POLU9GE Essay

The question of globalisation is one that scholars have wrestled with for decades is not
centuries. It is a question that has brought about no end of debate with no clear and
definitive answers in sight. One particular question is whether the negative impacts of
globalisation on our environment have been outweighed by the positive impacts, that is the
question this essay seeks to answer. To tackle this question this essay will discuss the
nature of globalisation and the wide variety of both positive and negative impacts it has had
on the environment drawing from a large number of sources and viewpoint and ultimately
concluding that the negative impacts of globalisation on the environment outweigh the
positive impacts.
Globalization can be broadly defined as a rapidly increasing level of interconnectedness and
inter dependence between nations. It is a process that effects almost every aspect of our
societies, economies, cultures and importantly for this essay our environment and while the
fact that these effects have occurred are undeniable the specifics of how globalization has
affected our environment is heavily debated. One perspective is that of the Market liberals
and to a lesser extent institutionalists, such scholars view globalization as a predominantly
positive force arguing that the globalisation of trade and the financial system has increased
GDP across the globe as well as per capita income both of which are essential for nations to
maintain sustainable growth, between 1970 and 2000 global GDP rose from $13.4 trillion to
$34.1 trillion (Clapp, J and Dauvergne, P. 2011). In this manner globalisation can be viewed
as a primarily positive force, generating the wealth and economic stability necessary for
environmental sustainability. In particular market liberals argue that free and open trade as
well as a unified financial system will naturally lead to environmental improvements,
particularly amongst developing nations where the population must typically take part in
unsustainable practices in order to survive due to the economic deprivation present in these
nations. Haiti is a particularly stark example of this, over 2.4kha of trees have been chopped
down in Haiti since 2010 and while this level of deforestation is clearly unsustainable and
has led to vast ecological damage the population of Haiti have no choice as due to rampant
poverty (Global Forest Watch, 2010), exploitation of the environment is the only way for
them to survive, it is problems like Haiti’s that market liberals and institutionalists claim
globalisation can solve. Where the market liberal and the institutionalist differ is in their
opinion on what role the state should play in our rapidly globalizing world. To the market
liberal the state should be a small and market friendly one, allowing for the liberalization of
trade and finance by lowering trade barriers and state subsidies (Clapp, J and Dauvergne, P.
2011). Institutionalist on the other hand view the state as the guide for economic
globalisation, using global institutions to help advance developing nations to a higher
standard of living without damaging the environment. For a more detailed example of
globalizations positive impact on the environment we must look at global trade. One
manner in which the globalisation of trade has impacted the environment positively is the
trade of food, in previous centuries the population of every nation was primarily focused on
the production of food, taking up whatever land they needed and using whatever
unsustainable practices necessary to produce the amount of food needed, in the modern
day however global trade has made this practice unnecessary, food poor areas of the world
can import what they need from food rich parts of the globe such as the US or Australia. The
effect of this is twofold, these areas of the world no longer need to take part in
unsustainable food production in an environment not suited for it leading to less ecological
damage and allows them to specialise in producing products more suitable to their
environment allowing for greater levels of efficiency and sustainability in production. These
benefits apply to both partners in trade, protecting the environment on a global level
(Clapp, J and Dauvergne, P. 2011). Another benefit globalization is an increased level of co-
operation between state actors, it is indisputable that protecting the environment is a global
cause that all nations must participate in if any significant progress is to be made and
globalisation facilitates this in a number of ways. Firstly free trade reduces both the desire
and the need for nations to go to war with one and other, as nations can simply trade for
any resources they might need, additionally these complex global supply chains and trade
networks discourage conflict and participating in a war would isolate a nation from the
global community and lead to economic ruin, an example of this can be found in Russia, due
to their war with Ukraine Russia has been placed under some of the heaviest sanctions the
world has seen and its economy has suffered as a result. Another positive impact of
globalisation is the development of global institutions that can regulate and guide nations
down the path of sustainability, such institutions would not be possible without a high level
of globalization. One particular success story can be found in the near elimination of
chlorofluorocarbons or CFC’s in manufacturing. These chemicals while ubiquitous in a
number of industries such as refrigeration were doing significant damage to the
environment, particularly to the ozone layer, a protective layer in the atmosphere that is
essential for life on earth however due to the swift action of the global community in the
adoption of the Vienna Convention and the Montreal protocol in 1985 and 1987
respectively which set targets for nations to dramatically reduce the number of CFC being
released into the atmosphere the ozone layer is now repairing itself and is on track to return
to pre 1980 levels by 2050 (Clapp, J and Dauvergne, P. 2011). This swift action to repair
damage done to the environment would not have been possible without both the global
institutions and the international cooperation that is typically facilitated by high levels of
globalisation.
While it is undeniable that globalization has had some positive effects on the global
environment, thought their extent can be debated, there are many who argue that these
positives have been far outweighed by the negative impacts. To Bioenviromentalists and
Social greens, globalization represents a serios and ongoing threat to the global
environment. While such scholars do agree that globalization has increased the wealth and
prosperity across the globe on average, they would argue that this growth and prosperity is
far from evenly spread and that it has come at the cost of the environment. Social greens in
particular point out that economic globalization and the ever-increasing inequality between
rich and poor nations that if facilitates is one of the primary causes of environmental
damage. For an example of this sort of global inequality caused by globalization and the
damage it can do to the environment we turn once again to the production of food, perhaps
the most basic and most essential product in human history. Despite global food
productions far exceeding the necessary consumption of the global population there are still
many areas of the world that face serious starvation. In Africa alone nearly 300 million
people face starvation (Armstrong, M. 2022). Yet despite many of the poorest people on the
globe facing starvation, the exact opposite problem can be found in wealthy western
nations. In the US, one of the wealthiest nations on the planet over 40% of adults are obese
with obesity and its related conditions being a leading cause of death in the US (CDC 2021).
To Social greens examples like this and others like them serve as evidence that the
inequality that has come along with globalization has cause serious environmental damage,
in poor regions people are forced to destroy the land they live on through deforestation,
overfishing and unsustainable agriculture just to survive and in wealthy western nations
overconsumption and pollution have run rampant, all to meet every growing demand of the
populous. Though unlike the social green who sees the inequality cause by globalization as
the problem the Bioenviromentalists sees the populous themselves as the root cause of
environmental damage, more specifically the ever-increasing size of the population rapidly
approaching or to some even exceeding the earth carrying capacity. Bioenviromentalists
argue that globalization has led to a dramatic increase in both population growth and the
proportion of the earth resources that the population consumes and in order to obtain the
resources necessary to sustain and satisfy this ever-increasing population the environment
will suffer. For an example of this rising consumption and how it threatens the global
environment we can examine the meat industry. The consumption of meat, particularly in
the west has increased dramatically year on year since 1950 with over 300 million tones of
meat being consumed in 2021 (Euromeat, 2022). In order to meet this global demand for
meat vast areas of forest have been devastated in order to make way for pasture,
additionally large proportions of global crop production have been used to feed these
livestock, over 80% of the worlds soy production alone is used for animal feed (WWF. 2021).
This intensive agriculture has also led to increased levels of deforestation as well as the
overuse of pesticides and the erosion of soil making it clear how this unchecked population
growth and global demand for meat has damaged the environment. Many Social greens and
bio environmentalists would contest the views of market liberals and institutionalists when
it comes to economic globalisations impact on the global environment. The market liberal
claim that globalization will improve the lives and grow the wealth of those who take part,
and that this growth will ultimately help protect the environment is a particularly disputed
claim, while it is true that for some nations have grown vasty wealthy as a result of
globalisation, social greens would claim that this wealth has only increased these nations
appetite for wealth and desire to consume. The US for example, is home to only 4.25% of
the worlds population yet it accounts for over 20% of the world total oil consumption, using
97 million barrels of oil per day (EIA, 2021). This consumption of oil and many other
resources has made the US one of the largest polluters on the globe relative to its
population size (IEA 2022)). And on the other side of this equation, we have the poor
nations, those nations forced to sell themselves into neo colonial servitude to the west in
order to survive. The mining to rare metals such as lithium and beryllium in Africa and other
poor parts of the world has not only trapped millions of people in a cycle of poverty but
devastated the environment and all of it is done to meet the demands of the west and it’s
ever growing need to consume (Huwart, J,Y and Verdier, L. 2013). The effectiveness of
global organizations is also called into question when it comes to their effectiveness in
fighting environmental destruction, while it is true that the reduction of CFC’s in the
atmosphere is a success of the global community, it was a particularly simple problem to
resolve, the effects of the loss of ozone were obvious and the solutions even more so, fixing
this particular problem simply mend substituting CFC’s for other substances in the industries
they were used in, in comparison, other environmental problems have proven to be much
more difficult to resolve and the global community has so far made scares progress in
solving them. For an example of this we can analyse CO2 production and the difficulties in
cleaning the atmosphere, most economic activities and major industries produce CO2 in
some form or another and release it into the atmosphere, leading to increased global
warming and it’s associated environmental consequences such as droughts, an increased
frequency of extreme weather and rising sea levels. And while these problems are deeply
troubling, they are difficult to fix and there is little motivation to fix them. Global warming is
a problem that exists on a timescale far longer than the careers of western politicians and
the wealth of western nations (and most global institutions are centred around western
nations) insulates them for all but it’s most devastating effects, additionally solving this
problem of CO2 production would require a complete overhale of the global economy, with
many industries such as the automobile industry having to take costly measures to re
organise themselves and other industries such as oil and gas all but dying off entirely, both
of these things are not something that will happen by market forces alone and both are
necessary to prevent further environmental damage (Huwart, J,Y and Verdier, L. 2013).
It is clear that these perspectives of globalisation, in particular economic globalisation have
had significant impacts on the global environment, both positive and negative. Many argue
that economic globalisation has helped the environment, grown the wealth of nations and
encouraged them to seek new technology to better sustain their environment and us it to
continue to grow and expand. It has according to some brought together global institutions,
working as one to protect the environment. Yet to other economic globalisation has had a
profoundly negative impact, it has perpetuated global inequality, forcing many to exploit
and destroy the land they live on just to survive while growing the desire to consume to
unsustainable levels. Globalization has also grown the size of the population, bring us every
closer to the carrying capacity of the planate some argue. In conclusion while there have
been some positive impacts of economic globalization on the environment, it’s negative
consequences have exceeded them and in some cased made those positive impact
irrelevant.
Word Count: 2290
Bibliography
Clapp, J and Dauvergne, P. (2011) Paths to a green world. 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Huwart, J,Y and Verdier, L. (2013) Economic Globalization: Origins and consequences. OECD
Insights, OECD Publishing.
(2010) Global Forest Watch: Haiti. Global Forest Watch, Available:
https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/HTI/?
category=summary&location=WyJjb3VudHJ5IiwiSFRJIl0%3D&map=eyJjZW50ZXIiOnsibGF0Ijo
xOS4wNTg5MTYxNzUzNzYyMywibG5nIjotNzMuMDQ5Njk3ODc0OTk2NzF9LCJ6b29tIjo3LjI3
MTE5MjE3NDkyODU5NywiY2FuQm91bmQiOmZhbHNlLCJkYXRhc2V0cyI6W3sib3BhY2l0eSI6
MC43LCJ2aXNpYmlsaXR5Ijp0cnVlLCJkYXRhc2V0IjoicHJpbWFyeS1mb3Jlc3RzIiwibGF5ZXJzIjpbI
nByaW1hcnktZm9yZXN0cy0yMDAxIl19LHsiZGF0YXNldCI6InBvbGl0aWNhbC1ib3VuZGFyaWV
zIiwibGF5ZXJzIjpbImRpc3B1dGVkLXBvbGl0aWNhbC1ib3VuZGFyaWVzIiwicG9saXRpY2FsLWJv
dW5kYXJpZXMiXSwiYm91bmRhcnkiOnRydWUsIm9wYWNpdHkiOjEsInZpc2liaWxpdHkiOnRy
dWV9LHsiZGF0YXNldCI6InRyZWUtY292ZXItbG9zcyIsImxheWVycyI6WyJ0cmVlLWNvdmVyLW
xvc3MiXSwib3BhY2l0eSI6MSwidmlzaWJpbGl0eSI6dHJ1ZSwidGltZWxpbmVQYXJhbXMiOnsic3
RhcnREYXRlIjoiMjAwMi0wMS0wMSIsImVuZERhdGUiOiIyMDIxLTEyLTMxIiwidHJpbUVuZERhd
GUiOiIyMDIxLTEyLTMxIn0sInBhcmFtcyI6eyJ0aHJlc2hvbGQiOjMwLCJ2aXNpYmlsaXR5Ijp0cnVl
fX1dfQ%3D%3D&showMap=true
Armstrong, M. (2022). A fifth of people in Africa are suffering from chronic hunger. This map
shows where the situation is most severe. World Economic forum, Available:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/08/hunger-in-africa-serious-millions/
#:~:text=278%20million%20people%20in%20Africa,percent%20of%20the%20continent's
%20population.
CDC (2021). National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2017–March 2020
Prepandemic Data Files Development of Files and Prevalence Estimates for Selected Health
Outcomes. Atlanta: CDC. Available: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/106273 [Accessed
10/10/22]
(2022). Global production of meat advanced to 340 million tons in 2021. Euromeat,
Available: https://www.euromeatnews.com/Article-Global-production-of-meat-advanced-
to-340-million-tons-in-2021/5406
WWF. (2021). NATURE IS THREATENED BY UNSUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION AND
CONSUMPTION OF SOY. WWF. Available:
https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/food_practice/sustainable_production/soy/
#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20almost%2080%25%20of,as%20in%20cosmetics%20or%20soaps.
EIA (2021). How much oil is consumed in the United States. United States: EIA. Available:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=33&t=6
IEA (2022) Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Energy Data Explorer. Paris: IEA. Available:
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-energy-
data-explorer