Sign up to receive SPP updates:
RSS feed.  |
ABOUT THE SPP | BACKGROUNDERS | MEDIA | VIDEO/AUDIO |
SPP resources SPP Summit - New Orleans SPP Summit - Montebello Teach-in |
February 4, 2008 When Harper met with Bush and Calderon in Montebello last August, the three leaders inked -- at the request of the North American Competitiveness Council -- a sub-agreement called Regulatory Cooperation in the Area of Chemicals. As Bruce Campbell, executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, wrote a month later: "The agreement envisages the sharing of scientific information used by regulators including in the expansion of programs such as Canada’s Chemical’s Management Plan and the U.S. High Volume Production (HPV) Challenge program. It also includes exchange of 'best practices' for the assessment and management of chemicals among policy makers and regulators, and the conveying of coordinated North American approaches to the development and adoption of international standards that support continental (read U.S.) priorities." The overall purpose of the "Montebello Agreement," as it has become known by the chemicals industry, is the harmonization (to U.S. standards) of how toxic chemicals are regulated across the continent. It is a move away from stringent government testing toward a kind of "wait and see" strategy, with the voluntary cooperation of big polluters. Thankfully, the SPP model has some competition from Europe. The U.S. Government Accountability Office recently compared the European and U.S. models for regulating toxic substances. While there are many subtle differences, one sentence stands out from the GAO's executive summary: "[The U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act] places the burden of proof on [the Environmental Protection Agency] to demonstrate that a chemical poses a risk to human health or the environment before EPA can regulate its production or use, while REACH (the European Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals) generally places a burden on chemical companies to ensure that chemicals do not pose such risks or that measures identified for handling chemicals safely." In other words, REACH is closer to what you'd call the precautionary principle model (better safe than sorry) whereas the U.S. and Canada have adopted a risk management approaches (let's wait and see what happens to the soil, water, human body, etc.) The good news, as Campbell says in his CCPA report, is that "because of the sheer size of the European chemicals market and because of the sheer volume of new scientific information it will generate, REACH will likely have a positive effect on chemicals regulation in Canada. "For example, Canada and the EU signed a regulatory agreement in June that may eventually give our regulators access to REACH’s chemical assessment and management data." The European model is certainly worrying Bush and the chemicals industry, who have been lobbying hard against REACH for some time. The SPP is apparently a means for big polluters, along with the executive branches of government in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, to develop an alternative to REACH that can then be peddled around the world as a more business-friendly means for regulating toxics. "The Montebello Agreement provides a unique opportunity to affect the future of chemicals management policy both here and abroad," wrote James Cooper for the U.S. National Petrochemical & Refiners Association in October 2007. "It is in the best interest of U.S. industry to support the Montebello Agreement and work with authorities in North America to ensure its success. Industry would also be well-served to advocate this type of chemicals management approach to international forums, such as the United Nations and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development." The Canadian Chemicals Producers Association is also backing the Montebello model as an alternative to REACH. So what will become of California's "green" chemicals initiative? Last month, at a meeting of the American National Standards Institute/National Association of Manufacturers' (ANSI/NAM) Network on Chemical Regulation, the U.S. Trade Representative put out an invitation to industry reps to share their concerns about REACH so that U.S. officials could address them at upcoming international meetings. According to one report of the meeting (no weblink available): "Participants in the breakout session on policy issues chaired by [Jim] Cooper and Patricia Beattie, of General Motors Corp., also discussed developing 'messages' to communicate their views on the Toxic Substances Control Act and the need for TSCA to preempt state laws on chemicals, and developing a statement supporting the Montebello Agreement." (Emphasis added.) Preempting state laws on chemicals can only mean making sure that forward-thinking states like California never get a chance to push further ahead on environmental issues than the industry- backed and funded federal government is willing to go. Seen in this light, the SPP becomes a means of stunting innovation -- especially innovation that would lead to a greener world. How that makes any of us more "secure" or "prosperous" is very difficult to understand.
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
NACC
Workers
Water
Energy
Security & civil liberties
Military
Transportation corridors
