And one would think that Finland having all these highly polluting industries, they would be prime candidates for technological innovations on cutting emissions. Yet nobody seems to talk about that – it’s as if the only way to cut emissions from, say, a paper mill is to close it down. Which is hardly the case.

It’s the same with globalization and national governments giving in and taking protectionist measures in order to protect the(ir native) workforce from losing their jobs.

At first, protectionism may seem like an appealing alternative. It most definitely is a policy that will win the general public’s sympathies and support, but as more countries lean towards protectionist behavior, the relative gain of such procedures will pretty soon cease to exist. What we have left then, is a bunch of national economies who have created environments and economical spheres where enterprises will find it harder and harder to do business in as they have lost their competitive edge, and by which they have been lulled into an illusion of not needing to innovate, be productive and contribute to generating prosperity (means) and general well-being (to an end.)

Are anti-globalization activists and politicians (or the researchers at VATT) sure this is the right way to guarantee jobs to citizens (aka voters)? Are they sure it is indeed necessarity to tamper with the workings of the invisible hand?

Like you said, workforce is in the move. Globalization nor emission cutbacks threat the workforce and their jobs as such – in every change there is a possibility. Not all growth is necessarily bad. Not all growth is doomed to cause great pains to our dear planet and its inhabitants. Growth too can be directed so that it creates rather than destroys. Technological innovations and solutions promoting and helping in the fight against climate change are a prime example of actions leading to such growth.

Sorry for preaching. Had to get it out of my system.