How to lower living standards and perpetuate poverty

When capital is directed to competitive industries like those, it generates the optimal return. The point of open global markets is to spread this phenomenon as widely as possible. Everybody benefits. That is the theory and practice of free trade. The Greens' policy is not that. It slows, not increases growth.

Low growth policy does not generate sustainability; it reduces the capacity to achieve it. The policies of the Greens would cause a resurgence of protectionism. They would justify it as advancing sustainability, yet it would still protect uncompetitive industries and weaken the economy.

As well, it would turn Australian national trade policy into an instrument to pressure other countries to change national policies. "If you don't adopt our preferred environmental policy, we will restrict your imports," would be the diplomatic message. Green parties in all industrialised economies advocate such measures, particularly in Europe and the US.

There is a singular example now in the form of a Bill in the Australian Senate. This is to ban imports of illegal timber products. Research commissioned by the Rudd/Gillard governments revealed that the incidence of illegal timber products entering Australia is small, so small, that the cost of the controls proposed would damage the Australian economy.

The Greens contend illegal logging is a bigger problem than it is and that it is destroying biodiversity in developing countries.

The damage would occur in two ways. First the cost of all imported timber products would rise. Second, in order to try to obviate WTO rules that imports may not be subject to selective import controls, the government bill plans to require that all Australian timber product put on the market must be shown formally to be produced legally, despite the fact there is no illegal timber of any significance produced in Australia. The systems to demonstrate that will just push up the price of Australian-produced timber to consumers.

This would suit the policy of the Greens to restrict commercial forestry, both in Australia and neighbouring countries. Environmental groups have coaxed, cajoled or greenmailed retailers not to stock timber products from Indonesia or other countries unless they follow the sustainability standards developed by the WWF which curtail expansion of forestry.

The policy of the Greens claims to support developing countries, but it will harm developing countries. The strategy of the policy is to pressure the governments of wealthy countries to use the threat of restricting imports unless developing countries change their environmental policies. This is bullying.

The General Agreement on tariffs and trade was specifically created to prevent large nations using their economic strength to bully smaller economies. It grants those smaller economies an enforceable right in international law to enjoy the benefits of their comparative advantage. Removing that right is what environmental groups seek.

The policy does not state how it wants the WTO reformed, but the WWF and Greenpeace have. They want its capacity to rule against use of trade measures to enforce environmental standards, removed.

There is a more civilised way to behave. That is to respect the sovereign right of each nation to determine its national policies and to develop international laws in the form of international agreements where parties concur in common principles then commit to enact those principles in national law.

The core problem here is that most developing countries do not want environmental policies that subordinate economic development to second place, as the Greens propose. Instead of seeking common ground, the policy of the Greens is to resort to bullying.