Environmentalists argue that trade liberalization harms the
environment. The decisions of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in particular
have been the subject of much criticism. Carbaugh has described
environmentalists’ three primary assertions (Carbaugh, 2004):

Trade liberalization leads to a “race to the
bottom” in environmental standards.

Trade liberalization conflicts with morally-conscious
environmental policies.

Trade liberalization encourages trade in products that
create global pollution (“pollution havens”).

Proponents of trade liberalization argue that freer trade
might actually improve the quality of the environment. For example, the
international environmental policy of the U.S. and other industrial nations is
based on the “polluter-pays principle.” This approach is intended to
give producers the incentive to develop more pollution-control techniques
(Carbaugh, 2004).

In this project, you will recreate and evaluate the
arguments and counter-arguments for all three of the environmentalists’ assertions
described above.

Part 1: Recreate the arguments/counter-arguments

Recreate the arguments for and against the three assertions
noted above (six arguments total). Approach this assignment as an exercise in
critical thinking; your goal is to represent the arguments as accurately and as
thoroughly as possible. For each argument and counter-argument, present the
following information:

The party you represent

Your party’s interests or objectives

Your party’s assertion

A summary of the available evidence that supports your
party’s assertion and/or examples that illustrate the assertion.

Feel free to use the Library or other Web resources to help
recreate the arguments.

Part 2: Summarize and evaluate the
arguments/counter-arguments

Write a 4-5 page document in which you:

Summarize each argument and counter-argument. Be sure to
note the relevant parties in the debate and their interests/objectives.

Evaluate the arguments and counter-arguments. Be sure to
address the following questions:

Can the conflicting positions in these debates be resolved?
If yes, how? If not, why not? Your answer should be well-reasoned and supported
with examples.