The administrative transitional phases in the USA and the European Union, which among others include lack of good networking between the European Union and the USA regarding Environmental policy formulation and implementation. This has given rise to major Controversies and chasm regarding Health & Environmental protection (Denise, 2000). The common reforms and Changes in government controls, laws, or practices that guard or promote the environment at the expense of foreign interests are at the main sources of most environmental health policy conflicts.
European Union member states have not always encompassed leadership in the international environmental policy. The last thirty-five years have led to the role turnaround, in which the United States and the European Union (Kelemen, 1999). When environmental issues started coming into the international lime light in the early 1970s, United States of America was the moist active. On the other hand, the European Union member states participated passively.
The United States of America was head front throughout until the mid-1980s. The United States of America played a major role in the formulation of Montreal Protocol and Vienna Convention. Which were meant to protect the Ozone destruction by the chlofloro carbons at that time, European governments remained behind the scenes in the 1970s and early 1980s, and they even resisted United States of America’s pressure, for action against ozone depletion until 1987 (Sragia, 2000).
The European Union then changed from being laggards to leader in International environmental policy between the late nineteen eighties and early nineteen nineties, and the European Union’s leadership dominance continued to strengthen throughout the 1990s. Environmentalists gained political influence across the European Union members’ governmental level. In Western Europe, the situation of Green parties and environmental activists, become much strong right through the late nineteen seventies and nineteen eighties (Mair 2001).
Germany leading from the front the green member States which included Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Austria and Netherlands pressurized the European Union to adopt influential environmental policies to be used across European Union jurisdiction (Vogel, 2004). Coming to the mid nineteen eighties up to present the European Union has formed very influential environmental regulation policies and instruments with abroad spectrum from rules on pollution, to recycling and waste management, to genetically modified organisms, to hazardous chemical regulation.
The United States and the European Union relationship has been faced with challenges recently regarding the current strong standard regarding to the environment and health protection that European Union has formed. Many foreign policy conflicts have emerged between these two giant parties. The causes of conflict have been wide and varied, although some of the European Union member states are not limited in their views, many European Union member states have resorted to at least some fundamentals of U. S. A policy on some policy issues.
Genetically modified organisms One of the major controversies regarding Environmental and health protection facing the EU and the U. S. A is the issue of genetically modified organisms. In reaction to increasing health, wellbeing, consumer safety and environmental issues in Europe, the European Union has created a rigorous authoritarian administration for genetically modified organisms. The European Union former key measure came with a nineteen ninety ordinance, which indicated that genetically modified organisms seeds to be authorized before releasing them to the European market.
The European Union also has formulated regulations controlling the labelling of genetically modified organisms (Pollack, 2005). The European Union remained committed to the restriction of genetically modified organisms. The European Union move towards regulation of genetically modified food controlled by the principle of precaution; this principle gives the policy makers a guide and standards to enable them to control inflow and use of genetically modified organisms that have proposed risks.
The European Union authoritarian system for the control of genetically modified organisms has been on the limelight and on debates gaining global pressure in the form of possible lawful attacks before at the world trade organization. The United States of America has been more lax on this approach by Europe regarding the genetically modified organisms’ regulation, and the United States of American companies have become enormous traders of genetically modified seeds and crops.
The United States of America, has seen the European Union’s genetically modified organisms control, as unreasonable, and when the European Union made the control of the genetically modified organisms more strict and tough. The United States of America threatened to put forward a legal action before the World Trade Organization just like it did to win the issue of European Union‘s restriction on hormone treated meat. With the rise of the so-called backlash against Frankenstein foods, any opportunity of solving the heated discussion through opening the European market to genetically modified organisms became an opinionated non-starter.
Hence, European Union policy-makers were faced with regional or a set of policies, which controlled and kept pressure on genetically modified organisms, policies that were also found to be violating the World Trade Organization rules (Young 2003). To counter the violation of the World Trade Organization rules that resulted after formulation of the stringent policies that restricted the inflow of genetically modified organisms the European Union pressurizes for the formation of a set of rules to the nineteen ninety two Biodiversity on Convention (Schaper, 2005).
The European Union also participated actively in the Cartagena modus operandi on Biosafety signed in 2000. The Protocol of Cartagena used the previous European Union’s precautionary principle as a rationale for the containing the imports of GMO’S. As little European producers manufactured such GMO’S. , they had nothing to lose from an global settlement barring the trade on genetically modified organisms, moreover the stood to benefit incase such trade barriers raised the costs of the genetically modified organisms for their American competitors.
By structuring its own set of controls on the global level, the European Union improved the authority of the precautionary principle and improved the possibility that European Union rules could tolerate assessment in front of the World Trade Organization (Peter, 2000). Climate Change and Energy Security The European Union has full commitment on climate change and international environmental issues though there was deviation in the United States of America and European Union policies in the past decade.
The repudiation of the Kyoto protocol led to policy conflict in the United States of America and European Union. The United States of America took sides in committing itself on the Kyoto protocol. Climate alteration, which has developed into a global issue, should therefore get a serious review to harmonize and find practical ways, which the European Union can inform, homegrown American Environmental policy enforcers (Aniston, 2000). Likewise, factors related to regulatory competition have encouraged the European Union to take on a headship role in controlling climate change.
As awareness of the threat posed by climate change mounted during the 1990s, domestic political pressure for action to curb green house gases mounted in Europe. The calculus for European policy-makers was clear: given that voters would in any case demand domestic action on climate change, it was clearly preferable to promote action at an international level that would force the European Union competitors to undertake costly measures as well (Lucy, 1998).
Many of the early proposals for measures designed to fight climate change involved increases in energy costs. However, energy costs in Europe were already high relative to those of other oil dependent countries and many European Union members were alarmed regarding the potentiality that can occur due to raising of the energy costs could have on European economic welfare. Before the Rio Earth Summit, the European Union lobbied, eventually in vain, for developed nations to take on the energy tax. enerally, a lot of observers recommended that the want to see other jurisdictions, in particular the United States of America, introduce higher energy duty was a inspiration for the early European Union position on climate change (Buck, 2002). While the Kyoto Protocol indicated that, the European Union to take on expensive measures, at the time of its concession in 1996-1997 the costs of executing the Kyoto Protocol seemed to be far less for the European Union than for the United States.
The Kyoto Protocol wanted the use of 1990 as a baseline year. Besides which reductions in greenhouse gas pollution and emission could be ascertained and wanted similar reductions from the European Union and United States by 2012, but the United States of America had faced faster trade and industrial growth than the European Union in the 1990s, and some of European Union member had reduced their Carbon dioxide emissions (Mair, 2001).
European Union member states have indisputably taken costly actions in an attempt to meet their Kyoto commitment. European Union clearly has tried to encourage other countries to join them in the struggle against climate change. The mere plain fact that the price for complying with the Kyoto protocol seemed to be less costly for the European Union than for some other United States of America made the implementation of the protocol standards more palatable. Beef Hormones.
The contagious issue affecting the EU ban on imported beef treated with growth hormone, which come into action in 1989, has been one of the most contagious issue in trade and environmental health policy issue amongst the EU and U. S. A. The issue has been on each of this two great giant’s limelight and the two have both taken parallel sides in the control of safety of its food against the world trade organization obligations. The European Union supported the prohibiting of the importation and production of beef treated with growth hormone to protect the health and safety of the European beef consumers.
Though the World trade organization decided that the European Union ban had no sufficient technical rationale, the European Union refused to get rid of the ban because of worry that European meet users were not to have such kind of meat in their disposal (Gregory, 2005). In advocating for the ban, the European Union in the year 1999 offered to give the United States of America compensation in the form of an extended allowance for growth hormone free beef.
The United States of America government, supported by many of its meat industry, moved to oppose the proposed compensation by the European Union because exports of the growth hormone free meat could not be an issue to warrant compensation for the loss of growth hormone treated exports. This went a notch ahead to make the United States of America to inflict a hundred percent penalizing tariff on the one hundreds and sixteen million dollars from the European union.
These tariffs, in a twist, led to protests amongst European Union beef farmers, who apprehended on the case as a representation of the danger that could result from the United States of America’s intention. The Consequences of policy Regulatory Differences Regarding the genetically modified organisms and food law, the differences that exist in the policy will remain to be the basis of trade impediments. Some of these differing in opinion regarding the use of genetically modified organisms are significantly sufficient to make strong vested attention in their maintenance (Ann, 2000).
Trade guiding values conflict will continue to occur when dogmatic differences both interfere with trade and will continue to be less than usual to rationalize by diverse circumstances. The genetically modified organisms hot issues between the United states of America and the European union is not all about to continue causing trade hitches but will also cause the inadequacy of food supply and environmental problems (Joseph, 2001). Regarding Climate Change and Energy Security, the Criticism affecting the Kyoto protocol will continue to pose danger to the global inhabitants.
The refusal of the United States of America, to commit itself to the Kyoto protocol, which was promising to give carbon credits to the implementing developed nations. Also owing to the fact that the United States of America is one of the major polluters and carbon dioxide emitters in the world, there will be less to do that has wide outreaching effects by the other members of the Kyoto protocol in the pursuit to curb the climate change potential effects (Daniel, 1999).
On the controversy that is there between EU and the U. S. A can regarding the European Union’s ban on the importation and production of growth hormone treated beef the United States hard stand was feared because of the concerns that other countries could take on such a style which America used and lacked the scientific basis. There are concerns that lack of conformity by the European Union poses to undermine the future capability of the World trade organization to solve the controversy involving the policy procedures. The harmonization and selection of scientific experts have been indefinable, making the process of solving the issue even more difficult.
Hence the more the European Union remains having a hard stand on modifying Theban of growth hormone use in beef the united states tariffs will likely to be kept effective. Conclusions The differences among European Union and the United States of America’s environment and human health policies and regulations in place seem to be such an issue of contention. Bilateral efforts to encourage policy control, networking and cooperation need to be given dear consideration equally in at the governments and private levels in both U. S. A and the EU (Schreurs, 2005).