a(broad) perspective
Today’s post is the seventh in a series on a recent CPR white paper, Reclaiming Global Environmental Leadership: Why the United States Should Ratify Ten Pending Environmental Treaties. Each month, this series will discuss one of these treaties. Previous posts are here.
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) are toxic substances that remain in the environment for long periods of time. They travel long distances via the wind and water and bio-accumulate in the food chain. POPs have been found virtually everywhere on earth, including thousands of miles away from any place they have been used, such as pristine areas of the Arctic.
The Rotterdam Convention, the Stockholm Convention, and the POPs Protocol to the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) each address aspects of the international movement of toxic substances. Each of these agreements has been signed by the United States, but cannot be ratified until implementing legislation is enacted.
The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade Adopted and Opened for Signature on September 10, 1998
Entered into Force on February 24, 2004 Number of Parties: 144
Signed by the United States on September 11, 1998
The Rotterdam Convention is a multilateral treaty that seeks to promote shared responsibilities regarding the import of hazardous chemicals, including pesticides, and to promote the open exchange of information. One of the most significant features of the Convention is the mandatory “prior informed consent” (PIC) procedure. It requires exporters of chemicals that have been banned or severely restricted for health or environmental reasons in the exporting country to obtain the prior informed consent of an importing country before exporting to that country. The PIC provisions allow an importing Party to make an informed decision about whether or not to receive a substance that has been listed as banned or severely restricted by the Convention.
The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants Opened for signature on May 22, 2001
Entered into Force on May 17, 2004 Number of Parties: 176
Signed by the United States on May 23, 2001 Sent to the Senate on May 6, 2002
The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants is a multilateral environmental treaty that aims to eliminate or restrict the production and use of certain POPs, including some pesticides, PCBs, dioxins, and furans. The Convention establishes a scientific review process to add other POPs of global concern to the list of 21 covered substances.
The Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Persistent Organic Pollutants (LRTAP POPs Protocol) Adopted and Opened for Signature on June 24, 1998
Entered into Force on October 23, 2003 Number of Parties: 31
Signed by the United States on June 24, 1998
The Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants (or POPs) is one of eight protocols to the 1979 Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution, or LRTAP. The POPs Protocol requires Parties to take certain steps to eliminate the production and use of certain POPs in the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, a regional organization that also includes the United States and Canada. Parties must ensure that certain POPs are destroyed, disposed of, and transported in an environmentally sound manner. It also requires the Parties to restrict the uses of certain other POPs and to reduce the annual emissions of yet others.
In the United States, the Executive Branch has taken the position that, as a Party to LRTAP, the United States can enter the Protocol as an executive agreement.
Why Should the United States Ratify these Agreements?
U.S. interests will not be compromised by the ratification of these three agreements, and they are supported by a variety of industries, NGOs, and numerous foreign governments. By becoming a full participant, the United States can influence the listing decisions for chemicals and have the authority needed to effectively negotiate with other countries regarding the elimination or reduction of POPs, including those that threaten the health of Americans.
For the United States to be able to ratify these three international agreements, Congress will have to amend the U.S. statutes that regulate pesticides and toxic substances.
One way to accomplish the necessary changes to FIFRA and TSCA is to enact the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 (S. 847), introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D.-N.J) in April 2011. The bill explicitly provides the necessary legislative changes to permit the United States to ratify the three agreements. In July, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved the legislation.
What Actions Should the United States Take?
Ratifying these three treaties is necessary to restore U.S. leadership in global efforts to protect human health and the environment. Moreover, they further the specific interest of the United States, since an effective international regime governing toxic chemicals will reduce the exposure of U.S. communities and citizens to these highly dangerous substances.
Showing 2,818 results
Mary Jane Angelo | September 7, 2012
a(broad) perspective Today’s post is the seventh in a series on a recent CPR white paper, Reclaiming Global Environmental Leadership: Why the United States Should Ratify Ten Pending Environmental Treaties. Each month, this series will discuss one of these treaties. Previous posts are here. Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) are toxic substances that remain in the […]
| September 6, 2012
When Barack Obama took office, reform of U.S. chemical regulation appeared to be an area of some bipartisan agreement, especially when compared to climate change, where it was clear a contentious fight would loom on Capitol Hill. Prominent Members of Congress had called for reform of the outdated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, […]
Ben Somberg | September 6, 2012
Mitt Romney added a new twist Tuesday to false right-wing claims about the EPA’s regulation limiting mercury and other pollutants from coal power plants. EPA estimated that the “utility MACT” will have annual monetized benefits of $37-90 billion and costs of $9.6 billion. A critique we’ve heard over and over again from the industry and its supporters […]
Daniel Farber | September 5, 2012
Ben Somberg posted here recently about the Republican platform and the environment. He noted that the platform uses a discredited estimate of regulatory costs, calls for making environmental regulations into guidance documents for industry, and proposes a moratorium on new regulations for the indefinite future. Unfortunately, that’s only the tip of the iceberg. If you can […]
David Driesen | August 30, 2012
Reposted from RegBlog. Traditionally, the field of law and economics has treated government regulation as if it were a mere transaction. This microeconomic approach to law assumes that government regulators should aim to make their decisions efficient by seeking to equate costs and benefits at the margin. As I argue in a new book, The Economic […]
Robert Verchick | August 28, 2012
NEW DELHI — Here’s what monsoon season looks like in India. This summer, the northern states have been lashed with rain. In the northeastern state of Assam, July rains swamped thousands of homes, killing 65 residents. Floods and mudslides in northeast India sent nearly 6 million people heading for the hills in search of temporary […]
Ben Somberg | August 27, 2012
A draft of the Republican party platform, posted by Politico on Friday afternoon, reveals that the party has incorporated some of the more absurd claims and proposals on regulations pushed by House Republicans and some more radical trade organizations. The draft claims regulations cost $1.75 trillion each year – that’s from a discredited study sponsored […]
| August 24, 2012
Today CPR releases a new briefing paper explaining how states can spearhead improving energy efficiency standards for home appliances. The paper, States Can Lead the Way to Improved Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards, draws on ideas discussed in Alexandra B. Klass’s article State Standards for Nationwide Products Revisited: Federalism, Green Building Codes, and Appliance Efficiency Standards. […]
Frank Ackerman | August 23, 2012
Cross-posted from Triple Crisis. Can we protect the earth’s climate without talking about it – by pursuing more popular policy goals such as cheap, clean energy, which also happen to reduce carbon emissions? It doesn’t make sense for the long run, and won’t carry us through the necessary decades of technological change and redirected investment. […]