Posted by Jamie in Green Articles, Green Opinions | 0 Comments
Globalization affecting environmentalism
Globalization has permeated into almost every aspect of the modern world. In fact, the world is becoming more and more globalized now that the interests of influential nations and powerful corporations are molding world trade regulations. In democratic countries, globalization is influencing the decisions of leaders regarding the interests of their people.
In a developing nation, there is no doubt that it can be a positive engine for development. However, since globalization affects economics and politics, it carries along a baggage of environmental concerns. There are claims that in an indirect manner, the environment will benefit from globalization because the system will allow the creation of markets that would address environmental issues. However, problems will inevitably set in as the jobs created tend to become unnecessary and more resources are utilized. Many developmental projects are even under scrutiny because they have been deemed to be detrimental to the environment, a direct contrast to how these projects were initially presented.
In the late 1990s, the United Nations initiated a project where they collaborated with different corporations in developmental projects whose objectives were to nurture the environment and human welfare. Ironically, these corporations were bashed with a handful of criticisms, as these corporations were known to be responsible for certain human rights and environmental violations.
Critics say that with the surfacing of the World Trade Organization (WTO), democracy has been forsaken. Attention is given to what global corporations want instead of what democratic societies need. WTO was created in 1994 and is now among the most dominant organizations of the world, having the right to judge whether the laws of the land are destructive to trade in accordance with their standards. If a certain law is confirmed to be injurious to trade, the WTO can actually insist on its nullification, otherwise they may impose inconsiderable sanctions. One vivid example was when the U.S. Clean Air Act was promulgated, the WTO preached that the regulatory provisions, which actually set high standards against pollution-causing gasoline, did not concur with WTO policies. It ruled that the proposed regulations stipulated in the law were unfair to the foreign oil companies that generated the polluting oil. Consequently, the U.S. government revised the regulations so that vehicles may emit polluting exhaust. Another example was a WTO judgment that brought danger to marine life. Yet again, they objected to a certain provision in the Marine Mammal Protection Act, wherein dolphins are to be protected from being butchered by tuna fishermen. In Japan, the WTO ruled against the prohibition of importation of fruits that carry invasive species. Hence, due to these unsympathetic verdicts made by the World Trade Organization on a number of environmental acts, several countries are now scared to oppose corporations that bring environmental degradation.
What’s more, the result of the Kyoto Global Climate Change Conference was even influenced by the interests of several big polluters including mining, oil, chemical and automobile corporations. Some corporations might also wish to be greener in their operations but they just aren’t able to do so because of apprehensions that their competitors can get away with their present practices.
Clearly, the world is still a long way off from a harmonic fusion of economic and environmental progress. If a pooling together of resources can be achieved to promote economic progression, surely it’s possible to pool ones that will be the driving forces for environmental improvement. After all, what good is wealth if the quality of life degrades due to prevalent debilitating environmental conditions? If only environmentalism could become a global norm.
Related Posts
