Globoecopragmatism: How to Think (and How Not to Think) About Trade and the Environment

Globalization—for better or for worse—is the great politicaleconomic-legal issue of the first part of the twenty-first century. Thoughtful commentators in recent years have started to respond to the strident critics of globalization who tend to blame expanded international trade and direct foreign investment for a host of social ills—from American job losses and a race to the bottom in wages to attacks on environmental laws to compromised health standards. The principal thesis of this Article is that globalization is not as bad for the environment as its critics contend and, in many ways, is good for the environment in the long term. Yet, there are pragmatic steps that the international community can take to more intelligently ameliorate tradeinduced environmental degradation and to better balance free trade with ecological protection. Make no mistake, this Article has attitude. I do not pretend to have selected an objective, scientific sample of writings on trade and the environment. Rather, I have chosen material which I find to be interesting. My objective is to take apart the work of six recently published pieces on trade and the environment and then to synthesize the most robust insights contained in these publications into various pragmatic principles that will provoke a debate among scholars and policymakers on a global, practical, trade-enhancing, environmentally protective legal strategy for the future. My name for this overarching framework for thinking clearly and wisely about trade and environmental issues also has attitude: with an eye toward the elegant and an ear toward the rhythmic, I suggest the name globoecopragmatism. In the course of my discussion, as I deem it useful, and helpful, I will employ the views of other scholars.