There is one thing glaringly obvious in the absence of free-trade and a truly globalised economy and that is the proposed elixir (snake-oil) to reduce world carbon emissions – the carbon trading scheme. If we can’t get right the equitable (so called ‘level playing field’) trading of the real commodities we can actually quantify how do we imagine we’ll trade something you can’t package, eat, use, transport and be lucky to measure with any real accuracy? But, if we’re smart (and there are many who are) there is the likelihood for huge profits to be made. Encouraging this new ‘higher’ form of company and government corruption are the anti-globalisation, protectionist and other trade barrier movements. Quite ironically, these often ‘green’ credentialed groups have an ethos amounting to the sanctioning and entrenching of an imbalance in the trade and distribution of carbon.

Ultimately, if a carbon trading scheme is taken to its logical conclusion, where the total non-production of carbon becomes the most profitable practice, the world produces less fibre, fewer goods and less industry. All the while, we’re less able to cope with the real effects of the impending climate change. Controlling our pollutants and good planet stewardship may really need divorcing from the profit motive if we are to be totally serious about ‘saving the planet’.

Bollocks! And bollocks again!

According to the gospel of "free" trade the impoverished farmer and outfits such as Cargill stand as equals in the market-place.

And that I as a private citizen also stand in the market place, with the same legal rights as BHP-Billiton.

These two related references give a completely different perspective as to what such "free" trade actually does to the oommon man and his/her culture.

1. http://relocalize.net/node/4770

2. http://www.we-the-people-book.com

Lomborg is a known dissembler, distorter and obfuscator... he is free to speak here... and you are free to make up your own mind.
See the article "So what's wrong with Lomborg?" at
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/so_whats_wrong_with_lomborg.php#more

The bio introducing him should include references to the long list of "errors" in all his publications.

The value of trading bread, butter and medical services is a proven, whereby trading a mythical global warming nonsense is purely socialist political nothingness and therefore tangibly worthless. Now who is chasing their tail with no further positive contributions for society except old command control procrastination and rebadging of failed left wing social engineering models complete with their own little personal eccentricities. I do pity the lonely left.

The unhappy connection between free trade and global warming is that fossil fuels are running out; oil is on a production plateau, on a global scale gas will peak soon and easily mined coal in about 20 years. That means barring the manufacture of petrol from coal that rapid international freight must get a lot more expensive. It may also mean global warming may slow as fuels decline but perhaps melting ice and tundra will keep going where human emissions left off. Topical fruit air freighted to middle latitudes (eg Caribbean bananas to the UK) will be so expensive it will overwhelm the advantages of growing in prime habitat. The Brits might change to locally grown kiwifruit on their cereal instead. The gains from geographic specialisation assume cheap transport of goods. When that transport is no longer cheap local production will return. Perhaps people should relocate to where there is more food instead. Global relocation, not global trade.

"Perhaps people should relocate to where there is more food instead."

The cost of relocating a family of four, say, is considerably more than their food bills for the next decade. Most of our spending on food is discretionary anyway -- we buy most foods because we want to eat them, not because they are necessary for survival. It's a lot easier -- and healthier -- for people to cut down or find alternatives to luxury foods than it is to uproot whole cities and move them elsewhere.

Many of our tariffs and trade restrictions were imposed at a time when Australia was deemed to be under threat of attack and it was thought necessary for us to be 'self-sufficient'. Free trade is our 'peace dividend': what a pity that it's taken over sixty years to finally get here.

John J,
Discretionary? Have you tried to raise a family on Social Security?
Not every SS recipient is a stereo typical drug/booze addled bludger/loser.
Neither would the 2/3 of the world that’s starving or living below the poverty line agree with your myopic stance.
Consider that if transport goes up everything goes up including medicine, schooling, foreign aid etc. I suggest you rethink your stance.
BTW the free trade talks have collapsed ergo free trade is still a dream.

Dallas,
I agree that if we can't get agreement on free trade a global carbon trading is unlikely to happen.
BTW Global Warming isn't the issue it’s Global Climate Change. As for that not happening? Look around at all the environmental collapses the despoliation of our food baskets. Most capital's water problems, the Murray/Darling, SW N.S.W. Central S.A., SW W.A., The Mallee all with Water, Salinity and desertification and falling productivity issues. And that’s only some of Australia’s woes. Multiply that world wide then ponder on why we should ignore the issue.

All Man made? Most likely man aggravated. It is clearly a cumulative consequence. (The straw that broke…. If you like). Either way we can’t continue our profligate ways without catastrophic consequences.
If carbon trading redresses some of these issues we all win see ABC story on Bio sequestration in SW W.A.
Capitalism encourages the most efficient (exploitive) usage of capital rarely the best. Quick profits are the cause why shouldn't they help fund the solution?