiasm in Seattle for helping the
salmon recover. To help boost the recovery effort, Vice-president Al Gore
has promised $100 million in federal aid to help restore salmon populations.
For further information, see these related web sites: News
release, March 17 Editorial
from Seattle's mayor Paul Schell, in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer The
"anti-salmon" view To read more, see Environmental Science, A Global Concern, Cunningham and Saigo, 5th ed.
Endangered Species Act: pp. 283-86
Economic impacts of endangered species legislation: p. 287
Habitat protection: p. 288
Environmental Science, Enger and Smith, 6th ed.
What is being done to prevent extinction? pp. 213-18
Land use, development, and water: pp. 225-29
Land use and problems with urbanization: pp. 230-32 |