The question speaks for itself no need to insist there

At a time where observers assess the risk of a possible failure in Copenhagen, seeks to stave off without making unacceptable concessions by public opinion, the theme of green protectionism (re) arises. The premise of the reasoning is simple. The protection of the environment is a necessity of general interest in which all should get involved. The question speaks for itself, no need to insist there. Moreover, the WTO itself recognizes that the preservation of the environment is part of these legitimate objectives which may justify that a State abstraie of its obligations. Second stage of reasoning: should not renounce to engage in this protection under the pretext that others would not, however should be avoided, knowing the cost of this commitment, that the most virtuous are what they regard as a competitive disadvantage on the domestic market to the outside. It is there that takes place the protectionist reflex which always has to do with the look that it relates to a situation of competition, fair or distorted. Considering then measures restricting access to a market of goods or services from other countries (whether it be customs duties, quantitative restrictions, technical or health regulations, etc.), or even promoting the increase or the conservation of the market shares of firms (especially by subsidies), both internal and external plan.

The end of protectionism raises himself ambivalent reactions. These range from the denunciation of a withdrawal dangerous that illusory because and seriously ignoring the benefits of an open trading system where each can benefit from its comparative advantages, the claim of measures justified by the unfair nature of competition in which liberalised trade register (social or environmental dumping, subsidies, manipulation of exchange rates, etc.). Priori irreconcilable positions that benefit each of their battery of more or less refined arguments. The question then is whether if colouring protectionism in green indicates a specificity which changes the terms of this debate. Without suggesting exhaust it, may be at least two questions: to protect themselves from that Protect what

Those who sought to protect themselves, those who do not scramble green technologies are mainly developing countries. No doubt is their argument, that it would handicap them preventing use of production processes on which the rich countries have built their own development, not completely inaudible. But the problem then is how we lose - or keep - memory of the environmental capital consumed in the past to appreciate the burden that must now weigh on each subject.

Indeed, the texts such as the convention on climate change do they not accept the principle of differentiated responsibilities Certainly, but among developing countries, there are also these emerging countries readily suspected of being so poor. In addition, it takes the risk that economic operators is relocate their activities to benefit from more tolerant laws and therefore lower costs. Misfortune of virtue, it could lose on all tables, while the issue is urgent and requires that looking primarily to the future.

What you would like to protect, are at least all economic activities for which adaptation to environmental constraints is generating additional costs, not by technology that need to acquire and develop. Because it is better to convince them that compel them, it would be desirable that they see not a disability. This could even be an advantage, provided you have the time to conquer them. Of course, but should we make an advantage by capitalizing the crossing the fruits of the conquered advance Cannot be answered in the affirmative without knowing how the device becomes autoblocker or the circular process.

The hiatus is always the same: how inject solidarity requires a common cause in a system based on the theory of comparative advantage and therefore the only competition Easy, tell, question the system. The query is so fundamental that it becomes unrealistic, and thereby implicitly returned to justify what it claims to challenge. It yet continue to believe that it is not inconceivable to initiate some small, start to really think in terms of redistribution, in particular technology transfer. It is not enough to say that think, and that in the meantime this is protectionism, or better, but green.