the tune of about $10 billion every year com
pounded; this amount is perhaps half of what is
necessary to spend annually for safety, vehicle
maintenance and fuel efficiency on our roads
today. It is indisputable that more roads and
lanes create more traffic congestion, although
pavers pretend otherwise.
Although entrenched global political and eco
nomic forces have increasingly had things their
way, GATT wrings the last amount of "growth”
that the Earth's resources can support. However,
there is hope for fighting the destructiveness and
effectiveness of GATT, NAFTA, and turning
around oil dependency, road building, motor
vehicles, and the poor economics of buying
unnecessary products shipped from afar. First, a
review of world trends and some non-transporta
tion aspects of GATT is in order. Everyone’s
long-term ability to survive has already been
compromised past the point of small reforms
being able to protect the environment or stretch
energy supplies. A call to action beyond GATT
is contained in this paper, so as to further objec
tives which include a paving moratorium.
Overdevelopment has created a crisis that
compels society now to start really saving
farmland and wildlife habitat, and to begin a
restoration phase. Halting road construction will
also prevent complete deforestation and stop
much of the growth of greenhouse-gas emissions
and ozone-layer depleting products.
Background on the Big Picture
living standards in the U.S. which has been under
way since oil prices went way up in the 1970s.
Fearing for our national stability and security
should mean questioning the U.S. military
budget, which President Clinton has downsized
only as much as his predecessor promised to do.
Bush's Secretary of Defense Cheney stated after
the breakup of the Soviet bloc that more roads
had to be built for testing weapons and maneu
vers on additional military land to be acquired in
the U.S. A major challenge for Americans is to
confront the fact that our industrial government is
the top arms dealer in the world. How our
military could be restructured into proportion to
any real threats is beyond the scope of this paper,
but the matter is related to the problem at hand of
paving and the New World Order of oil.
GATT and the process of putting profits and
growth first—cancelling out many troublesome
democratic and environmental features of pre-
WTO business and government—will mean a
huge increase in transportation of products and
raw materials. This increase has been happening
anyway and will continue with or without the
WTO, but under the WTO, trade across borders
would increase faster. Borders would also come
to mean less, but not in terms of freedom for
people. It would be rather in terms of freedom
for corporations, governments and the WTO
which represent the corporate elite: fewer im
pediments to trade (as well as to profits and
control over the population) through weakening
labor rights, public safety and environmental
standards.
he recently completed Uruguay Round of
GATT goes far beyond just trade and
tariffs. Binding enforcement powers for a The nation-state period of history has been fairly
recent, and may be ending as the next
newly created "World Trade Organization” will
phase—One World Corporate
affect national and provincial policies on health
Government, or, the New World
and environment. Presumably, local, state, or
Order—seems to be upon us.
national paving moratoria could be voided by a
federal government complying with GATT, or by Today, many multinational
corporations control more assets
the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its
and funds than most nations.
panels. GATT would thereby tighten the eco
Accountability is not in the
nomic and political control which multinational
current picture to protect “devel
corporations and (their) governments already
oping” nations from being
have. However, the difference if GATT is fully
exploited or taken over. Instead
implemented will not merely be quantitative:
The WTO will assume authority over much of the of addressing or reversing this
problem, the multinationals,
governing and regulation that big business wants
strong governments and the WTO
streamlined. The trend of internalizing environ
mental costs of energy and manufacturing will be will have further leverage over
other nations. Cultural genocide will
reversed, perpetuating or causing unfair trade
be accelerated to get at valuable forests
advantages for nations most willing to pollute
and minerals, under the guise of alleviating
their own communities and the biosphere.
.
• . , ■ B ,4k. u > tli J i l l /bid poverty or perhaps under the name “sustainable
development.” The term “nation” will mean less,
Worries that people have about missing the boat
on GATT are perhaps based more on fear than On as capital and jobs will hop borders and oceans,
wanting to maximize corporate profits or keeping and the WTO/New World Order will be deter
mining what was formerly national, provincial or
the citizenry from meddling in decisions. The
local policy. Classical economics is obsolete, as
U.S. is afraid of being left out, fearing a stronger
human values are further stripped from the
Canada, European Economic Community, and
minuscule genteel generosity of the philosophies
Japan. The U.S. wants to avoid further harm to
of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. The value of
the local and national economy by our multina
community will be lessened further by the WTO
tional corporations which have already aban
and by capital flight, especially in the U.S. which
doned U.S. communities in droves, but this
has a “pathological disregard for community,” as
probably will accelerate under GATT. It is
understandable that well-meaning people support stated by economist Herman Daly.
GATT, out of fear and being poorly informed or
Although nation-states and the Industrial Revolu
lied to. But when economic and ecological
tion
stole rights from individuals (e.g., via
developments worsen in this country as they will,
“enclosure” in England), and although modern
due to petroleum gluttony and world corporate
ized people today work more than the serfs did,
trade run amuck, will people have the vision or
some
improvements in living standards and
the resolve for an alternative way of living based
freedoms
were returned or created after the initial
on fairer distribution of wealth? Can we imagine
brutalities of capitalism. Among these improve
a smaller economic pie within bioregional limits,
ments and freedoms were laws restricting corpo
or do we push the ecosystem past its breaking
rations,
child labor, assuring a modicum of safety
point? Will an alternative way of living (to some,
of food and water, and the creation of labor
a lower standard of living) happen anyway, as
unions. Finally, as a response to industrial
wages in the U.S. continue to go down, closing
pollution, environmental regulations were passed
the gap between rich and poor nations? Free
to avoid outright killing of people and animals
trade agreements will accelerate the lowering of
useful to people.
When capitalism
California Syndrome
showed its weak
nesses in depres
sions, and having
experienced
workers riots, a
welfare state for the
rich investors was
established as well
as for most work
ers. Later, “social
ist dictatorships”
failed due to factors
such as insufficient
democracy, over
spending to com
pete with the
capitalist nations in
the arms race, and
environmental
degradation (which
Marxism failed to
properly foresee or
prevent). Now,
because of popula
tion growth and
other factors, the
capitalist state is
increasingly unable
to take care of its
workers and
(These could be electric "clean’’ vehicles—don't you feel better7)
unemployed. To
T
maintain order and make more profits,
capitalism’s kinder and gentler reforms are being
cut back under GATT.
To prop up national economies teetering with
debt, unemployment, and diminished productiv
ity of the soil, water and air, GATT rewrites
many rules of trade and local democratic gover
nance by requiring member nations to void laws
that can be judged as barriers to trade. Ignoring
the realities of economic weakness caused by the
long-term impacts of “growth” and depletion of
local resources, GATT member nations and the
multinationals endeavor to thoroughly maximize
profits via growth and lax standards that have
barely protected the public and often go unen
forced. WTO panels will be unelected, unac
countable individuals voting secretly on nations’
established laws. Unanimous votes by all
member countries would be necessary to overturn
the WTO panels’ rulings. With these outrageous
features known to the White House, the question
arises: do liberals or conservation-oriented
conservatives still have any doubt about the
agenda of this administration or of big govern
ment? Economic growth and its main engines—
roads, vehicles and oil—clearly have priority
over environmentally sound policy or local or
state sovereignty. “Harmonization” under
GATT—standardizing regulations for environ
mental and consumer protection, for example—
would lubricate trade above all other consider
ations. High standards are to be challenged by
the WTO, but not standards “too low.” This turns
back the clock for public and planetary health.
But this should be no surprise to those who
questioned big corporations’ joining Earth Day
festivities, or to those who noticed that politicians
often talk green while usually just
maintaining business as usual.
The World Bank Model
he World Bank is a kind of
precursor of the WTO. The
Bank’s record on funding
giant road projects and promoting
car and truck sales is an ongoing
disaster for the ecosystem. Four
times as much funding from
World Bank loans goes to
highways as rail. Despite lip
service to respond to criticism,
and after some window dressing
to alter policies, non-motor
vehicle transportation is funded cynically by the
Bank so as to partially replace certain train and
bus systems (to help pavers and motor-vehicle
sales), with some bike programs.
The World Bank’s loans to India and that nation’s
foreign debt considerably softened India’s initial
resistance to GATT. The same nations and
multinational corporations which control the
Bank are pushing GATT; therefore, the mega
developments favored by the bank and its
contractors such as Bechtel would be still favored
and forced upon the planet and local economies.
The Bank rationalizes this by saying it’s easier to
process one big loan-project than many small
ones—even though the latter may do more to
help people and do less harm to the ecosystem.
Development, whether part of urban sprawl in the
U.S. or as exemplified by the World Bank, is
always through some kind of government inter
vention into the market such as through subsi
dies, waivers, etc. So much for “free” market
and “free” trade logic, particularly when the
results are obviously destructive for people,
species on the decline, as well as for long-term
economic survival.
Overpopulation is Already Upon Us
he makers and promoters of GATT
assume availability of unlimited world
wide natural resources and that the planet
has unlimited ability to accept the waste gener
ated by consuming resources. If this capability
was real, and if we were not witnessing the
effects of overpopulation in the North and South,
there would be no decline in fishing yields. Nor
would there be any major desertification, loss of
farmland, lack of safe drinking water, major
deforestation, or ozone-layer depletion. There
would be no landfill crisis with garbage barges
exporting waste to other countries including to
the U.S.
T
The industrial world is overpopulated by several
times the number of humans that the natural
environment can sustain. The U.S. is populated
over two times or even ten times the number of
humans that the country’s ecosystem can support.
Our carrying capacity depends on topsoil and
fresh water, which have been diminished largely
through roads, expansionist development and oil/
petrochemical-oriented agribusiness. Meanwhile,
road building enables and contributes to popula
tion growth.
Oil is a heavily subsidized commodity, and in
turn subsidizes agriculture, providing in effect a
fossil-fuels “free lunch.” Aside from the ecologi
cal costs, petroleum supplies will be running out
in the U.S. by approximately the year 2020.
From that point until the Middle East runs out of
oil, by approximately 2045, our country might
not still embrace the kind of oil-based world
trade and petroleum agribusiness which we have
foolishly instituted. Even conventional econo
mists know that “most sizable cities are only a
few days away from hunger with starvation but a
week or so off,” according to the San Francisco
Chronicle (November 19, 1994.) Oil dependency
will only get worse as population increases, and
the U.S. population is growing faster by far than
any other industrialized nation. The biggest
global downside to this is that we are the top
polluting and resource-consuming nation in the
world. GATT is sold to other nations as a way to
attain U.S. consumption levels, but many energy
analysts have said this is unattainable.
NAFTA and GATT will force more people off the
land into cities, creating more migration within
and between countries. Immigration into the
U.S. is responsible for half the anticipated growth
in our population, something that many multina
tional corporations support financially in order to
lower wages and promote growth—but the
support is under the charitable banner of immi
grant rights.
Whether due to economic collapse from the debt/
deficit overload which saps the life blood of the
United States, or from our dependence on
multinational corporate trade for our jobs and
food, or from sudden petroleum shortages,
starvation and urban chaos are probably guaran
teed within the first few decades of the 21st
century. Although renewable energy, cooperative
economics within communities, and other
alternatives to business-as-usual do work, they
are suppressed and will come into their own
again (after a hundred years or more absence in
the “developed” world) only when the playing
field is unencumbered by cartels. When that
happens, there will very likely be no substitute
for petroleum’s capability to provide most
chemicals and materials such as asphalt, tires,
lubricants, etc. This oil industry analyst main
tains that we are better off getting away from
them now or as soon as possible.
GATT’s Impact on Agriculture
griculture is dominated by agribusiness,
which has secured massive subsidies
l . from the government to pay farmers the
difference between the low price big grain traders
pay farmers and farmers’ costs of production.
This export subsidy for developed nations is
exempted from GATT. So-called developing
countries will be permitted “in return” to subsi
dize capital costs of such infrastructure programs
as roads, ports and dams. But this will do
nothing to compensate for the further expected
loss in agricultural produce consumed by people
per capita in such nations as India due to export
ing food. In keeping with the scheme of the
Northern nations’ multinationals and trade
visionaries, countries are forbidden to impose
bans upon the export of food, under GATT.
A
California produce is sold in New England due to
climatic advantages, we are told. But water is
provided to California farmers at as little as 5%
of the market rate. Water is an unstable resource
in California, and furthermore, New England
could provide more of its own produce if distor
tions from subsidies were not present. Environ
mental impacts are just beginning to be included
in some pricing of goods and services, but GATT
seems to be arresting this progress. GATT would
not bring about ecosystem-driven costing, and
impedes it, so this is another way local agricul
ture is threatened everywhere, resulting in more
produce trucked on highways.
GATT would accelerate the trend of depopulating
the countryside as people must move to the city
for jobs or to receive welfare. The trend contin
ues upward, as agribusiness and supermarket
chains take over locally produced food and
livelihoods. This migration, coupled with topsoil
destruction from petroleum-driven machinery
and petrochemicals, amounts to a global replay of
the main causes of the decline of the Roman
Empire (a great road building state).
In the “Sanitary and Phytosanitary” GATT text
section, countries are only guaranteed the ability
to maintain or establish food or environmental
standards if they are not more protective than
international standards named in GATT. The
problem in this is made clear when one considers
the United Nations' Food and Agriculture
Organization’s (FAO) standards—named in
GATT and NAFTA—for residues of carcinogenic
pesticides: there are weaker standards in over
50% of the instances than current U.S. standards.
The FAO is heavily influenced by agribusiness,
as is the U.S. The U.S. is not even enforcing its
standards due to the Clinton EPA’s lack of respect
for the Delaney Clause which protects us from
petroleum-derived carcinogens. Pesticides are
part of petroleum dependence.
It will be interesting to see how free trade affects
hemp for the U.S. This crop is always ready for a