Larry,

A couple of examples. One is NAFTA, a major concern of environmentalists was 
that current laws protecting the environment would be weakened or even 
eliminated as a result of NAFTA.

The environmentalists see NAFTA as a threat to the progress the environmental 
movement has struggled to make over the last decades.

Another worry was that Mexico's high levels of pollution would affect all 
three nations.  The low environmental standards in Mexico were also seen as a 
threat to the environment of the United States and Canada.

To some extent, the voice of the environmental movement was heard. To its 
credit NAFTA has created the Border Environment Cooperation Commission, which 
listens to complaints about nations that fail to enforce environmental 
regulations and seeks to help communities in all three countries improve 
their local environments.

Although NAFTA is in some respects favorable to the environment, it also 
implies certain problems from an environmental perspective. Some previous 
laws meant to protect the environment may be eliminated now because they 
restrain trade between the three countries.

The other example is quite a time ago, but shows how large companies may not 
have environmental, or safety and health at the top of their priorities. That 
was with Union Carbide in Bohpal, India. 

Granted, I think there has been much progress since those times, but I still 
do think that sometimes there are those who control and run companies have 
nothing but the bottom-line in the foremost of their minds...

-Steve Gregory-
    
    



> Steve:
>  
> One occasionally hears such charges being leveled against major brand 
> names, but I cannot accept that any OEM goes into these countries because 
> of lax regulations.
> Perhaps I misunderstand your definition of an OEM.
>  
> My company for one, and I expect it is more often the case than not, use 
> the same corporate EHS standard through-out the world.
> Workers follow the same procedures, require the same level of PPE, follow 
> the same corporate standards requiring pretreatment, etc. 
> These internal corporate standards *exceed* any government standard 
> anywhere in the world (where we operate), including Europe, USA, etc.
> It is only smart to do this, if you go through a learning curve in the US 
> or Europe, why would you want to go through the same expensive learning 
> curve again at other locations?
>  
> Some of the locals ask us why we do things the way we do, and then perhaps 
> 10 years afterwards we see locals asking for similar types of regulation.
>  
> In short, I see major brand names leading the way towards high standards, 
> less polluting practices, and safer workplaces in the countries they 
> operate.
>  
> Perhaps China's "War on Pollution" is being waged on problems from 
> indigenous manufacturing plants?
> Is it so hard to imagine it was not the naïveté of the benevolent socialist 
> regime but their desire for rapid growth that caused them to cut corners 
> when it was expedient to do so? And that now that they can afford to do so 
> they are dealing with some of the problems created when they postponed 
> addressing controls--as originally planned. Why must this be layed at the 
> feet of western capitalist? 
>  
> It is what it is.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Larry Dungan 
>