Question

As an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agent, I see both good and bad things about NAFTA. While it helped trade between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, it also caused a lot of environmental damage. The agreement didn’t do enough to protect the environment, and many factories moved to Mexico where the rules for pollution were much weaker. This led to more pollution, especially along the U.S.-Mexico border. Even though there was a plan in place for cooperation on environmental issues, it wasn’t strong enough, and the rules weren’t enforced, which made it hard to stop the damage. The USMCA, which replaced NAFTA, is a big improvement when it comes to the environment. It includes stronger protections, like commitments to fight pollution and help address climate change. It also has better rules to make sure countries follow through on their promises to protect the environment, so there are actual consequences if they don’t. Plus, the USMCA has measures to help stop illegal wildlife trade, which is important for keeping ecosystems safe. Although it’s still hard to make sure everyone follows these rules, the USMCA is definitely better for the environment than NAFTA was. It shows that we can have trade and still protect the planet.

Make it 2 sentences and like a 9th grader

Answer 1

NAFTA helped trade between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, but it also led to more pollution, especially because factories moved to Mexico where the environmental rules were weaker. In contrast, the USMCA, which replaced NAFTA, includes stronger protections for the environment and better ways to make sure that countries actually follow through on their commitments.