Randall Young wrote:
> . . . the MTBE lawsuit is still pending, and it is exactly what
> you say : a Canadian company (Methanex) saying we have
> to use their poison in our gasoline because otherwise we
> would damage their company !
>
> Check out
> http://forums.transnationale.org/viewtopic.php?t=131
We're getting a bit far afield here, and I'm hardly a defender of NAFTA, but
I went to the source you cited and it certainly doesn't appear nearly as
simple as a claim that "we have to use their poison in our gasoline because
otherwise we would damage their company".
NAFTA does prohibit "unfair" or "arbitrary" protection of domestic
industries, but Methanex's claim seems to be that its product was banned in
California as the result of a secret meeting between California governor
Gray Davis and officials of Archer-Daniels-Midland (maker of the competing
ethanol additive), in the course of which ADM officials agreed to make over
$200,000 in contributions to Davis' campaign.
Whether that's true, and whether it constitutes a violation of NAFTA or is
just "politics as usual", are the subject of legitimate debate.
Jim Hill
/// triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|