3 ms·
Actually, the opposite is true: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.91.4.877 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.91.4.877 Similar article
by c3534l 8y ago
Actually, the opposite is true: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.91.4.877 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.91.4.877
Similar articles found via scholar.google.com show the similar results: a relatively small net reduction in pollution output.
Local isn't better for the environment, even though that's the latest California hippy mantra. Efficient is more likely better for the environment.
- craftyguy 8y agoUnfortunately I cannot download that paper to read it.. Got another source?
- akx 8y agoThat article "10.1257/aer.91.4.877" is available on Libgen, for instance. You can google for Libgen.
- coldtea 8y ago>Actually, the opposite is true: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.91.4.877* https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.91.4.877* The "opposite is true" or the opposite has been argued by papers and gets grants because it fits some dominant ideological models and interests? Because tariffs have been tried in the past for centuries, including by the US, and have helped in creating a stable internal economy, and the resulting meteoric rise. Not to mention that politics and global power does not begin and end with what makes more profit or produces cheaper goods.