Personal tools
 
Views

Argument: Free trade and markets benefit the environment

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 09:39, 8 October 2007 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Supporting evidence)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 09:40, 8 October 2007 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Supporting evidence)
Next diff →
Line 2: Line 2:
*[[Debate:Free trade and globalization]] *[[Debate:Free trade and globalization]]
-==Supporting evidence==+==Markets and free trade do better than state-intervention in producing positive environmental results==
*'''Martin Wolf, ''Why Globalization Works?''. Yale University Press. 2004. ISBN 0-300-10777-3. pp 56.''' - "Business is supposedly indifferent to the environment. That, indeed, is one of the principal criticisms of a market economy. Yet, we now know that supposedly benevolent state-socialist economies were environmental catastrophes. The market economy has avoided these disasters for at least four reasons: first, it provides the means for independent critics of environmental abuses to flourish; second, it generates the prosperity that makes people concerned about the environment; third, it implies a separation between companies and the government that makes independent regulation possible; and finally, companies are concerned about their reputations and will act to protect them, in response to campaigning against them. For these reasons, effective environmental pressure groups have emerged only in market democracies." *'''Martin Wolf, ''Why Globalization Works?''. Yale University Press. 2004. ISBN 0-300-10777-3. pp 56.''' - "Business is supposedly indifferent to the environment. That, indeed, is one of the principal criticisms of a market economy. Yet, we now know that supposedly benevolent state-socialist economies were environmental catastrophes. The market economy has avoided these disasters for at least four reasons: first, it provides the means for independent critics of environmental abuses to flourish; second, it generates the prosperity that makes people concerned about the environment; third, it implies a separation between companies and the government that makes independent regulation possible; and finally, companies are concerned about their reputations and will act to protect them, in response to campaigning against them. For these reasons, effective environmental pressure groups have emerged only in market democracies."
- 
==Companies must maintain an environmentally sound reputation or suffer market consequences== ==Companies must maintain an environmentally sound reputation or suffer market consequences==
==Counter-argument== ==Counter-argument==
==See also== ==See also==

Revision as of 09:40, 8 October 2007

Parent debate(s)

Markets and free trade do better than state-intervention in producing positive environmental results

  • Martin Wolf, Why Globalization Works?. Yale University Press. 2004. ISBN 0-300-10777-3. pp 56. - "Business is supposedly indifferent to the environment. That, indeed, is one of the principal criticisms of a market economy. Yet, we now know that supposedly benevolent state-socialist economies were environmental catastrophes. The market economy has avoided these disasters for at least four reasons: first, it provides the means for independent critics of environmental abuses to flourish; second, it generates the prosperity that makes people concerned about the environment; third, it implies a separation between companies and the government that makes independent regulation possible; and finally, companies are concerned about their reputations and will act to protect them, in response to campaigning against them. For these reasons, effective environmental pressure groups have emerged only in market democracies."

Companies must maintain an environmentally sound reputation or suffer market consequences

Counter-argument

See also

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.