[ad_1]
OhLast weekend, Boris Johnson told the world that we need to “create a healthy planet for our children and grandchildren.”Today he launched Trade agreement This is not just as inadequate as the promises made by Johnson and other G7 leaders. What is more worrying is that it is quickly pushing us in the wrong direction.
Trade rules include In the Anglo-Australian transaction It will be a disaster for the environment. On the one hand, if we replace food from the UK or our neighbors with food from a country on the other side of the world, it will definitely increase carbon emissions.
But this is not just a matter of distance. Modern trade agreements have embedded a variety of rules that will inadvertently exacerbate climate change, some of which have a weak relationship with trade.Importing more industrially produced food will not only promote Australia’s industrial development, but also over time Drive small farmers Who can not withdraw from the business and put downward pressure on the standards here. Our own agricultural system will become less environmentally friendly.
Regardless of the government’s protests to the contrary, this trade agreement will affect food standards by effectively allowing us to import food. Lower standards Than we hired here. British farmers worry that the trade agreement will make them face competition with Australia’s industrial and agricultural sectors. This is correct. Australia’s industrial and agricultural sectors usually adopt lower food standards, including hormone-treated beef.
It’s not just about the quality of food. The trade agreement limits the government’s ability to intervene in the economy, lest any behavior be judged as “discriminatory” against foreign companies.Some transactions even include making the government unable to Effective supervision Fossil fuel exports. The problem is that if we are to build more governments, this kind of government intervention is exactly what we need. Environmental protection economy.
Unlike global climate commitments, trade agreements are highly enforceable. Earlier this month, Trade Minister Greg Hands told Parliament that Australia’s deal is likely to include a mechanism to secretly “Company court“The system allows multinational companies from trading partner countries-in this case Australia-to sue the British government in secret courts for any laws or regulations they deem unfair.
These “courts” have been repeatedly used to challenge environmental regulation.The Dutch government is currently being prosecuted Two energy multinational companies It decided to phase out coal power.In previous cases, the government had Pause fracturing And forcing power plants to improve their Environmental standardsAn arbitration tribunal actually ruled that the Canadian government violated the rights of investors only by conducting an environmental impact assessment. In this judgment, even an arbitrator stated that “will be regarded Significant regression In terms of environmental protection”.
In Cumbria, the county council has authorized New coal mine, Ultimately owned by an Australian company.After months of campaigning, the mine will now be subject to Comprehensive inquiry, It can be seen that the authority has been overturned. If we have established a corporate court system with Australia, the UK may be secretly prosecuted for exiting the mine.
If we have the opportunity to reduce emissions, this kind of deregulation pressure is the last thing we need. But too many people think that after Brexit, we only need as many trade agreements as possible. If we cannot sign with Australia, who can we sign with?
In fact, Australia is seriously lagging behind in climate policy.Just this week, the government of Prime Minister Scott Morrison hit Discordant notes At G7, they refused to verbally promise to cut coal power, and instead focused on untested technical repairs. After returning to Australia, his deputy, Michael McCormack, stated that they would “act according to the benefits to Australian households, factories and farms so that they would not have to pay more for electricity”.
But the key issue is not our view of Australia or any other country. The problem is the type of trade agreement we have signed. It has nothing to do with trade itself.Our tariffs on most Western countries are already at historically low levels. As the Australian agreement shows, the new trade agreement is not true at all. Thousands of jobs added To our economy. Anything about boosting growth has accounted for only one percent in 15 years — completely unobvious compared to the impact of the pandemic.
On the contrary, trade agreements are meant to remove obstacles to the free flow of goods, services, and funds around the world. These “obstacles” are usually our most cherished food standards, the protection of public services, and our right to supervise businesses. The climate crisis has made all these things even more important.
In other parts of the world, there are signs that these lessons are just beginning to be taken seriously.Joe Biden made it clear that he Not interested in In more trade agreements, they are more willing to build flexibility in the U.S. economy.The EU is trying to reach any trade agreement, and the agreement proposed with the Latin American Mercosur Group is looking for Increasingly impossible Approved due to a dispute over its environmental impact.
Sadly, the British government’s obsession with signing trade agreements that are as liberal as possible is in fundamental conflict with the need to respond to climate emergencies. The British government’s choice in this trade agreement is clear. We can have a livable planet with sustainable domestic agriculture. Or we can have a trading system that allows the government to be controlled by the big polluters and does not help to take action on the climate.
[ad_2]
Source link
