The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
The TPP opened North America’s door to imports of milk (in Canada) and sugar (in the U.S.), but just a crack. It seems that North American farmers are giving away very little, and getting a lot in return.
The crops with lobbyists and political connections seem to have gotten help. Sugar isn’t a particularly large part of the American economy, but I’m not surprised that it didn’t have to make significant concessions, because sugar growers have long had outsized sway in Washington, D.C.
If we could do away with this sort of extraordinary influence, bringing down trade barriers could be good for the environment. … international trade allows these products to come from the environments best suited for their production. A farmer in Australia growing sugarcane can produce a lot more sugar, using less land and energy, than a farmer in Idaho growing sugar beets. Similarly, it’s more efficient to produce milk in New Zealand than the U.S. or Canada, where the weather is often too cold, or dry, to support pastures for the cows.
In principle, free trade is just about eliminating tariffs. But in practice, “free trade” too often favors the rich and powerful. Instead of everyone booting their trade barriers and subsidies, it’s often the poor countries that drop their trade barriers, while, in return, the rich countries protect their constituent industries a tiny bit less.
Read full, original post: What the TPP means for agricultural greenhouse gas emissions