Instead, he argues that the international economic default position should not be one of free trade but of domestic goods for domestic markets because the efficiency gains from free trade are not enough to offset the costs to community and the environment. As interesting as the debate between economists and environmentalists has been, so far it has produced more heat than light. Instead of concentrating on the institutional or philosophical aspects of this intellectual divergence, this study instead focuses on its methodological aspects under the three headings of correlation, costs, and complexity. Correlation refers to coincident processes that, when noticed, give rise to questions, positions, and debates. Costs refer to the economists' penchant for adjudicating such debates by turning to the empirical record to determine which positions are supported by facts.
Complexity highlights the theoretical limits of counting costs.
The first heading regards correlation. Both the economists' and environmentalists' positions rest on strong, empirically-grounded results. He adds that environmentalists all too often rely on vague emotional intimations rather than developed theories and data. In short, environmentalists are in error when they fear that trade, through growth, will necessarily increase pollution. How to make this argument in a convincing manner however remains an ongoing project.