Of course, drinking wine and eating pigs are themselves products of an industry which, while not monolithic, is certainly part of the French self-image, agriculture. Indeed this is perhaps the most totemic of the lot and (as with the electricity industry) this status leads to some curious and self-harming reactions on the part of government and individuals alike. Agriculture in France and across Europe is protected both by direct subsidies and by border tariffs. The result of this ought to be farmers profiting at the expense of the rest of the population who pay higher prices than they would if cheap foreign produce was allowed to compete with home-grown stuff. But in fact this is not the case; farming is in crisis. Both producers and consumers are losing out. The reaction will presumably be to keep throwing money at the sector - because of the visceral attachment to the image of an agricultural France decisions concerning farming bring into play far more votes than there are actual farmers - and hope that the problem goes away. But not only does this approach not seem to have worked it is also grossly unfair. Unfair on the consumers as mentioned above, but if they want to pay higher prices for local products then so be it. It is unfair primarily on producers in the world's poorest countries who are unable to break into foreign markets that would at least give them a hope of lifting themselves out of poverty. One of the stumbling blocks in the Copenhagen negotiations concerns the amount and the kind of aid to be given to poor countries to help them convert to a low carbon economy without harming their potential for growth. The poor countries want more than the rich are prepared to give and they want it with the smallest number of strings attached. This looks like being one of the points of disagreement that derails the whole process. So why not sidestep the whole question and instead of giving/lending money to poor countries remove all tariffs on their agricultural produce? The result would be a near immediate and long term rise in the wealth of these countries (long term since the price differential between a potato grown in Angola and one grown in Brittany or Idaho is not going to go away any time soon). If the tariff were removed in two steps - first lifting it on organic produce before extending it to industrially produced food then there would also be a direct incentive to consume less carbon and protect the environment in these countries. As it is many of these countries practice organic agriculture by default but you can be sure that as soon as they start having the money to buy synthetic fertilizers Monsanto et al will move in. The preferential tariff for organic produce would help protect against this. I would nevertheless have this system not last indefinitely so as not to disproportionately harm organic producers in the wealthier countries. An influx of cheap organic produce over a limited period of time might even benefit them as it will lower the price of organic food which is currently one of the main reasons people are reluctant to buy it. The price difference comes in part from higher costs but also because supermarkets can stick on a hefty premium as there is not enough supply to meet demand. If the markets were flooded then this would not be the case. Well, I am not an economist so I guess there are holes in my argument but it does not take a specialist to see that the manner in which Europe and America currently support their agricultural sectors (at great cost to their taxpayers and at an even greater cost to the world's poorest people) is not only foolish but immoral.