Fifty Years of Change on the U.S.-Mexico Border: Growth, Development, and Quality of Life

Chapter 5. The Environment

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ chapter 5 the environment The maquiladora boom of the 1980s and 1990s and the accompanying population growth in the Mexican border region dramatically increased strains on the environment. The direct impacts of increased manufacturing activity include the generation of toxic wastes, chemical spills, pressures on water and wastewater treatment, air emissions, and other side effects of industrialization. Indirectly, the growth of border manufacturing increased the demand for labor and contributed to a rapid migration to the border region at a time when many regions of Mexico had fewer employment opportunities. Population in the Mexican border region increased by 31 percent in the decade of the 1980s and by a staggering 45 percent in the decade of the 1990s (see Figure 2.2). Rapid population growth generates its own set of environmental pressures, in particular those related to water quality, wastewater treatment, air quality, waste disposal, and wildlife preservation. Though not all migration to the Mexican border is related to border manufacturing, in light of the border’s other attractions, not the least of which is proximity to the United States, the dynamism and job opportunities of border manufacturing acted as an irresistible magnet for many people in the interior of Mexico. The multiplier effect of factory employment generates jobs in retail, construction, government, and all other areas of economic activity, creating employment and acting as a pull factor in attracting migrants to Mexico’s northern border. Rapid population growth on the U.S. side also increased demand for energy plants, intensified U.S. use of shared water resources, put millions more cars on the roads, and generated environmental impacts that spill over into Mexico. Americans complain about sewage overflows from 104 chapter 5 Tijuana that have contaminated beaches in Southern California, but at the same time Southern California’s air pollution flows into Baja California, and pesticides and other farm chemicals often pollute the water flowing south into Mexico. Polluted water and air do not respect international borders, and the environmental pressures associated with growth on one side of an international boundary are not constrained by that boundary. In the U.S.-Mexico border region there is no escape from environmental cost sharing. border fears and hopes In the run-up to the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), various governmental and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) provided estimates of what it would cost to address all the environmental issues in the U.S. and Mexican border regions. The estimates varied greatly, but most were in the $5 billion to $12 billion range.1 It is probably safe to assume that no one knows for certain what the costs are, in part because there is no consensus as to what would constitute adequate cleanup, restoration, and conservation. It is also probably safe to assume that what most people would consider a reasonable set of actions would require billions of dollars in expenditures. Before the Clinton administration could seek passage of NAFTA, it was forced to take into account environmental concerns. These concerns were embodied in the side agreement to NAFTA called the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC). The major concern for supporters of NAAEC was that polluting firms would migrate to Mexico , where lower standards or lax enforcement might permit them to use less expensive, more pollution-intensive production processes. In other words, Mexico would become a pollution haven where firms could pollute more freely. Herman Daly succinctly captured this view in his 1993 debate with the noted trade economist and proponent of free trade, Jagdish Bhagwati.2 Daly’s position was that free trade creates an environmental “race to the bottom” by allowing firms to relocate production in countries that do not enforce environmental rules. According to Daly, this reduces their costs and gives them a competitive advantage. Further, even if they do not move, the threat of moving gives them an upper hand in seeking a reduction in environmental (and labor) standards and enforcement in the United States (or wherever they are located). Consequently, free trade and the movement of firms set off a competition among countries to see who can lower their environmental standards furthest and fastest. the environment 105 Bhagwati’s position in this debate was that trade and foreign investment can raise living standards and that countries with higher standards are usually cleaner and less polluting. That is, environmental goods such as clean air and water can be analyzed like...