Consider the following however. We can export some bauxite for $50. Or we could turn it into alumina and export it for $250. Or we could turn it into aluminium metal and export it for $1000.
I agree completely. This is actually an argument I am familiar with, as this is precisely the point some Russian economists are driving as they also export a lot of resources to China (very similar to us), and yet it is apparent that more wealth is to be gained by processing these resources in their entirety and selling the end product.
There are two key arguments I've so far identified which do not allow for this (not that I am in any way saying that it is somehow bad, I think we should produce as many finished products as we can)
1. The vast gap in labour cost in developed vs developing countries
2. The significant environmental impacts from processing raw metals and other minerals, and in the manufacture of goods.
The second point is actually pretty important. Many parts of India and China are suffering staggering environmental damage which will cause endless and very serious and terrible health problems for large populations which live in those countries, within vicinity to certain industries, factories, processing plants, etc.
To some degree, India and China (and probably other smaller countries) are polluting themselves significantly (and I'm not talking about greenhouse emissions) at our cost, justifiably at a high price.
To yes, in principle I agree with you, it is rather sad what happens. This is in my view a good argument for limiting our natural resource exports as well, as it is possible that in the future better and cleaner technologies will allow much healthier and safer refinement and production chains from raw material to finished goods, which are equally economical.
To add to your thread smurf. What starcraftmazter also seems to be missing is if the world requires 10million tonnes of aluminium per year, someone has to make it and the resultant carbon will be produced.
My arguments do not relate (much?) to the carbon tax, I am more concerned with the depletion of the world's resources before we acquire the means to survive without them.
Further, it is rather disappointing as we hold (very soon used to) vast quantities of high quality resources.
Further still, I am concerned that our vast mineral wealth will be used up too quickly, leaving future generations with very little national wealth to tap.
Ideally, these resources should be rationed in such a way as to account for the energy required to extract them against future surplus energy, and our progress towards replacing these raw resources, and more likely our progress towards getting these resources from other planets - as we will inevitably have to, if we are to survive in a world which has even a fraction of our present quality of living.
In regards to the carbon side of things; if we did choose to export less, prices will go up, and suddenly you will find that the world will need less because at higher prices projects otherwise requiring these resources would prove uneconomical.