The Globalising Environment: An Anthropocene Approach

[Volume 2, Issue 8] – August, 2017

Author – G. Keerthna, B.B.A.LL.B. (Hons.), Saveetha School Of Law, Chennai.

“What is the use of a house if you haven’t got a tolerable planet to put it on?”

– Henry David Thoreau

ABSTRACT:

Globalization processes are inevitable historic and objective phenomena, the driving force of Society’s development and progress. However, these processes cause harmful changes of global character in the environment and society. Although globalization has emphasized a positive effect the development of the society, the same process can also be criticized as it claims to degrade the environment on a different scale.

INTRODUCTION

The term globalization that was used infrequently before the 1990’s, is now in common parlance i.e. a term of common interest. It basically refers to an economic system for the free flow of raw materials, manufactured goods, intellectual property and financial transactions, as equally as possible, across international borders under the supervision of an assigned international trade authority. Globalization gives raise to strengthening international relationships and also plays a major role in increasing economic standards of the society. It promotes unity among nations. But as we all know where there is a positive there is a most likely chance of being a negative side effect that people tend to ignore for the purpose of achieving a greater good.

Although the contemporary debate on globalization has been contentious, it has not always been useful. No one doubts that some very significant global processes economic, social, cultural, political and environmental are underway and that they affect everyone and everything. Yet, there is no agreement on exactly how to define this thing we call “globalization,” nor on exactly which parts of it are good or bad, and for whom.[ref] http://faculty.cbu.ca/aburke/pols291/Environment_and_Globalization.pdf [/ref] For the most part, a polarized view of globalization, its potential and its pitfalls has taken hold of the public imagination. It has often been projected either as a panacea for all the ills of the world or as their primary cause. The discussion on the links between environment and globalization has been similarly stuck in a quagmire of many unjustified expectations and fears about the connections between these two domains.

Despite its growing strength, the side effects of this pervasive economic strategy remain poorly understood, perhaps because the great majority of them are indirect. This is especially true of the environmental effects. The march of globalization is often described as inexorable, leading to a final state in which a few, very large corporations dominate world commerce, under the regulation not of nation states but one or a small number of regulatory bodies. These bodies are not run by statesmen, jurists or ecologists, but by economists whose viewpoints harmonize with those of the multinationals they regulate.

The spread of globalization has been so rapid and comprehensive that its effects are being felt in the smallest and most remote human communities and natural areas in both developed and undeveloped countries. Indeed, the words ‘developed’ and ‘undeveloped’ assume a direction and inevitability of change towards a uniform economic condition that leaves no alternatives. Nevertheless, it would be unwise to accept the assumption that globalization as an economic system is here to stay, although many of its more profound environmental consequences are likely to prove extremely long-lasting. Immense power always creates an impression of permanence, but a conjunction of formidable limiting factors is even now acting to curb and modify the process of globalization-perhaps to end it altogether.

The International Federation of Social Workers has defined globalization undue their policy as, “Globalization is the process by which all people and communities around the world come to experience an increasingly common economic, social and cultural environment.”

The definition in itself defines globalization as a process that affects the world on the whole as such and not just people or communities but also the economy, society and environment.

Fears that globalization necessarily hurts the environment are not well-founded. A survey reveals little statistical evidence, on average across countries, that openness to international trade undermines national attempts at environmental regulation through a race to the bottom’ effect. If anything, favorable gains from trade’ effects dominate on average, for measures of air pollution such as SO2 concentrations. Perceptions that WTO panel rulings have interfered with the ability of individual countries to pursue environmental goals are also poorly informed.

Recent rulings have in fact confirmed that countries can enact environmental measures, even if they affect trade and even if they concern others’ Processes and Production Methods (PPMs), provided the measures do not discriminate among producer countries. People care about both the environment and the economy. As real incomes rise, their demand for environmental quality rises. This translates into environmental progress under the right conditions — democracy, effective regulation, and externalities that are largely confined within national borders and are therefore amenable to national regulation. Increasingly, however, environmental problems spill across borders.

Global externalities include climate change and ozone depletion. Economic growth alone will not address such problems, in a system where each country acts individually, due to the free rider problem. Multilateral institutions are needed, and national sovereignty is the obstacle, not the other way around [ref] The Environment and Globalization by Jeffrey A. Frankel, Last visited: 18/01/2017, http://www.nber.org/papers/w10090 [/ref].

GLOBALISED ENVIRONMENT: IMPACT ON HUMAN BEINGS

People live and develop their potential in social groups. Throughout recent history, the ethnic group and nation state have been defining characteristics of human society. Throughout the late 20^th century and into the 21^st century, people have increasingly found themselves in a globalised world, with economic, social and cultural influences coming from many different sources. This process has challenged human and social rights and affected individual and social development. The nation state and ideas of ethnicity and social cohesion have been challenged by these influences. This process has become known as Globalization.

This is a universal truth witnessed by social workers in cities, towns and rural communities every day and therefore a fundamental element of social work ethical codes. Poverty, social isolation/exclusion, environmental degradation and violent conflict undermine the opportunity to make the most of human rights and are an affront to human dignity. They limit the life chances of those in poverty and inhibit their opportunity for personal fulfillment.

Yet, despite the fine words of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which states that everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for their health and well-being) and the policy commitments from several World Summits, the gap between rich and poor people continues to grow all around the world [ref] https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bctwj/21_1/01_FMS.htm, last visited: 19/01/2017 [/ref]. The gap between the richest and poorest countries continues to widen, both economic and social exclusion are increasing, environmental problems worsen and violent conflict continues. ‘One billion, two hundred million of the world’s six billion – a fifth of the world’s population – still cannot fulfill their basic needs for food, water, sanitation, health care, housing or education and must try to subsist on less than US$1 a day and half the world – nearly three billion people – live on less than two dollars a day. In more than 30 of the poorest national economies (most of them in sub-Saharan Africa), real per capita incomes have been declining since the early 1980s. According to the United Nations, one child in seven in Africa dies before their 5th birthday and about 1.1 billion worldwide lack adequate drinking water’. This was recognized in the report of the ILO World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization.

Social workers see the effects of this reality in both the global South and the global North, among indigenous and minority populations, women, children, refugees, immigrants, displaced persons, rural workers without land, urban workers, older persons and too many others. This process of Globalization which it was claimed would bring the world together is in practice creating tension and division. These realities have provoked world-wide concern, protest and violence, much of which is directed at international bodies, such as the World Bank, World Trade Organisation and International Monetary Fund, and also at the G8 group of leading economic nations and at national governments.

EFFECTS OF GLOBALISATION ON ENVIRONMENT

Globalization has had far-reaching effects on our lifestyle. It has led to faster access to technology, improved communication and innovation. Apart from playing an important role in bringing people of different cultures together, it has ushered a new era in the economic prosperity and has opened up vast channels of development. However, globalization has also created some areas of concern, and prominent among these is the impact that it has had on the environment. Globalization has featured extensively in the debates on environmentalism, and green activists have highlighted its far-reaching effects [ref] “Globalization and Its Impact on the Environment”, Last visited: 18/01/2017, https://www.environment.co.za/environmental-issues/globalization-and-its-impact-on-the-environment.html [/ref].

This fairly new glorified issue has had a great impact on the global environment in addition to all other aspects of the world that it has affected. One of the greatest examples that come to mind is the endless support of the tsunamis victims. Without globalization the world could not have contributed to the extent of what we have. Relentless support has been granted to the victims of this tragic event in record time. Globalization has made this possible through the increase in technology and communication.

In addition to the tsunamis relief support granted through globalization, it has affected the environment in other ways as well. It has greatly increased the environmental standards worldwide. Through the development of the internet many environmental agencies have evolved which have increased the protection of the environment. The internet has made them more effective and they are now able to communicate much easier than ever before. Through the development of environmental supports some beneficial factors have evolved such as new up to date emissions standards. This greatly reduces the worldwide threat of global warming. By agencies effectively implementing such standards our world has become safer and healthier [ref] “Globalization on the environment”, Last visited: 18/01/2017, http://studymoose.com/effects-of-globalization-on-the-environment-essayy [/ref].

The link between the environment and economic development may be more complex than that, however. In fact, in many ways, protecting the environment and promoting economic growth are complementary goals. Poverty in developing countries is a leading cause of environmental degradation. For instance, “slash-and-burn” land-clearing by subsistence farmers has been a major cause of depletion of the Amazon rainforest. Boosting economic growth may then be an effective tool to promote protection of the environment. This is the idea behind the sustainable development movement, which seeks to advance economic opportunities for poorer nations in environmentally friendly ways.

According to the National Institute for Space Research, deforestation in the Amazon rainforest has fallen to its lowest levels in 24 years, which coincides with pledges by Brazil to reduce deforestation by 80 percent by 2020. Further, better enforcement of environmental laws and surveillance technology has caused the drop in deforestation (Associated Press, 2012). Despite this drop, deforestation remains an issue in other parts of the world where laws are not enforced or monitored.

This Issue in Depth examines the critical environmental challenges facing the earth within this framework that environmental problems are now recognized as global issues requiring solutions coordinated among many nations. However, disagreements about how to proceed, particularly over the trade-off between environmental protection and economic development, have hampered these efforts.

First, we will look at some specific disputes involving the environment and free trade as a means to illustrate the difficulty of balancing these concerns and to see how the international trading system has approached the problem. Second, we will examine environmental problems in the larger context of international politics and discuss multilateral efforts to solve environmental problems. In conclusion, we will look at the idea of sustainable development to see if it can produce the balance between economic growth and environmental health that its supporters hope to achieve [ref] “Globalization and the environment”, Last visited: 18/01/2017, http://www.globalization101.org/globalization-and-the-environment/ [/ref].

Loss of Biodiversity

Reduced Genetic Diversity in Agriculture A profound reduction of genetic diversity in agriculture is now underway. The process has been well documented for food plants, and pertains to vegetables, grains and tree crops. Since 1970, pharmaceutical, petrochemical and other transnational corporations have purchased more than 1,000 once-independent seed companies [ref] Fowler, C. and P. Mooney (1990), Shattering: Food, Politics, and the Loss of Genetic Diversity. Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press [/ref]. Loss of germplasm occurs as transnational’s drop all but the most profitable seed varieties from their inventories. For example, the fifth edition of the Garden Seed Inventory (Seed Savers Exchange 1999), a list of all commercially available, non-hybrid vegetable varieties in the United States and Canada, shows that sugar beets, broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, onions and garden peas lost an average of 41 per cent of named varieties between 1981 and 1998. New commercial varieties also appeared during this time, but these were mostly introduced by tiny, independent seed companies, some of them non-profit, and typically represent the commercialization of preexisting private varieties, not the result of new breeding efforts.

It is likely that losses of non-commercial varieties maintained by individual farmers, especially in Third World countries, are even greater, as representatives of giant seed corporations reach more and more agricultural areas that have been hitherto isolated from global trade. When this happens, local farmers drop a wealth of existing varieties in favor of the new, commercial, ‘high-yielding’ seeds. According to H. Sudarshan[ref] Ramprasad, V. (2002), Hidden Harvests: Community Based Biodiversity Conservation. Bangalore: Green Foundation. [/ref], “over the last half-century, India has probably grown over 30,000 different indigenous varieties or landraces of rice. This situation has, in the last 20 years, changed drastically and it is predicted that in another 20 years, rice diversity will be reduced to 50 varieties, with the top 10 accounting for over three-quarters of the sub-continent’s rice acreage.”

The impacts of globalization are being experienced not only by domesticated varieties but by wild relatives of food plants. The wild relatives of cereals, vegetables, fruits, nuts and other crops constitute a critical resource for genes affecting disease resistance, pest resistance, yield, vigour, environmental adaptations, high starch content, soluble solids, vitamins, cytoplasmic male sterility, petaloid male sterility and harvest and transport adaptations. Many of these wild relatives are highly endemic, and their ranges are decreasing sharply because of development, overgrazing, increased herbicide use, logging and conversion of marginal lands to production and export agriculture-all of them related at least in part to globalisation [ref] Prescott-Allen, R. and C. Prescott-Allen (1983), Genes from the Wild: Using Wild Genetic Resources for Food and Raw Materials. London: Earthscan. [/ref].

As globalization-both the worldwide spread of technologies and the networking of all economies-progresses, livestock breeds also face an increased risk of extinction. During the twentieth century, according to Hall and Ruane [ref] Hall, J.G. and J. Ruane (1993), ‘Livestock Breeds and their Conservation: A Global Overview’, Conservation Biology, 7: 815-25. [/ref] (1993):

Hall and Ruane demonstrate that in Europe and the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), breed extinctions have generally been highest in those countries, such as Switzerland, that have the highest per capita income. The implications for the biodiversity of domestic animals during globalization are evident. To this writer, it seems clear that breed diversity in Asia, Africa and the subcontinent will be reduced by globalization (as it has in the industrial world), and this reduction is likely to occur long before per capita income increases, if it ever does.

Occasionally, pressures of globalization can be shown to be causally related to the loss of a particular kind of domestic livestock, as in the case of the near demise of Haiti’s Creole pigs. These small, black, long-snouted pigs (not a breed, but what has been called a ‘long-term pariah morph type’), adapted to the Haitian climate and with very low maintenance requirements, were a mainstay of both soil fertility and the rural economy. In 1982 and 1983, most of these pigs were killed as part of a disease control effort required to integrate Haiti into the hemispheric economy. They were replaced with pigs from Iowa (USA), whose needs for clean drinking water, roofed pigpens, and expensive imported feed immediately doomed the project to failure. Haitian peasants, the poorest in the Western hemisphere, lost an estimated US$ 600 million. As President Aristide notes:

It is impossible to determine the particular contribution of globalization to the current extinction rate, or even to separate globalization from other, interrelated factors such as human population growth. Nevertheless, it is evident that globalization is making a profound contribution to the great reduction in biodiversity that is now taking place. The negative impact of globalization on wild species is caused by the following factors:

(i) increased development and exploitation of populations and natural areas to satisfy new demands of production and trade, including increased logging, land clearing for production agriculture, overfishing of marine fisheries, road-building [ref] Laurance, W.F. and P.M. Fearnside (2002), ‘Issues in Amazonian Development’, Science, 295: 1643. Back to cited text no. 31 [/ref], mining and dam construction [ref] Diamond, J. (2001), ‘Dammed Experiments!’, Science, 294: 1847-48. [/ref];

(ii) secondary effects of pollution from production agriculture, fish farming, vehicles burning fossil fuel, added electricity generation, nuclear wastes and other sources;

(iii) tertiary effects of climatic change from excess carbon dioxide, methane, fluorocarbons and other chemicals;

(iv) adverse effects of ecotourism on wild flora and fauna; and

(v) the impact of the soaring numbers of exotic species, carried by the tremendous plane, ship, rail and truck traffic of global trade, on local flora and fauna. Even a trade-related, intensive production system such as aquaculture, which might appear to relieve pressure on wild species, may have the opposite effect.

Some of the effects of globalization on wild species are quite subtle. As Alexander et al. (2002) report, “Expansion of ecotourism-based industries, changes in land-use practices, and escalating competition for resources have increased contact between free-ranging wildlife and humans.” Although it has long been known that this enhanced wildlife-human contact might be the source of new infectious diseases among humans (including HIV), the reverse situation has received little attention. Alexander et al. (2002) document for the first time the introduction of a primary human pathogen into free-ranging wildlife. They report outbreaks of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in banded mongooses (Mungosmungo) in Botswana and suricates (Suricatasuricatta) in South Africa. In both cases, regional increases in human-wildlife contact, especially from expanded ecotourism and other globalization-related changes in human mobility and land use, appear to be responsible for the disease. Resulting mortality among both mongoose and suricate populations has been heavy.

ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF GLOBALISATION:

The principal environmental costs of global free trade are well known. They include water, air and soil pollution, exhaustion of non-renewable and slowly renewable resources and global climatic change-all caused by globalization-related increases in industrial activity, production agriculture and the fossil fuel energy used in the free trade-related transport of raw and finished materials, and by the overriding of local and national protective laws and customs. Regulating the environmental side effects of globalization is another matter. As Yu et al. (2002) state, ‘A country importing “dirty” products essentially “leaks” its pollution to exporting countries that have less strict standards.’ Also, ‘the conflict between trade and environment arises because countries with weak property rights appear to be more productive even when they are not, and export their natural resources unsustainably’. Article XX of the original General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was intended to safeguard ‘exhaustible natural resources’ and protect ‘human, animal or plant life or health, but enforcement of this article by the economists who run the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been problematic, and is likely to remain so.

Air, water and soil pollution have increased markedly as global trade has increased. For example, in Taiwan, exports have soared as a result of global trade: forests have been cleared for industrial development and tree farms, soil and water have been polluted by pesticides and fertilizer, and 90,000 factories dump their wastes into air and waterways (Bello and Rosenfeld 1990). Goldsmith (1996) notes that, “The incidence of asthma [in Taiwan] has quadrupled since 1985, and cancer has now become the leading cause of death, its incidence having doubled since 1965.”[ref] “Globalisation: Effects on Biodiversity, Environment and Society” by David Ehrenfeld, last visited: 18/01/2017, http://www.conservationandsociety.org/article.asp?issn=09724923;year=2003;volume=1;issue=1;spage=99;epage=111;aulast=Ehrenfeld#ft44 [/ref]

A few forms of environmental pollution related to globalization are indisputable. One is the pollution provided by the transport of raw materials and finished goods that were formerly produced and consumed locally, or done without. The term ‘in season’, as applied to foods, is no longer comprehended by many First World consumers: sweet peppers and strawberries from Mexico can be purchased in Canadian markets in mid-winter. Even heavy, minimally processed products are transported around the world to places where they already exist in abundant supply. For example, steel shipped from China has replaced American steel in domestic US markets. In many cases, the distant products are cheaper than local ones, because social and economic subsidies render transportation energy costs irrelevant, and because the cost of pollution is not included in the pricing.

Therefore, even when the environmental costs of globalization are indisputable, the market cannot be relied on to control them.

LEGAL CONSEQUENCES AND CHALLENGES:

To the chagrin of its ardent proponents, globalization has been blamed for much of the world’s political and socio-economic injustices, as well as for destabilizing the delicate balance between human enterprise and the environmental resource base.[ref] “Effects of Globalization on Sustainable Development”, last visited: 18/01/2017, http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/pri-cn.html [/ref] Thus, a recent analysis by globalization opponents contends that the forces of transnationalism have led to greater poverty, less fulfillment of basic need, wider inequality between and within nations, increased concentration of corporate power, reduced social services, and decreased leverage of labor vis-à- vis global capital.

Others warn that globalization has set in motion a downward social and ecological spiral and an erosion of state sovereignty to the detriment of the common good. The “social” critique of globalization has also entered the international political arena, propounding a new/old ethos of people-centered globalization. Specifically, arguments are advanced that “globalization with a human face” should be grounded in the following objectives and values: sustainable development, enabling a life of dignity for all, global responsibility and solidarity, social justice and inclusion, and human rights.[ref] “Globalization and the International Environmental Legal Response: The Asian Context” by Roda Mushkat, last visited: 19/01/2017, http://blog.hawaii.edu/aplpj/files/2011/11/APLPJ_04.1_mushkat.pd [/ref] Several major international documents reflect elements of this trend, giving rise to “soft law” prescriptions stipulating that, in order to achieve a just distribution of the benefits of globalization, its negative spillovers have to be mitigated through the reform of governance at the international, regional, and local levels.

The First Global Ministerial Environment Forum, held in Malmo, Sweden, from May 29 to 31, 2000, also issued a call for a greater commitment by the private sector vis-à-vis the environment. The Malmo Ministerial Declaration acknowledges the emergence of the private sector as “a global actor that has a significant impact on environmental trends through its investment and technology decisions,” and implores businesses to “engender a new culture of environmental accountability.” The ministers suggested that such accountability could be achieved through the application of polluter-pays principle, environmental performance indicators and reporting, and the establishment of a precautionary approach in investment and technology decisions.[ref] U.N. Environment Programme, Malmo Ministerial Declaration, last visited: 19/01/2017, http://blog.hawaii.edu/aplpj/files/2011/11/APLPJ_04.1_mushkat.pdf [/ref] Similarly, the Malmo Ministerial Declaration emphasizes the importance of civil society in addressing environmental purpose and values.

In particular, the ministers stressed the critical role that civil society plays in bringing emerging environmental issues to the attention of policy makers, raising public awareness and promoting transparency as well as non-corrupt activities in environmental decision-making. The significance of the ministers’ stance lies in the avowed willingness to embrace decentralized structures that derive their vigor from active participation of all stakeholders, particularly those at the grass-roots level. The world’s environment ministers also took special notice of the threats posed by globalization to cultural diversity and traditional knowledge, especially to indigenous and local communities. They also recommended that in decision-making concerning the management of the environment and natural resources greater emphasis be given to the gender perspective.

SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION:

The relationship between globalization and the environment is too complex to sum up in a single judgment, whether “good” or “bad.” In many respects, global trade and investment operate like other sources of economic growth. They tend to raise income as measured in the marketplace. On the one hand, the higher scale of output can mean more pollution, deforestation, and other kinds of environmental damage. On the other hand, changes in the composition and techniques of economic activity can lower the damage relative to income.

The process of globalization is proceeding apace. At best, one can only hope that its effects can be moderated. Globalization has proved greatly beneficial in many respects but not unambiguously so. Economic gains have been substantial yet not equally distributed. Above all, widespread environmental degradation has ensued due to many traditional and social disruptions.

In the view of the above article there should be certain goals designed to mitigate the adverse effects of globalization such as, to reduce regional vulnerability to financial shocks and enhance the capacity to comply with international environmental norms and standards in an autonomous fashion, and to bring civil society to the fore in the management of environmental problems and efforts to contain poverty.