For better or worse, we live in a world in which the relevance of fossil fuels in the energy sector is criticized, talking about climate change and the indispensability of promoting new types of renewable energy, as well as, in some cases, the alternative of using nuclear energy.
Political leaders are challenged because of fossil fuels and, in particular circumstances, radical actions are carried out against said leaders and even sabotage against important infrastructures.
Not being a supporter of “radical gestures”, I understand, however, the concern of a part of public opinion, and it is, however, certain that it is necessary to adopt a realistic and serious stance on the problems we are facing.
It is impossible to forget that renewable energies suffer from the problem of intermittency, that oil and natural gas do not cause the same degree of pollution and that nuclear energy is not applicable to all situations that require energy production today.
But, what is most worrying is, on the other hand, there are those who think it makes no sense to criticize that developed countries are subject to competition from goods produced in a true situation of “social dumping” by economies with an intermediate level of development, goods that do not meet minimum quality requirements, harming, for example, European consumers and, therefore, not meeting the aim of promoting Well-Being. Social, which should constitute a cornerstone of a sustainable economic policy.
Isn’t it worrying that, in Europe, “t-shirts” are sold for four euros and dresses for ten euros?
What salary should workers earn who, on a perhaps distant Continent, produce these “t-shirts” and dresses?
And what type of social security do they have access to?
And what annual holidays can they enjoy?
And what are your working hours?
And what strong and independent unions can they turn to in defense of their rights?
And what is the quality of the products that are sold, in terms of durability and protection of the health of consumers themselves?
The “incrementalist” mentality that has been taking hold in the world, according to which what is needed is to produce more and more, maximizing sales and profits, is a mentality that can only destroy the foundations of a market economy based on quality, responsibility and what is conventionally called “social responsibility”.
Those who do not prohibit fossil fuels are sprayed with paint, but those who allow entry into the market are applauded by those who produce using cheap labor (at the level of almost 21st century slavery), those who produce with low quality, those who promote foreign direct investment in which the intermediate inputs are all manufactured abroad, with the productive factor itself being work coming from abroad and the impact on the destination economy being reduced. to the bare minimum.
Being in favor of globalization is not just being in favor of free trade, without quality rules and without minimum requirements for respect for human rights in the countries of origin of the products sold.
No, being in favor of globalization is being in favor of a journey, albeit a gradual one and, therefore, gradual towards the globalization of the flows of goods and services and production factors, social and cooperation policies and human rights themselves.
Otherwise, here too, we will be adopting double standards.
And, within the framework of international forums, it is essential to bear in mind that it does not make sense, that based on a generic principle of non-discrimination, we are positively discriminating against those who do not have quality concerns, those who do not value the productive factor of work, those who do not respect human rights.
Speech somewhat utopian and, therefore, unrealistic?
No, what we call attention to is a problem that could contribute to the “successful globalization” of economies where political power tends to be despotic.
No more, no less…
Economist and university professor
Write without applying the new Spelling Agreement