Domestic legislation with international implications?

Take a look at these three world maps. Does anything stand out to you?

Untitled3Untitled2

Untitled
For interactive versions of these maps, visit the Synergies Among the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions webpage (also the source for these static images)

 

Maybe the uninspiring shade of grey that covers the United States in each one?

Yes, that’s what caught my attention as well.

These maps indicate member countries for the Stockholm Convention, the Rotterdam Convention, and the Basel Convention, respectively. The Stockholm Convention aims to eliminate or restrict Persistent Organic Pollutants, or “POPs,” which are toxic chemicals that persist in the environment and build up in organisms. The Rotterdam Convention promotes open exchange of information about specific pesticides and industrial chemicals. And, the Basel Convention focuses on the management of hazardous waste. Member countries (indicated by color coding on each of the maps above) can participate and negotiate in the relevant discussions. The United States, along with countries such as South Sudan, Myanmar, Iraq, and Uzbekistan, has not officially ratified the treaties.

The obstacle to forward movement on this issue is Congress (surprise, surprise). As with any international treaty, approval requires the “advice and consent” of two thirds of the Senate. But before this vote can take place, Congress needs to amend existing federal laws – the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the Resource Conversation and Recovery Act (RCRA) – so the U.S. is able to comply with the treaties (for example, to give EPA the authority to regulate chemicals listed). Over the years, several relevant amendments have been proposed, but none have passed..

The chemicals regulated in these treaties are among the worst of the worst – dioxins, PCBs, DDT, as well as several multi-syllabic pesticides – and they tend to migrate long distances through wind, water, and biological organisms. EPA needs to have the ability to take appropriate actions on these chemicals, and others added in the future, to protect public health and the environment.

By abstaining from the treaties, the U.S. cannot negotiate for the addition of other dangerous compounds that may pose serious health risks to our population. (These chemicals do not respect borders, and pollutants released across the world can travel and cause harm here. The Alaskan Artic region is especially vulnerable). And, although U.S. taxpayers contribute to the Global Environment Facility – a fund that provides grants to assist countries on specific environmental improvement projects, including many related to the clean-up of POPs – we have no input on the use of these funds, since we are not members of the convention.

TSCA reform is currently under negotiation in the Senate and House, and while there have been intense discussions about many key components of the bill (such as state-preemption), minimal information is available regarding potential implications for these international treaties. However, it is crucial that the final legislation include such provisions, thereby paving the way for the U.S. to participate meaningfully in discussions regarding global chemicals of concern.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Domestic legislation with international implications?

  1. Very impressive (and discouraging) set of maps. As you point out, a very important additional ramification of TSCA reform! Hopefully we’ll see the maps change soon…

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s