Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a population control issue, not a trade issue.

Nope. This is a "wealthy people produce a ton of emissions" issue more than a population issue.

This! We left scarcity behind long ago. We have enough resources to feed and house every single human on this planet. We don't because it isn't profitable for the capital class.

Population growth is naturally slowing as women gain more education and opportunities. The capital class doesn't want that because their system and their wealth and power requires a gigantic labor and consumer class.

We do not have a population problem. We have a distribution of resources problem. Or, in other words, we have a capitalism problem.

Capitalism and its requirement for perpetual growth and prioritization of profits over everything else is inherently at odds with climate change mitigation. It's the increasingly sharpening of these conflicts that is causing the very issues that are throwing everything into chaos.

Capitalism does not have the solutions to the problems we face, free trade or otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:This is a population control issue, not a trade issue.

Nope. This is a "wealthy people produce a ton of emissions" issue more than a population issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Free trade makes everyone wealthier. If you want the Indians, Brazilians, Chinese, and Nigerians to care about the environment, you have to bring up their standard of living. Trade does that. Compare the average income in China in the 1980s to now. Trade did that. Same for South Korea.

Poor people will burn coal and wood for heat and fuel. Poor people will over fish and cut down forests to graze their animals. Only rich people have the luxury to think about the environment.

While this is generally true, it relies on lifting those standards of living by moving that manufacturing economy to someplace else - continuing the cycle.

Until the entire world has the same environmental standards that the US has, nothing changes.

The only way the entire world can have the same environmental standards is if you lift the world's population out of poverty. Concern for the environment is a luxury good.

And then you wouldn’t be able to cheaply manufacture anything, anywhere. Because a society only gets lifted out of poverty by access to cheap goods made somewhere else, that leaves disposable income for other things like homes, food, discretionary spending.

In a system like you describe, everyone would be back to baseline poverty again.

Cheap goods is relative. The Chinese produce cheap goods. Their income is much less than that of the Europeans or Americans, but they are much wealthier than they were 30 years ago. China is moving away from coal toward renewable energy sources. China is developing electric vehicles that are cheaper than US EVs. China could not achieve that while it was a closed economy.

Somalis and Eritreans are not going to worry about the environment until their bellies are full.

This is a population control issue, not a trade issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Free trade makes everyone wealthier. If you want the Indians, Brazilians, Chinese, and Nigerians to care about the environment, you have to bring up their standard of living. Trade does that. Compare the average income in China in the 1980s to now. Trade did that. Same for South Korea.

Poor people will burn coal and wood for heat and fuel. Poor people will over fish and cut down forests to graze their animals. Only rich people have the luxury to think about the environment.

While this is generally true, it relies on lifting those standards of living by moving that manufacturing economy to someplace else - continuing the cycle.

Until the entire world has the same environmental standards that the US has, nothing changes.

The only way the entire world can have the same environmental standards is if you lift the world's population out of poverty. Concern for the environment is a luxury good.

But we wealthy people cause much higher emissions than people in developing countries.
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-emit-much-planet-heating-pollution-two-thirds-humanity#:~:text=According%20to%20SEI's%20research%2C%20a,tons%20CO2%20equivalent%20per%20year.

I'm all for lifting people out of poverty, but doing it in order to deal with climate change is, well, counter-productive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Free trade makes everyone wealthier. If you want the Indians, Brazilians, Chinese, and Nigerians to care about the environment, you have to bring up their standard of living. Trade does that. Compare the average income in China in the 1980s to now. Trade did that. Same for South Korea.

Poor people will burn coal and wood for heat and fuel. Poor people will over fish and cut down forests to graze their animals. Only rich people have the luxury to think about the environment.

While this is generally true, it relies on lifting those standards of living by moving that manufacturing economy to someplace else - continuing the cycle.

Until the entire world has the same environmental standards that the US has, nothing changes.

The only way the entire world can have the same environmental standards is if you lift the world's population out of poverty. Concern for the environment is a luxury good.

And then you wouldn’t be able to cheaply manufacture anything, anywhere. Because a society only gets lifted out of poverty by access to cheap goods made somewhere else, that leaves disposable income for other things like homes, food, discretionary spending.

In a system like you describe, everyone would be back to baseline poverty again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Free trade makes everyone wealthier. If you want the Indians, Brazilians, Chinese, and Nigerians to care about the environment, you have to bring up their standard of living. Trade does that. Compare the average income in China in the 1980s to now. Trade did that. Same for South Korea.

Poor people will burn coal and wood for heat and fuel. Poor people will over fish and cut down forests to graze their animals. Only rich people have the luxury to think about the environment.

+1

I’m not sure I buy this. The US is one of the richest countries in the world and is also the biggest emitter of carbon, isn’t it? If you take into account the pollution and emissions from stuff produced in other countries for US consumers then it’s far worse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Free trade makes everyone wealthier. If you want the Indians, Brazilians, Chinese, and Nigerians to care about the environment, you have to bring up their standard of living. Trade does that. Compare the average income in China in the 1980s to now. Trade did that. Same for South Korea.

Poor people will burn coal and wood for heat and fuel. Poor people will over fish and cut down forests to graze their animals. Only rich people have the luxury to think about the environment.

While this is generally true, it relies on lifting those standards of living by moving that manufacturing economy to someplace else - continuing the cycle.

Until the entire world has the same environmental standards that the US has, nothing changes.

The only way the entire world can have the same environmental standards is if you lift the world's population out of poverty. Concern for the environment is a luxury good.

Anonymous wrote:Free trade makes everyone wealthier. If you want the Indians, Brazilians, Chinese, and Nigerians to care about the environment, you have to bring up their standard of living. Trade does that. Compare the average income in China in the 1980s to now. Trade did that. Same for South Korea.

Poor people will burn coal and wood for heat and fuel. Poor people will over fish and cut down forests to graze their animals. Only rich people have the luxury to think about the environment.

+1

In the debate, JD Vance brought up exactly this point.

Anonymous wrote:Free trade makes everyone wealthier. If you want the Indians, Brazilians, Chinese, and Nigerians to care about the environment, you have to bring up their standard of living. Trade does that. Compare the average income in China in the 1980s to now. Trade did that. Same for South Korea.

Poor people will burn coal and wood for heat and fuel. Poor people will over fish and cut down forests to graze their animals. Only rich people have the luxury to think about the environment.

While this is generally true, it relies on lifting those standards of living by moving that manufacturing economy to someplace else - continuing the cycle.

Until the entire world has the same environmental standards that the US has, nothing changes.

Free trade makes everyone wealthier. If you want the Indians, Brazilians, Chinese, and Nigerians to care about the environment, you have to bring up their standard of living. Trade does that. Compare the average income in China in the 1980s to now. Trade did that. Same for South Korea.

Poor people will burn coal and wood for heat and fuel. Poor people will over fish and cut down forests to graze their animals. Only rich people have the luxury to think about the environment.

"Grow local, buy local, unless Trump."

This seems to be an often overlooked challenge associated with unfettered free trade - why isn't there more discussion about the impact that massive trade has on our planet? I have seen a statistic where 20-30% of global CO2 emissions are associated with international trade - this doesn't even take into account concept like pollution haven or impact on biodiversity etc.