Want a Cleaner Environment? Trade Freely.

That's an interesting interpretation of the tariffs discussed in these climate change talks. I always thought it was an issue of any reforms being useless if only the US and Europe did them, so other countries that did not sign on would need to have a de facto carbon tax instituted in the form of a tariff. I never heard about these "carbon tariffs" as a way of protecting domestic industry.

Many on the left want to see a lot fewer people in the world. They have seized on the idea of CO2 forcing because much of our energy production and transportation produces CO2. Holding out the threat of extreme climate warming is a means to get political forces behind the restriction of CO2 production and thus putting a damper on economic activity.

"damper on economic activity"

And imposing population control. The foundational premise of the environmentalist is the stipulation--the completely arbitrary definition--of human activity as evil.

The only reason the free market might be able to 'save the environmentalist' because it allows people to be remove from living close to nature thus allowing them to romanticise it. However I heard a claim that the Soviet environmentalist record wasn't that bad for the whole of their country because people didn't occupy every piece of Russia and many areas were left untouched. However what of China's and North Korea's environtmentalist record? I hear North Korea's is quite good. The environment of Cambodia would have been much improved during Pol Pot's reign as cities were abandoned and nature was allowed to take over. Not to mention the Medieval Era was environmentally-friendly as few people were alive then and didn't have the technology to mass clear and farm the land.

I think there's a big difference between "nature taking over" and a healthy environment. A healthy environment really just means a functional sustainable environment given a human presence. The Earth was warmer than it is today - and the environment was fine. The Earth was cooler than it is today - and the environment is fine. Environmental health means sustainably healthy and enjoyable for humans. The only reason why warming is disconcerting now is because of how it negatively impacts us. The environment will change in response, but we provide the valuation of those changes.

I am currently taking a "Global Futures" political science class, and one of the arguments put forth against global free trade is the "economic footprint" of extended lines of supply. In other words, if I were to buy oranges from California, it would save all the pollution created by the trucks which have to otherwise ship them from Florida. And, according to their statistics, the ecological footprint of the average person from an industrialized country is much larger than that of a non-industrialized country, which goes to show that you will not necessarily conserve more the wealthier you get. On the other hand, I'm not sure how they came up with these statistics.

Don't get me wrong. I am a libertarian and agree with free trade and deregulation. On the other hand, I have not been able to reconcile the fact that the wealthier individual does not have a smaller ecological footprint than the poorer individual. As aforementioned, though, the problem is how they came up with that figure. Does it have to do with production per individual, as opposed to actual pollution per individual?

Your thoughts?

You make the incorrect assumption that there is a problem with having a larger "footprint". There isn't.

I'm sorry, but those are very poor arguments. I did not necessarily make a case. I stated arguments which I have not been able to reconcile yet.

My guess is that the footprint is just measured in distance to reach destination added in with the carbon emissions of the transport. This really has little to do with the real 'ecological footprint'. I won't bely my ignorance by talking about oranges in America, but I know here in New Zealand there has been some concern over European countries advertising the 'food miles' for all produce which makes NZ produce look really costly to the environment. However once you account for the fact that NZ has superior farming land than alot of the European countries and hence can produce food far more efficiently, the NZ produce has actually contributed much less carbon pollution than the European produce.
Also I believe I read this in 'The Undercover Economist', transportation of goods is generally pretty efficient and therefore the pollution per good is generally very small, small enough that if you drive to the shops to pick up an orange, you have probably emitted more carbon on your way than the 'ecological footprint' of the transportation of that orange even if it were from the other side of the world.
Hence i believe looking at 'ecological footprints' of goods is largely irrelavent to any environmental or economic considerations.

Think about those costs that are *free* to the producer. Then you can see why they make the decisions they make. Add those costs to your models. Make sure to include the "economic footprint" in your analysis of *free* services -- but try to identify who is paying for it, because it might be you. If your share of the cost to access *free* services is less than the "economic footprint" ...

Are you really trying to interpret what I'm writing or do you understand that it is all bullshit?

worried about ecological footprint?.stop breathing.that'll set your conscience free