Part 5 – Trade Promotes Peace ---- Trade Enriches, Promotes Trust, Honesty, Fairness, Tolerance, and Peace: Summary & Review of Five Essays by Walker Wright for Human Progress

     Walker Wright is a think tank policy manager with a forthcoming book, In Trade We Trust: How Commerce Makes Us More Social, which will be published by Bloomsbury. Over the past several months, he has posted five essays exploring different aspects of trade and how it benefits societies. I will summarize and review each essay in sequence. This is Part 5 of 5.

 

Make Trade, Not War: How Capitalism Creates Peace: Open markets lead to closed battlefields

     This essay shows that commerce promotes peace. Trade strengthens economic interdependence, so the choice to hurt a perceived enemy will result in hurting oneself as well, which deters attacking them.

“Distrust, corruption, unfairness, and intolerance can often erupt into violence. By undermining these less-than-desirable attitudes and behaviors, trade can help reduce violence as well. But it may be even more straightforward than that: it’s simply not a good idea to maim or kill your customers or suppliers. War is bad for business.”

     Wright cites economist Christopher Blattman and his book Why We Fight, which argues that while economic interdependence doesn’t eliminate the risk of war, it does create powerful incentives that have to be overcome if war is to happen. He also cites Stephen Pinker’s book, The Better Angels of Our Nature, which shows clearly that global violence has been reduced to a fraction of what it once was. This resulted in the idea of democratic peace theory, which simply acknowledges that democracies promote peace. Trust in the institution of democracy fosters trust among different democracies. Pinker notes that this is because democratic countries are more accountable to their people.

     Wright notes that more recent research suggests that markets may play a bigger role than previously recognized in promoting peace. This acknowledgement has resulted in the development of the idea of a capitalist peace theory. It should be noted that democratic peace theory and capitalist peace theory are not mutually exclusive but work together. Economic interdependence is “part of the glue that cements the ‘liberal peace’ together.” The two graphs below show simply that growth in trade correlates with fewer wars.

     On the other hand, trade restrictions increase economic isolation, which breeds distrust and may lead to hatred and war. As scholars Jean-Frédéric Morin & Jonathan Paquin put it:

“The positive relationship between economic interdependence and peaceful relationships is so well established that research now focuses on the conditions that cause variations.”

     One study in the Journal of Conflict Resolution concluded that trade in manufactured goods had a stronger effect in mitigating war risks than trade in agricultural goods and raw materials. Other studies suggest that trade can also reduce the risk of civil wars. One study demonstrated that “secure property rights, high-quality legal institutions, sound money, and free trade lower the probability of civil war.” Civil wars often occur among isolated ethnic groups, and an important means to reduce isolation is to trade, which reduces economic isolation.

     Wright notes some other interesting work by economist Don Lavoie, who noted that the militarization of economies increases war risks.

“Militarized central planners tend to wage war on their own citizens. Crucially, trade openness acts as a check on this central power, keeping potentially violent governments at bay.”

     One need only consider the militarized economies of Russia and Iran. Russia engages in imperialistic invasions and has recently militarized its economy to extremes. In tandem, human rights and economic opportunities have been severely limited for its citizens. Of course, sanctions are one cause of this, but the Russian government is fully willing to endure sanctions, which limit its economic engagement around the world and degrade its economy, for its ill-conceived war aims. Iran is a different situation, but the country has spent its entire existence militarizing and preparing for war, both at home and with its regional military proxies. Both Russia and Iran have put severe restrictions on internet freedom and availability. We all know that no good can come from this.

     Other researchers have shown that economic interdependence reduces the risks of genocide and promotes human rights and tolerance.

“Political scientist Clair Apodaca has also shown trade to be “advantageous to guaranteeing human rights,” with foreign direct investment being “favorable for human rights.” Emilie M. Hafner-Burton of UC San Diego summarized the state of the scholarship well: “One of the key discoveries of the past few decades is that it is possible to promote human rights by encouraging economic openness and growth through trade and investment…Market-oriented economic development…is correlated with better protections for human rights.”

     Wright also notes that the association between increased trade and peace has been known and recognized for a long time:

“Over two centuries ago, German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote, “The spirit of trade cannot coexist with war, and sooner or later this spirit dominates every people. For among all those powers (or means) that belong to a nation, financial power may be the most reliable in forcing nations to pursue the noble cause of peace.”

     He also quotes Thomas Paine, who argued that commerce is:

“a pacific system, operating to unite mankind, by rendering nations, as well as individuals, useful to each other…If commerce were permitted to act to the universal extent it is capable of, it would extirpate the system of war, and produce a revolution in the uncivilized state of governments.”

Final Thoughts on This Series of Essays

     Some of my final thoughts on this series of essays would be that while some people may slip through the cracks and not benefit as much by trade as others, if there were less or no trade, there would be no cracks to slip through, as we would all be on the bottom. Anti-capitalists may not want to acknowledge it, but the evidence-based science clearly shows the vast benefits of the synonyms trade, commerce, capitalism, and free markets. Essentially, being anti-capitalist is nearly equivalent to being anti-wealth, anti-trust, anti-honesty, anti-fairness, anti-tolerance, and anti-peace. Thus, one might say it is basically dumb. As these essays show, it is also anti-science. Thus, I would say to political Progressives and socialists, including Democratic Socialists, that the evidence is clearly against your positions and very strongly so. That is not to say we don’t need social welfare, guardrails, regulations, checks and balances, and other means to foster equality. But to say, as many do, that capitalism is the cause of all the problems in the world is to turn things totally upside down. In fact, it has probably done more to prevent and solve problems in the world than any other human idea. 

     I look forward to reading Wright's book, but alas, I may not be able to afford to buy it, since I am living on a limited income at present. Of course, I am not blaming capitalism for my plight since I know I have benefited from it massively over the years. 

     

 

References:

 

Make Trade, Not War: How Capitalism Creates Peace: Open markets lead to closed battlefields. Walker Wright, HumanProgress.org. May 15, 2026. Make Trade, Not War: How Capitalism Creates Peace - Human Progress

.

Part 4 – Trade Promotes Fairness ---- Trade Enriches, Promotes Trust, Honesty, Fairness, Tolerance, and Peace: Summary & Review of Five Essays by Walker Wright for Human Progress

     Walker Wright is a think tank policy manager with a forthcoming book, In Trade We Trust: How Commerce Makes Us More Social, which will be published by Bloomsbury. Over the past several months, he has posted five essays exploring different aspects of trade and how it benefits societies. I will summarize and review each essay in sequence. This is Part 4 of 5.

 

Free Trade Is Fairer Than You Think: Capitalism fosters impartiality, not unfairness

     This essay asserts that trade fosters fairness and impartiality. He says that the same is true of globalization. The French philosopher Montesquieu wrote, “The spirit of commerce produces in men a certain feeling for exact justice.” He also noted that trade trains us to be fair.

     Wright cites experiments like the Ultimatum Game, where “two participants are provided a specific sum of money. One participant is granted the power to divide the sum between the two. If the other player accepts the division—whether it is 50:50 or 99:1—both players keep their share. If the receiver rejects the offer, both go home empty-handed.”

     Researchers have found that societies that don’t trade with outsiders offer more inequitable deals, while trading societies offer deals that are fairer and more equitable. Some researchers altered the game so that there is no option to reject the offer, which has become known as the Dictator Game. Similar results were obtained, showing that:

“Even when fairness and generosity have no strategic payoff, market integration predicts more equal treatment.”

     This tendency may explain why economic freedom also correlates strongly with democratic governance and indeed may be a prerequisite for democracy.

     

     Conversely, economic restrictions often precede actions that move away from democracy, such as restrictions on civil liberties and political freedom.

     AEI’s Michael Strain has noted that populism and economic nationalism have been associated with distrust of liberal democracy. Strain writes:

“It is no surprise that the rise of populism and economic nationalism has coincided with growing skepticism toward liberal democracy and growing comfort with political violence. The erosion of economic liberalism – free people, free markets, limited government, openness, global commerce – reflects a loss of respect for the choices people make in the marketplace. If we devalue choices made in markets, why wouldn’t we devalue choices made at the ballot box?”

     As the graph below clearly shows, economic freedom and personal freedom go hand-in-hand.

     Wright next explores how free trade fosters gender equality. He cites a study that showed that societies integrated into economic globalization correlate positively with better status and rights for women. While people may cite bad situations for women workers, such as the so-called “sweatshops” that exist in the world, studies have shown that free trade and globalization actually reduce these occurrences, though it may take some time.

“Political scientists Eric Neumayer and Indra de Soysa have shown that increased trade openness reduces forced labor among women and increases their economic rights, including equal pay for equal work, equality in hiring and promotion practices, and the right to gainful employment without the permission of a husband or male relative.”

     They also found that freer trade:

“…improves both economic and social rights, including the right to initiate divorce, the right to an education, and freedom from forced sterilization and female genital mutilation.”

     Below, a graph from a study published in the journal International Organization found that free trade led to “improvements in women’s health, literacy, and economic and political participation.”

     Wright concludes:

“Unfairness is one of the most common criticisms leveled against commercial society, often accompanied by claims that it undermines democracy and fosters partiality. The evidence presented here suggests the opposite. Engaging in trade and market exchange teaches us to treat others more generously and impartially. The natural outcome of these values is the institutional protection of certain rights. Fair treatment for all becomes the name of the game. We begin to trust one another’s choices and to believe in our shared ability to build society together.”

    

 

References:

 

Free Trade Is Fairer Than You Think: Capitalism fosters impartiality, not unfairness. Walker Wright. HumanProgress.org. January 22, 2026. Free Trade Is Fairer Than You Think - Human Progress

Part 3 – Trade Promotes Honesty ---- Trade Enriches, Promotes Trust, Honesty, Fairness, Tolerance, and Peace: Summary & Review of Five Essays by Walker Wright for Human Progress

  Walker Wright is a think tank policy manager with a forthcoming book, In Trade We Trust: How Commerce Makes Us More Social, which will be published by Bloomsbury. Over the past several months, he has posted five essays exploring different aspects of trade and how it benefits societies. I will summarize and review each essay in sequence. This is Part 3 of 5.

 

Why Free Economies Are Honest Economies: Market freedom rewards honesty. Regulation breeds corruption

     Honesty is related to trust, and societies that foster trust also foster honesty. Dishonesty breeds distrust and can damage social cohesion. Wright states that frequent exchange fosters mutual accountability. He notes that Adam Smith recognized that honesty and free commerce are mutually supportive and that familiarity with one another reduces cheating. He says that there is plenty of evidence that shows:

“…repeated dealings and fear of reputational damage incentivize honest behavior.”

     He shows that lab experiments support the notion that commerciality breeds honesty and shows who is trustworthy and who is not. This is because dishonesty is punished in the marketplace. Experiments have also shown that competition improves not only efficiency but also trust. Honesty is generally rewarded in trade, which makes honesty become habitual. In showing the opposite, that trade restrictions promote dishonesty, he cites Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), which measures the perceived levels of public sector corruption across numerous countries using multiple surveys of businesspeople and experts. Trade restrictions can be a strong indicator of corruption. It has also become more widely acknowledged that electronic and digital means of regulatory compliance have led to less bribery and corruption. He cites other studies that confirm that unrestricted and less regulated trade leads to less corruption.

“It appears that the friendlier a nation’s economy is to trade, the less corrupt it tends to be. Economic restrictions and regulations allow corruption to grow, instead of the economy. By reducing barriers, more trade is unleashed...”

     The graph below compares economic freedom to corruption and clearly shows that more economic freedom goes hand in hand with less corruption. Trade openness is one aspect of economic freedom.

“Freer trade makes reputation king, mitigating corrupt incentives and embedding honest norms throughout society.”

     He cites a famous study of East Germans under communism, which had severe trade restrictions compared to capitalist West Germans, in a game where the East Germans were found to be much more likely to cheat. He cites another study that found:

“More than double the number of nonmarket residents versus market residents believe that avoiding fares on public transport, cheating on taxes, and bribery are justifiable. Those from nonmarket societies are also more accepting of theft compared to those from market societies.”

     Thinking about this, it may have something to do with disposable income as well. People with more disposable income are more likely to avoid cheating to save money simply because they have more money. Thus, one might say that the poor are more likely to cheat simply because they need to preserve cash flow.

     A 2023 study concluded that there is “a universal association between markets and morality” and “a robust association between an increase in market exposure and an increase in civic morality.”

     A study of corruption in different parts of China found that deregulation and trade reduce corruption. That study concluded that:

“…a 1 percent increase in the marketization index leads to a 2.72 percent reduction in corruption. Regions that increased trade openness by 1 percent experienced a 0.35 percent reduction in corruption.”

     Wright notes that removing trade barriers leads to more commerce, where more people put their trustworthy reputations on the line, thus preserving those reputations.

“A commercial society is, at its core, a society of integrity: it limits the opportunities for corruption and encourages honest behavior in the process.”

     He summarizes this essay as follows:

“Many people assume that markets breed dishonesty, but the opposite is true. Commerce depends on trust. Repeated exchange and reputation make honesty not just virtuous, but profitable. When trade is open and competition thrives, deceit is punished and integrity is rewarded. By contrast, heavy regulation invites corruption and favoritism. A truly commercial society, grounded in voluntary exchange and mutual accountability, is also a more honest and trustworthy one.”

 

References:

Why Free Economies Are Honest Economies: Market freedom rewards honesty. Regulation breeds corruption. Walker Wright. HumanProgress.org. December 5, 2025. Why Free Economies Are Honest Economies - Human Progress

Part 2 – Trade Promotes Trust ---- Trade Enriches, Promotes Trust, Honesty, Fairness, Tolerance, and Peace: Summary & Review of Five Essays by Walker Wright for Human Progress

     Walker Wright is a think tank policy manager with a forthcoming book, In Trade We Trust: How Commerce Makes Us More Social, which will be published by Bloomsbury. Over the past several months, he has posted five essays exploring different aspects of trade and how it benefits societies. I will summarize and review each essay in sequence. This is Part 2 of 5. 

     This essay explores how trade promotes trust and how it increases social capital in addition to increasing economic capital. He summarizes the issue as follows:

“…trade depends on trust, and commercial societies encourage people to extend trust beyond family and friends to strangers and colleagues. Experiments and cross-country studies show that economic freedom fosters cooperation, honesty, and reciprocity.”

     Trust is, of course, stronger among people with close social bonds, from family and close friends, and tends to weaken outward. Below is a graph from a study by Virgil Henry Storr and Ginny Choithat that compares trust among family, neighbors, known associates, and people met for the first time in market and non-market economies. Both economies show less trust in less close relationships as expected, but it also suggests that market economies have better trust networks than non-market economies, not by a lot, but consistently.

     Wright cites the work of the American economist Ryan Murphy of the Bridwell Institute. Murphy distinguishes two kinds of social capital: bonding social capital and bridging social capital.

“Bonding social capital refers to what increases the bond of affection with those in our inner circle, such as our family and friends. Bridging social capital refers to what builds social bridges, expanding our social network to those outside our inner circle. Too much bonding can interfere with bridge-building and can even burn bridges, creating a host of problems such as corruption and hostility toward out-groups. Trade acts as a social bridge. And a trade society is one full of social bridges.”

     He also cites other studies that corroborate the increased level of trust found in market-based economies. A graph from one of those is shown below, comparing economic freedom and trust.

     Below, Wright explains that experiments as well as surveys have shown the same result: that trade fosters trust.

“The results of various laboratory experiments by Storr and Choi are telling. In studies published between 2018 and 2022, the two researchers demonstrate that in markets where cheating is possible, participants learn to reward trustworthy partners with greater trust and reciprocity (measured through token transfers). Those with positive market interactions received significantly more tokens than cheaters. What’s more, even strangers received more tokens than cheaters. In experiments where cheating was prevented or its effect neutralized, positive relationships were treated similarly to relationships between strangers. Storr and Choi stressed that participants knew nothing about each other and could not communicate beyond offers. That means the relationships were purely commercial, with no distortions stemming from race, sex, religion, or the like. In short, when corruption and dishonesty are absent from the marketplace, trust and equal treatment emerge. When dishonesty is a factor (as it is in the real world), trustworthiness is incentivized, and dishonesty is stigmatized. Positive market transactions breed trust and trustworthiness.”

     He cites experimental results by other researchers that suggest that a “market mindset” makes people more trusting of others. In a sense, the act of trading is pro-social and helps us to become closer to strangers since we have a reciprocal relationship with them. This also helps strangers become more familiar, which, as the word implies, means more like family and less like strangers. People become more optimistic regarding their relationship and less suspicious of one another.

     Wright cites other experiments that suggest internet businesspeople and CEOs have higher levels of trust and are considered more trustworthy, even though some like to characterize CEOs as greedy and indifferent.

     He concludes:

“The fact that the commercial society exists should be awe-inspiring. The absolute scale of trust and cooperation is incredible. But markets aren’t magical. They are spaces in which people engage in repeated trade, where individuals learn to consistently rely on and cooperate with each other. As people demonstrate a pattern of trustworthy behavior, exchange becomes more fluid, and trust becomes more concrete. Long-term success in the market depends partly on developing strong bonds of trust. And this practical necessity for economic success can eventually develop into a personal virtue.”

 

   

References:

 

In Trade We Trust: How Markets Build Social Fabric: Far from eroding community bonds, markets weave broader networks of trust. HumanProgress.org. Walker Wright. October 3, 2025. In Trade We Trust: How Markets Build Social Fabric - Human Progress

Trade Enriches, Promotes Trust, Honesty, Fairness, Tolerance, and Peace: Summary & Review of Five Essays by Walker Wright for Human Progress: Part 1 – Trade Enriches

    Walker Wright is a think tank policy manager with a forthcoming book, In Trade We Trust: How Commerce Makes Us More Social, which will be published by Bloomsbury. Over the past several months, he has posted five essays exploring different aspects of trade and how it benefits societies. I will summarize and review each essay in sequence.

 

The Rising Tide: How Trade Lifts All Boats: Free exchange turns scarcity into abundance for rich and poor alike

     This one explores how trade enriches us. He first cites Matt Ridley’s book The Rational Optimist, which asserts that economic progress began when trade began. “By exchanging,” he explained, “human beings discovered ‘the division of labour,’ the specialisation of efforts and talents for mutual gain…”

     Wright notes that surveys report that 95% of economists agree that tariffs tend to reduce economic welfare, and another 90% think the United States should not restrict outsourcing.

“…the globalization of the market system has brought global extreme poverty to its lowest levels in human history.”

     The graph below shows that all global citizens, but especially citizens of China, have benefited from and reduced extreme poverty via trade. 

     He notes that the evidence clearly shows that the benefits of trade do not exclude those at the bottom, although they may also benefit from other help, such as social welfare.

“Critics sometimes claim that growth leaves those at the bottom behind. It may improve the average, they say, but only because of large income boosts at the top.”

“That talking point is simply untrue. Economic freedom, including openness to trade, and growth have been shown to improve incomes across the board. A rising tide truly does lift all boats, not just the yachts of the wealthy. Growth positively touches every tier of the economic ladder. A bigger economic pie means better living standards for everyone involved, making economic growth pro–poor.”

     He cites the Indian economist Arvind Panagariya, who documented the role of trade in the economic success of Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, India, China, and other countries throughout Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Panagariya found that trade increases per capita income. He also cites Dartmouth’s Douglas Irwin, who noted that trade liberalization has been “remarkably consistent,” fostering growth in productivity and standards of living. Tariffs do the opposite, and this is acknowledged by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. Wright gives long lists of many studies that concluded that trade increases economic growth and productivity. It is undeniable. He also notes that not only growth, but also other positive effects are associated with trade:

“Open market economies have higher adult literacy rates, longer life expectancies, lower infant mortality rates, better environmental stewardship, and greater life satisfaction than closed economies do.”

     He also suggests that despite the deep income inequality of the super-rich, overall global income inequality has remained fairly steady since the early 1900s but has reduced a bit since 2000, according to the Gini index.

     Wright gives data that shows that while the poorest of economically free and economically not free countries get more or less the same share of the proverbial economic pie, between 2.26 and 2.78%, however, the amount actually earned by the poorest in free economic countries is eight times that of non-free economies.

     The American economist Deirdre McCloskey has referred to enrichment through trade as ‘The Great Enrichment.’

     Wright concludes:

“It’s not that we suddenly figured out how to slice up the economic pie just right. We made the pie 2,900 to 10,000 percent bigger through commercial exchange. When the pie is bigger, there’s more pie to go around. And we’re all richer for it.”

Some Contrasting Views

     For this essay, I am giving some contrasting views from an anti-capitalist social media acquaintance who posted the following meme, some comments to the post, and my own unexpressed comments. This section has nothing to do with Wright’s analysis but does involve views on the ability of capitalism to build wealth for all.

     The meme suggests that capitalism does not promote merit-based or talent-based wealth. That is not true since many in those professions listed are quite wealthy, even if not the richest of the rich. The meme also suggests that those who work hard at menial jobs work harder than others. That may be true in general. ‘Working hard’ is a kind of subjective phrase. Cleaning a bathroom may be harder physically than solving a problem on a computer, but it does not generate the same value. Most people are able to clean a bathroom, but few may be able to solve a particular problem on a computer. Of course, we should value hard work and appreciate the hard work of others. We should pay them enough to have a decent quality of life.

     The following three quotes come from commenters who seem to agree with the meme:

“If intelligence mattered, I should have a 25 year career under my belt, not 25 years of unemployment and multiple periods of homelessness.”

“It's the same crusty families that have been robbing people for centuries and all thier grandchildren. Some were lucky enough to be adopted into the class but they had to pay with thier souls (that's what it looks like to me)”

“Capitalism is the enemy of humanity, because it triggers human greed and blocks sympathy and compassion, for money. Fuck capitalism. It MUST have guardrails to block human greed if it's going to function properly. Here, it doesn't.”

     I would strongly disagree with the third commenter. While it may trigger greed in some, it does not block sympathy and compassion. Often, it does the opposite by promoting better opportunities for sympathy and compassion. If the rich are to give to the poor, they have to be rich first. Otherwise, it’s the poor giving to the poor. A socialist may argue differently that if there were no rich people, there would be no poor people, but that may not be true in many cases. It’s true, as the second commenter noted, that some inherit wealth and everyone starts out at different economic levels. That may seem unfair, and indeed it is, but there is not much we can do about it without punishing people. We do have a welfare system that can help, and we should “punish” the super-wealthy with higher taxes. However, taxing the super-wealthy alone will not help alleviate poverty like free trade and capitalism can. There are, of course, people who fall through the cracks and do not benefit from the system. That is unfortunate, but there are some resources available to those people.

     Below is the best quote on the thread, in my opinion:

“Capitalism doesn't PAY anyone. All it does is allow people to pay each other and trade with each other relatively freely. Therefore the people that get paid the most are those that create the most value that the most people are willing to pay for.”

“The world is full of smart people who don't do much with their intelligence. Those that do become neurosurgeons, engineers, and scientists are indeed rewarded with significant incomes usually.”

“Talent is also something that the world is full of and needs to be applied. And again, those with exceptional talents AND who work hard, also make money”

“Hard Labor is an easy commodity to come by and so supply and demand don't reward it highly.”

“Capitalism doesn't PAY anyone. It allows people freedom to innovate and work without compulsion and to pay each other for what they find valuable.”

     There were two comments on that comment. The first is given below:

“WOW That is a LOT of propaganda in a very short space.”

“Capitalism is a system where people with capital, ie money, land, connections, and the ability to navigate the system are allowed to amass more capital.”

“Unrestricted capitalism leads to monopolies and oligopolies wherein those who amass very large amounts of capital control the entire system.”

     I would comment here that this commenter and some others have suggested that our form of capitalism is “unrestricted” and our markets have no guardrails. That is not true. Our economic system in the U.S. is a mixed economic system, a regulated form of free market capitalism with taxation based on income and social welfare. While people may disagree about the degree and types of regulation, we do not have anything near pure free market capitalism. I agree that the super-rich should be taxed more and that it is important to bring all people above poverty levels and to satisfactory prosperity.

     The second comment to the comment is below:

“hard labor is necessary for capitalism to survive. It's not that we're "easy to come by," it's that we all have to have income, and those with large amounts of capital take advantage of that fact. It's also easy to create value when you have... capital. Hundreds of millions of people are disenfranchised from the system because they weren't born into money. They never have an opportunity to create anything. A bank won't even give you a loan to start a small business unless you've labored at the same job for 20 years and been EXTREMELY good with your money, and even then now you've got a loan against your one very small business.”

“If everyone had the same opportunities I'd for sure be pro-capitalism.”

     There are some fair arguments here. Our system does advantage those who already have wealth and is often very difficult for those at the bottom. Opportunity can be hard to come by, but it is probably out there if one can position oneself to find it. That is the goal of social welfare – to help fill the gaps made in part by the lack of opportunities for some.   

  

 

References:

 

The Rising Tide: How Trade Lifts All Boats: Free exchange turns scarcity into abundance for rich and poor alike. Walker Wright. HumanProgress.org. August 15, 2025. The Rising Tide: How Trade Lifts All Boats - Human Progress

TC Energy Announces Significant Pipeline Expansion in the Midwest: Appalachia Supply Project Joins Last Year’s Announced Northwoods Expansion and Will Include Looping

     TC Energy has two major pipelines in progress in the U.S. Midwest. These are last year’s announcement of its $900 million Northwoods Expansion Project and its recent announcement of its $1.5 billion Appalachia Supply Project.

     The Northwoods expansion project is set to add 0.4 Bcf/d of natural gas capacity in the U.S. Midwest by 2029. It is backed by a 20-year contract. It is geared toward addressing new demand, especially from data centers. The Northwoods project will include pipeline looping, which refers to running an additional section of pipeline along and parallel to another section of pipeline. They may be connected together with one used as storage and/or alternated during maintenance. The project will expand TC Energy’s ANR pipeline system. It will include 92 miles of looping, two new compressor stations, a new meter station, and other upgrades.

     François Poirier, President and CEO of TC Energy, noted:

“Northwoods exemplifies our disciplined strategy and our ability to capture high-value, low-risk opportunities across our portfolio.”

     As shown in the map below, the pipeline will run north-south through Wisconsin and into the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

 

The Appalachia Supply Project

     Just announced, the $1.5 billion Appalachia Supply Project will serve markets in Northern Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and South Dakota.

“The Appalachia Supply Project, which is supported by a 20-year take-or-pay contract backed by a major utility, is designed to provide up to 800 Mcf/day {0.8 BCF/day} of capacity for natural gas-fired power generation and has an expected in-service date in 2030.”

“The project is capable of providing as much as 2 Bcf/day of gas day through future expansions, which could meet expected demand for electrification, economic development, and data centers in the U.S. heartland market, the company said.”

        The project was announced in TC Energy’s Q1 quarterly earnings report on May 1, 2026. I have not yet seen a map of the pipeline route and future expansions

References:

 

TC Energy posts Q1 beat, approves $1.5B Columbia Gas expansion project. Seeking Alpha. May 1, 2026. TC Energy posts Q1 beat, approves $1.5B Columbia Gas expansion project

TC Energy Approves $900 Million Northwoods Pipeline Expansion for U.S. Midwest. Pipeline May 2, 2025. TC Energy Approves $900 Million Northwoods Pipeline Expansion for U.S. Midwest

Northwoods Project. TC Energy. Northwoods Project

 

 

Kazakhstan and Other Central Asian Countries Plan Green Shield of Trees to Address Desertification and Protect Against Dust Storms

 

      Kazakhstan has proposed a regional “Green Shield of Central Asia” initiative to fight desertification and dust storms. They proposed this at the recent Regional Ecological Summit 2026. Researchers from Uzbekistan noted that desertification is increasing in the region, and about 9 square meters of land are desertified per minute in Central Asia. No doubt, they have been influenced by China’s success at greening some of its desert areas.

“Kazakhstan’s Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources Yerlan Nyssanbayev said the initiative builds on the country’s experience in large-scale reforestation projects under harsh climatic conditions.”

“This result confirms that even in areas previously unsuitable for forestry, ecosystem restoration is possible when relying on science, long-term planning, and the professional work of foresters,” Nyssanbayev said, referring to the forest belt around the capital that has expanded to 102,000 hectares since 1997.

     The Aral Sea continues to shrink and evaporate, creating a source of exposed sand and soil, salts, and debris that can become fuel for dust storms. To combat this, the country has deployed large-scale planting of saxaul and other salt-resistant species on the dried seabed in recent years.

“To date, saxaul plantations and other salt-resistant species have been established on an area of more than 1.1 million hectares. This is not only a national project. It is a contribution to reducing transboundary dust storms, stabilising the regional ecological situation, and improving living conditions for the population of neighbouring countries,” Nyssanbayev said.

     Kazakhstan envisions a coordinated regional initiative where specific problems are identified and addressed. Forest belts will be planted to form a unified ecological barrier. He also noted that the plan will include measurable targets, implementation stages, and monitoring mechanisms, and tied it to broader sustainable development goals.

“Each country determines its own priority areas. Together, they form a unified regional system of green barriers capable of changing the ecological dynamics of Central Asia,” he said.

     As noted, Kazakhstan has already succeeded in reforesting areas around its capital city, Astana, where the summit was held. The country’s current greening projects include the planting of 2 billion trees in the state forest fund and 15 million trees in populated areas.

     According to the Central Asian Climate Foundation:

“Together with colleagues from Central Asia, significant preparatory work has already been carried out: a draft resolution has been prepared and sites for creating forest plantations have been identified. The participants of the initiative include Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and the Kyrgyz Republic. As key international partners, we consider relevant international organizations and ecological funds,” said Minister Yerlan Nyssanbayev.

“This initiative is directly linked to the Sustainable Development Goals, including food security, climate change adaptation, sustainable natural resource management, and the development of regional partnership.”

      The summit was attended by representatives of Kazakhstan, China, Central Asian countries, as well as FAO, UNDP, GIZ, AFoCO, UNCCD, and other international partners.

 

References:

 

Kazakhstan proposes regional 'Green Shield' to combat desertification in Central Asia. Clare Nuttall. IntelliNews. April 24, 2026. Kazakhstan proposes regional 'Green Shield' to combat desertification in Central Asia

Green Shield of Central Asia: Regional System of Protective Forest Belts and Green Barriers (2026–2035). Central Asia Climate Foundation. April 23, 2026. Green Shield of Central Asia: Regional System of Protective Forest Belts and Green Barriers (2026–2035) - Central Asia Climate Fundation