To conclude, the conflict between trade and the environment is a difficult one to solve. The general policy implication of this study--sound environmental policies plus free trade--should be agreeable to everyone because it maximizes the pie that is to be shared. But unanimity vanishes when a decision is to be made on how to implement this rule. There are incentives to free-ride both in the fields of environmental and trade policies. And the property rights to global environmental resources are not defined. Thus, it is unclear who should pay and who should receive compensation. Hence there is a conflict between countries wishing to use their power in international markets as a weapon for the worldwide implementation of sound environmental policies, and other countries arguing that global environmental problems can better be solved with free trade and side payments that allow them to introduce environmentally friendly production technologies. Both arguments are rational and understandable from the corresponding national points of view. From a more global perspective, however, both of them are deficient. Compensation payments to polluters may induce strategic behaviour aiming at the entitlement to receive such payments, e.g. by means of increased emissions. Green trade restrictions are likely to be captured by protectionist interests and their availability as a second-best option may deter governments from going the difficult way to achieve the first best. Thus, given the entrenchment of governments and people behind their individually rational points of view, the reconciliation of international trade and the environment is a utopian perspective. None the less, we should keep on working for it.