The United States on Trade


In the realm of International relations, there are many ways in which states can interact with each other. One of these ways is trade. It can be beneficial for two countries to trade if each has something the other wants. For instance, if one country has raw materials and another makes finished products, then it would be beneficial for them to trade because one will have the raw material needed and then they can trade for finished products. The United States trades with many countries around the world.  When it comes to trade, the U.S. has two main interests: to satisfy local interests by 'winning' trade, and to serve interest groups, which can be seen by looking at how the U.S. went about its environmental policies.
Since the presidency of Richard Nixon in 1969, most of the presidents have worked to pass legislation that was in favor of helping the environment. For instance, Nixon formed a group which eventually started the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Its “main duty was to develop Nixon's first major environmental address, which he delivered to Congress in February of 1970.”[1] The EPA’s first act was passing the Clean Air Act, which “regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources.”[2] It remains one of the most influential pieces of environmental regulation to this day.
These first few steps were taken because interest groups for environmental regulation were influential during his presidency. There were also many places within the U.S. that suffered from pollution. This was a bipartisan effort in which “politicians of all stripes were responding to real and serious problems in the country's towns, suburbs, and wilderness areas.”[3] Because there was a lot of support at the time from both interest groups and politicians on both the right and the left, the first important pieces of legislation for environmental protection were passed.
President Jimmy Carter focused on energy as his primary goal. During his presidency, there were two energy crises that plagued the U.S.. With this in mind, he passed two acts: the Public Utilities Act and the Superfund Act. The public utilities act was Carter’s way to try to convince people to conserve energy. One way to convince people to conserve energy was to give “tax credits to spur individuals and businesses to insulate their homes, stores, and factories.”[4] This in turn would reduce energy consumption. In this case, energy conservation happened to serve environmental interests as well as satisfying local interests by ‘winning’ trade because by conserving energy, the U.S. reduces its need to import fossil fuel resources like oil.
            The next president, Ronald Reagan, did not care for environmental regulations and worked to dismantle them. His main objective was to try to end the Cold War so environmental regulations were last on his mind when the end of the Cold War was near. He felt that dismantling the environmental regulations was the only way for the U.S. to ‘win’ trade by being able to produce more to trade so that the U.S. could help her allies against the communist threat.
The next two presidents advocated for more environmental regulations; however, neither was able to accomplish much. George H.W. Bush was an advocate for the EPA, but his conservative economic policies overshadowed his environmental policies. President Bill Clinton had little success; however, the public had lost interest which meant that politicians were less inclined to do much on the issue. These are examples of how their policies on trade really depended on both satisfying local interests by 'winning' trade and also serving interest groups.
The next president, George W. Bush, worked on U.S. energy independence. Environmental regulations were seen as hindrances to him because they interfered with the capacity of the U.S. to become energy self-sufficient. He advocated for more fossil fuel use which was easier and cheaper to produce than green energy at the time. This policy was seen as ‘winning’ trade because the U.S. no longer needed to import as much oil from the Middle East as it used to before Bush’s presidency.
 The Obama administration worked for more environmental regulation. Public support was higher for environmental regulations, so he was able to do more. The push for green energy and clean air regulations was seen as both good for the environment and a way in which the U.S. could keep its energy independence.
As seen with these past presidents, U.S. interests on trade vary between satisfying interests by ‘winning’ trade, and by serving interest groups. Environmental actions taken by these presidents were determined by their current circumstances and how much that they thought these policies would help or hurt the nation during their time in office.

[1] Richard Nixon on Environment. January 22, 2018. http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Richard_Nixon_Environment.htm.
[2] "Summary of the Clean Air Act." EPA. August 24, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act.
[3] Alexis C. Madrigal, "Gallery: Why Nixon Created the EPA," The Atlantic, December 02, 2010, , https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/gallery-why-nixon-created-the-epa/67351/.
[4] "The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act," Powering A Generation: Power History #5 (main Frame-set), , http://americanhistory.si.edu/powering/past/history4.htm.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

U.S Foreign Policy towards Middle East

After World War II, the overriding concern of American foreign policy was finding a new way to check Soviet expansion and influence throughout the world. The Middle East, specifically, was a vulnerable target for the U.S. and Soviet Union after British and French colonialism. That said, US foreign policy towards the Middle East was not completely linear during the past century. Instead, it can be divided into two periods — during the Cold War and after the Cold War. During the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy was mostly a reaction to Soviet strength, position, and action. [1] After the Cold War, the Middle East — being considered as part of the Third World, was to be “exploited” for the needs of the industrial societies and to “fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market.”[2] In other words, peace and oil have been the main focus of US foreign policy in the Middle East after the Cold War.  During the Cold War, the Soviet goal was to achieve strategic pari...
Read more

Memorandum on US policy on the Paris Agreement

TO: President Donald Trump FROM: Matt Fitzgerald DATE: April 29, 2018 SUBJECT: Memorandum on US policy on the Paris Agreement Introduction Climate change has been increasingly affecting Earth ever since the industrial revolution. Earth has been becoming warmer every month. Sea levels have been rising, and coastlines have been disappearing. Something needs to be done so that the effects of climate change do not become permanent. There have been many failed global attempts to decrease our carbon emissions, and many countries including the three largest polluters, the U.S., China, and India are reluctant to do so. Only one attempt looks promising to help start the trend towards using green energy. The Paris Accords might not be perfect, but it is a good start to the world using green energy. Option 1 Pulling out of the Accords will be a reckless long-term decision. The U.S. needs to be the leader of the free world. The U.S. is the largest polluter in terms of population. W...
Read more

Memorandum on United States Foreign Policy Regarding North Korea

Memorandum Memorandum on United States Foreign Policy Regarding North Korea To: President Donald Trump CC: Professor Shirk From: Foreign Policy Analyst, Victoria Hassan Subject: The North Korean Nuclear Arsenal Dilemma Issue: If not already, North Korea is very close to achieving nuclear armed international ballistic missile capability that is capable of reaching the United States and other regions of North America. Even to experts, North Korea’s motive and intentions for building up a nuclear arsenal have been quite unclear and unpredictable. Recently, there has been much debate as to whether or not the United States should take military action regarding North Korea’s reluctance to denuclearize the entire Korean Peninsula. However, U.S. military action and complete U.S.  inaction are not the only options for dealing with North Korea. Option 1: Trump-Kim Summit Peaceful Negotiations Avoiding military action and possibly the use of nuclear weapons agai...
Read more