Oh yeah...W the great REVERSER of EVERYTHING THAT IS LAW TODAY!
and for what reason? SELLOUT SELLOUT SELLOUT!
NAFTA
Emissions by the Truckload
By AL MEYERHOFF, Al Meyerhoff is a partner with Milberg, Weiss,
Bershad, Hynes & Lerach. He represents the plaintiffs challenging the
Bush administration decision to open the Mexican border to cross-border
truckin
In the next few weeks, President Bush is likely to
issue an executive order opening the Mexican
border to cross-border trucking. Tens of thousands
of big rigs from Mexico will then be free to travel
throughout the United States--bringing with them
serious environmental consequences, especially for
California and other border states. Caving in to
diplomatic pressure, the Bush administration has
chosen to simply ignore American environmental
laws. Bush is compromising public health in the
process.
The North American Free Trade Agreement
originally provided that Mexican trucks be allowed access to border states in
1995 and throughout the U.S. by January 2000. Citing safety concerns,
however, the Clinton administration allowed Mexican trucks to operate only
within a 20-mile buffer area inside the border. In 2001, a NAFTA trade panel
took up the issue, ultimately ordering the U.S. to allow Mexican trucks to
operate throughout the U.S. Since then, Bush has indicated his intention to lift
the Clinton moratorium, insisting that NAFTA requires him to do so. But there
are ways to satisfy the requirements of NAFTA other than by simply throwing
open our borders.
Mexico's fleet of tractor trailers is much older--and dirtier--than that in the U.S.
Before 1993, truck engines in Mexico were unregulated. Even engines
manufactured more recently don't begin to meet environmental standards being
phased in for U.S. engines. Yet, in deciding to open the border, the
administration declined to consider the environmental impacts of these
diesel-spewing behemoths.
As a condition to opening the border, Congress required the Department of
Transportation to promulgate regulations governing the process. But in doing
so, the agency simply ignored the mandate of the National Environmental
Policy Act, which requires that the government fully evaluate the impact of any
"major federal action" on the environment and public health. Instead, without
any significant evidentiary or scientific support, the department issued a "finding
of no significant impact," insisting that opening the borders would not harm the
environment.
In reaching its conclusion--a ludicrous one in light of studies showing that
Mexican trucks on average generate 150% more smog-forming nitrogen oxide
and 200% more dangerous particulate matter than U.S. trucks--the
administration looked at the effect of opening the border on the nation as a
whole. The potentially heavy impact on border states was balanced against the
far lighter effect on, say, New England states.
This was ridiculous. California already has some of the most polluted, unhealthy
air in the nation, the cause of respiratory disease and premature death. The
brunt of increased Mexican truck traffic will fall most heavily on Southern
California, in municipalities like Los Angeles, which is already far out of
compliance with the federal Clean Air Act. In fact, the act prohibits the federal
government from causing or contributing "to any new violation of any [clean air]
standard [or] increas[ing] the frequency or severity of any existing violation" in
already troubled areas.
The proposed presidential action once again raises a question central to the
NAFTA debate: Must increased free trade come at the expense of American
environmental standards and the public health?
The short answer is no. Had the Bush administration chosen to follow
American environmental laws rather than run roughshod over them, the
transition to increased cross-border trucking from Mexico could have occurred
in an orderly fashion. The trade agreement with Mexico requires us to allow
Mexican trucks access to U.S. roads, but that doesn't mean we have to
exempt the trucks from all U.S. laws.
Pre-1994 trucks, which make up 80% to 90% of Mexico's fleet, could be
excluded from U.S. roads unless they were retrofitted. Better emissions
inspections at the border could ensure that Mexican trucks met U.S. standards.
Illegal so-called "defeat devices" (which allow diesel engines to run dirty when
on the open road), now being removed from U.S. trucks, could be removed
from Mexican trucks as well. And, most important, the Bush administration
could require that, starting in 2007, any Mexican truck entering the U.S. meet
the very strict engine and fuel standards that will apply in the U.S. starting that
year. Instead, the administration, intoxicated with the idea of deregulation,
simply assured us there would be no negative effect.
To oppose this threat to public health, a collection of environmental, labor and
business organizations, including the California Trucking Assn., Public Citizen,
the Teamsters, the California Labor Federation, the Natural Resources
Defense Council and the Planning and Conservation League, has filed a lawsuit
in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. California Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer has
supported the suit as a friend of the court. But the Bush Justice Department has
indicated that the administration will not wait on the court's action to open the
border to Mexican trucks.
Last year, Congress acted to prevent the Bush administration from moving
ahead. Hearings were held, testimony was taken and concerns were expressed
about the safety of Mexican trucks and the training of their drivers--as well as
about possible terrorism. As a result, by a wide majority, the
Republican-controlled House passed a rider to the Transportation Department
appropriations bill preventing Bush from opening the border. The Senate
followed suit, but in the face of a veto threat compromise legislation was
enacted requiring various safety checks before the border could be opened.
Those safety checks must address environmental concerns, because a truck
that increases the risk of cancer or other diseases through its pollution is not a
safe truck.
CC |
