Which Of The Following Is True About The North American Free Trade Agreement
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce attributed to nafta that U.S. trade in goods and services with Canada and Mexico increased from $337 billion in 1993 to $1.2 trillion in 2011, while the AFL-CIO held the agreement responsible for sending 700,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs to Mexico at that time.  The overall effect of the mexican-U.S. agricultural agreement is controversial. Mexico has not invested in the infrastructure needed for competition, such as efficient railways and highways. This has led to more difficult living conditions for the country`s poor. Mexico`s agricultural exports increased by 9.4% per year between 1994 and 2001, while imports increased by only 6.9% per year over the same period.
 According to a study published in the Journal of International Economics, nafta reduced pollution in manufacturing in the United States: “On average, nearly two-thirds of the reductions in coarse particulate matter (PM10) and sulphur dioxide (SO2) in manufacturing in the United States between 1994 and 1998 are due to trade liberalization after NAFTA.”  The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was inspired by the success of the European Economic Community (1957-1993) in removing tariffs to stimulate trade among its members. Supporters argued that the creation of a free trade area in North America would bring prosperity through increased trade and production, resulting in the creation of millions of well-paying jobs in all participating countries. A review of the 2001 economic outlook of the existing literature showed that NAFTA was a net benefit to Mexico.  In 2003, 80% of Mexico`s trade was with the United States alone. The trade surplus combined with the deficit relative to the rest of the world has led to a dependence on Mexico`s exports. These effects were reflected in the 2001 recession, which led to either a low rate or a negative rate of Mexican exports.  A Chapter 19 panel should consider whether the Agency`s decision was supported by “substantial evidence.” This standard was a considerable tribute to the national agency. Some of the most contentious trade disputes in recent years, such as the U.S.-Canada dispute over conifers, were negotiated ahead of chapter 19 panels. The Clinton administration negotiated an environmental agreement with Canada and Mexico, the North American Environmental Cooperation Agreement (NAAEC), which led to the creation of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) in 1994. In order to allay concerns that nafta, the first regional trade agreement between a developing and two developed countries, would have negative effects on the environment, the Commission was tasked with carrying out an ex post-post environmental assessment it created one of the first ex-post frameworks for the environmental assessment of trade liberalization, which was to provide a certain amount of evidence regarding the initial assumptions concerning NAFTA and the environment. , such as the fear that NAFTA could create a “race to the bottom” of environmental regulation between the three countries or that NAFTA would put pressure on governments to strengthen their environmental protection.  The CEC organized four symposiums on assessing the impact of NAFTA on the environment and requested 47 contributions from leading independent experts on the subject.
 According to the Sierra Club, NAFTA has contributed to the increased use of fossil fuels, pesticides and GMOs.  NAFTA has also contributed to environmentally harmful mining practices in Mexico.  It has prevented Canada from effectively regulating its oil sands industry and has created new legal opportunities for transnational companies to combat environmental legislation.  In some cases, environmental policy has been neglected as a result of trade liberalization; In other cases, NAFTA`s investment protection measures, such as Chapter 11, and measures to address non-dry barriers