It sounds like you're just coming up with (half-assed) justifications for the moral superiority of information economies. Every globally integrated economy has geographically disparate effects; that doesn't tell us anything about who should have legal power over whom.

The logical conclusion of your argument is that a non-exporting, environmentally neutral area should, again for reasons that you have not made clear, have increased legal precedence over other areas.

I really don't know how to make it more clear to you: do you think that the air and water in Texas stay in Texas. What part of the argument is unclear to you?

> The logical conclusion of your argument is that a non-exporting, environmentally neutral area should, again for reasons that you have not made clear, have increased legal precedence over other areas.

Come on, man, now who's being half-assed?

I am completely unclear how this is the conclusion you jump to. If you earnestly want to argue with someone, process their argument by pretending it was your position, and consider what would the most advantageous interpretation of the argument be. If you want to set up straw men for me to knock down, then that's just wasting both of our time.

A more obvious conclusion would have been: being that natural resources -- air quality, water purity, natural beauty, etc -- are non-renewable resources, which once polluted cannot easily be recovered, and are not owned: they exist, then, to be enjoyed and consumed by all citizens equally. Therefore, no particular state -- even the state in which they are found -- has exclusive right to them.

Put in other words:

* California can decide, largely on its own, to export sites onto the internet, because the internet is (mostly) not a consumable resource

* but it cannot unilaterally decide to export oil onto its beaches, because the beaches are non-renewable and belong to more than just Californians