Hormone-laced beef and genetically modified foods don't so far seem to be major health threats. I eat them and don't lose any sleep. Still, it is hardly the case that science has definitely dismissed all reasonable fears, so it's not as if all European aversion to these imports is protectionism in disguise (although, clearly, some of it is). The best solution is probably to let each consumer have as much information as possible and make up his/her own mind. And here is where American trade policy is faulty: We don't just insist that other countries accept these American imports; we further insist that these foods not be labeled in European supermarkets for what they are—e.g, containing hormones or genetically modified foods. That's a violation of a general principle of economics that is favored by economists in many parts of the political spectrum, including the libertarian right: Give everyone complete access to relevant information, and let them make their own decisions. (As a practical matter, the labeling would be simpler in the case of hormones than in the case of genetically modified foods, since so many American foods contain very small amounts of genetically modified crops.)

As for global warming: Here the Bush administration's failing isn't in rejecting the details of the Kyoto Protocol, which, for all I know, may distribute the burdens inequitably. The failure, rather, was in not coming up with an alternative, enforceable international treaty. For if you accept, as Bush's EPA does, the consensus view of global warming—it's happening, and it's caused by fossil-fuel emissions—then mainstream economics is clear about the solution: The "negative externalities" of burning fossil fuels must be addressed by extra-market regulation—punishing those who don't restrain their emissions and/or rewarding those who do. The logic of collective action demands an international treaty with teeth.