Search Climate Insights Directory

This statement by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), submitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance on October 30, 2013, argues that the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) could undermine public health and environmental protections, particularly regarding toxic chemicals. CIEL warns that mechanisms like regulatory harmonization, mutual recognition, and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) may lower safety standards to a 'lowest-common denominator' and chill the development of more protective laws in the U.S., EU, and globally.

Carroll Muffett, President and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), provided testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives on July 24, 2013, regarding the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The statement argues that TTIP could undermine public health and environmental protections, particularly in the chemicals sector, by prioritizing the removal of regulatory barriers over safety standards. Muffett advocates for the retention of national rights to determine health protection levels and the exclusion of investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms.

Carroll Muffett, President and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), provided testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives on July 24, 2013, regarding the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Representing CIEL, Friends of the Earth, and the Sierra Club, Muffett argued that the agreement's focus on reducing regulatory barriers could undermine public health and environmental protections, particularly in the chemicals sector, by favoring industry interests over safety standards.

Carroll Muffett, President and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on July 24, 2013, regarding the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Representing CIEL, Friends of the Earth, and the Sierra Club, Muffett argued that the U.S. chemical regulation system is inadequate and that TTIP risks weakening existing environmental and health standards in the EU and U.S. states rather than improving them.

Oral comments delivered by Baskut Tuncak of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) on May 29, 2013, regarding the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The statement warns against "enhanced regulatory cooperation" on chemicals that might undermine the European Union's more stringent hazard-based regulatory approach in favor of the United States' risk-based approach.

A statement from the Center for International Environmental Law and partner organizations urging the U.S. Congress to oppose the U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) due to its perceived threats to environmental protections and public health.

A statement from the Center for International Environmental Law and other representatives urging the U.S. Congress to strengthen environmental safeguards in the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and to reject them as models for future trade initiatives.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and partner organizations critique HR 3005, the Thomas fast track bill, arguing it fails to protect environmental laws and lacks mandatory objectives to ensure sustainable trade and investment.

An open statement by a coalition of environmental, health, labour, and faith organizations urging the Canadian government to address environmental failings during the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

This document is testimony provided by Robert Housman, a Senior Attorney for the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), to the Trade Subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means on June 21, 1995. The testimony argues for the inclusion of environmental protections in the fast track authority for Chile's accession to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), asserting that environmental standards are necessary to prevent trade distortions and establish a sustainable template for broader hemispheric integration.

This briefing by the Center for International Environmental Law argues that the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) limits the regulatory authority of EU Member States by imposing strict standards on domestic licensing processes, potentially allowing Canadian companies to challenge environmental and social protections through international arbitration.

This briefing by the Center for International Environmental Law examines how the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) could allow Canadian mining companies to challenge Greek mining regulations. It argues that CETA's 'domestic regulatory disciplines'—which require licensing processes to be objective, transparent, and simple—conflict with the discretionary and evolving nature of Greek environmental and technical mining laws.

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law argues that the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada undermines the ability of EU Member States to regulate pesticides. It contends that CETA's focus on regulatory harmonization, its requirement for scientific evidence over the precautionary principle, and its dispute resolution mechanisms create financial and procedural barriers that discourage Member States from enacting protective health and environmental measures.

This report by the Center for International Environmental Law examines how the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) may undermine the ability of EU Member States to regulate industrial pollution, specifically within the chemical manufacturing sector, by allowing companies to challenge subjective or evolving licensing requirements before international arbitration tribunals.

This research paper analyzes the legal and policy frictions between international trade agreements, primarily the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and environmental protections. It examines how GATT principles—such as Most-Favored-Nation and National Treatment—often conflict with environmental measures, including those found in multilateral agreements like the Montreal Protocol and CITES. The authors discuss the implications of the Uruguay Round negotiations and propose options for reconciling trade and environmental goals under the framework of sustainable development.

This IISD report analyzes the inclusion of Good Regulatory Practice (GRP) and International Regulatory Cooperation (IRC) provisions in regional trade agreements (RTAs), with a primary focus on the USMCA and a comparison with CETA. It examines how these provisions aim to reduce non-tariff trade costs and improve regulatory transparency and stakeholder engagement, while highlighting the administrative and political challenges these obligations may pose for developing countries.