Evaluate the argument that globalisation is bad for the environment

Globalisation is the process that sees an increased interconnected world. This can lead to the greater transnational flow of goods, services and capital. Globalisation is bad for the environment as the huge global supply and demand, met through imports and exports, causes carbon dioxide emissions through the use of fossil fuels in making and  transporting goods, which greatly damage the environment. The environment is also affected in the oceans, through ships used to transport cargo and as a result of dumping waste from production, both of which can cause serious harm to marine life. The rise and large growth of global corporations thanks to globalisation has meant that companies cause damage to the environment and do not take enough action to prevent their impact. Some of these companies are also corrupt, which gives rise to more environmental damage that will not be recognised or prevented.

Globalisation has led to more global trade, with an increased consumption of products, therefore increasing the  production of goods, which in turn harms the environment. International exports have increased by 30% in the past decade, and the cost of transportation has dropped by 65% since 1930, making it easier and cheaper than ever to transport goods internationally. As well as manufactured goods, food that used to be grown and consumed locally can now be developed in foreign countries and sent internationally. With transport being extremely easy and cheap, the environment is often sacrificed for the sake of convenience and fast trade. In order to make and transport these products, fossil fuels are required, and around 22 percent of global CO2 emissions stem from the production of goods that are, ultimately, consumed in a different country. In terms of transportation damage, ships used to transport cargo internationally are responsible for more than 18 percent of some air pollutants. This leads to an increase in the pollution levels in the environment, as well as noise pollution, and landscape intrusion as a result of meeting high demand created by economic globalisation. The environment is particularly affected by the emissions produced by developing countries like China, in which its rapid economic growth has meant that on a per capita basis, its CO2 emissions were 6.9 tonnes of consumption based emissions and 6.2 tonnes of production based emissions per person in 2016. Air pollution in Beijing is so impenetrable that the U.S. Embassy's air quality measuring station can only call it "beyond index." As well as this, China observed a ground average temperature increase of 0.24℃/decade from 1951 to 2017, exceeding the global rate. As China and other developing countries like India develop further and continue to manufacture goods to be exported around the world to meet global demand, the environment will continue to suffer as more CO2 emissions are given out into the atmosphere, and the environment becomes more polluted. 

 It could be argued that there are measures being taken to attempt to reduce the damage to the environment caused by globalisation.This comes in the form of agreements such as the Paris Agreement, signed on 22nd April 2016, which held the aim of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius, above pre-industrial levels, and to strengthen the ability of countries to deal with the impacts of climate change. The negotiation process included China, and the resulting agreement is binding on all signatory states, meaning that theoretically, it could reduce the permanent damage on the environment that is largely caused by globalisation and imports and exports. Due to the agreement, finance and technology flows from the developed to support the developing world to build clean, climate resilient futures, with 100 billion dollars pledged to the Green Climate Fund. With this initiative, globalisation could end up being less bad for the environment, as countries that are massively producing goods would be able to adapt their methods to align with the aim of a greener future, therefore reducing CO2 emissions, and having less damaging consequences for the environment. However, the timetable for reduction lies in the hands of the biggest polluters, like the USA, China and India, and there is no collective system to enforce targets. This means that although in theory the Paris Agreement could help to ensure that globalisation is not bad for the environment, without proper implementation and compulsory measures that all countries must follow it could cease to make any real change, meaning that globalisation will continue to be bad for the environment.

 Another way in which globalisation is bad for the environment, is the severe damage it causes in the oceans to marine life through the increased use of ships to transport cargo, oil containers, and industrial waste from production that is dumped in oceans. The industrial waste that is generated as a result of production and consumption has been laden on ships and discarded in oceans, and over 180million tons of toxic waste is dumped into the world’s oceans, rivers and lakes annually. This has killed many underwater organisms and has deposited many harmful chemicals in the ocean, as much of the waste is man-made pollutants including pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, detergents, oil, and industrial chemicals. Large tankers and bulk cargo carriers use a huge amount of ballast water. The ballast water discharge typically contains a variety of biological materials that often include non-native, nuisance, invasive, exotic species that can cause extensive ecological and economic damage to aquatic ecosystems along with serious human health problems. Oil containers are another severely damaging factor for the environment as a result of globalisation. An example of this is the ‘Deepwater Horizon’ BP oil spill, that occurred on 20th April 2010, when a huge explosion killed 11 workers, and forced the oil rig to sink and leave the well (about 5,000 feet underwater) spilling oil for 87 days until it was sealed off. Around 3.19 million barrels (over 130 million gallons) of oil was spilled into the gulf of Mexico, which caused extensive damage to local wildlife, killing about 82,000 birds spanning across 102 species and a vast, though unknown, number of fish. The damage caused to the ecosystem from the oil that spilled was catastrophic, clearly showing that globalisation is detrimental for the environment.

Governments are, however, urged to control the dumping of waste in ‘their oceans’ by implementing laws. This is evident in the Stockholm Conference on June 5-16, 1972, which stated that “the discharge of toxic substances or of other substances and the release of heat, in such quantities or concentrations as to exceed the capacity of the environment to render them harmless, must be halted in order to ensure that serious or irreversible damage is not inflicted upon ecosystems.” Though the products of globalisation are bad for the environment, conferences such as this help to reduce the impact, as all attendees are involved in creating these laws and promising to abide by them. The London Convention was another way to regulate the effects of globalisation on the environment, ratified in 1975 by the United States, which spelled out better protection for the marine environment. This ensures that countries are aware of the grave effects that ships and waste dumping can have on the marine environment, and that some action is taken to prevent this. Additionally, to reduce the amount of incidents surrounding oil spills like BP had in 2010, companies are legally obligated to pay large compensation towards the damaged environment. An example of this is BP being ordered to pay $5.5 billion to settle civil damages claims made by the U.S. as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Not only would this payment help to restore some of the harm done to marine life, but it would also encourage other global corporations to take necessary measures in ensuring that they have the proper prevention methods in place to stop spills like this happening in the first place, and to protect the environment. Companies would rather spend a small amount on prevention, than pay compensation after the incident, to keep high profits and low cost. The threat of bad publicity and public opinion also acts as an incentive for companies to do better to avoid any incidents. However, while governments and companies are now under regulations to protect the marine environment, this does not mean that there is not still a great amount of harm to the oceans, caused by globalisation and production.

    Finally, the rise and large growth of global corporations thanks to globalisation is bad for the environment, as companies cut corners which result in damage to the environment and do not take enough action to prevent their impact. Many of these companies are corrupt, which consequently means that they continuously exploit the environment and natural resources. An example of this is Glencore, which has exported 29 billion USD of copper from Zambia in the last 10 years. Civil society organisations have long criticized Glencore for its harmful impact on local communities and the environment, as it raises dust levels in the air, and pollutes farmers’ fields and drinking water. At the end of May 2018, dust levels in Kolwezi and in nearby Luilu were between 150 and 300 micrograms per cubic metre, and as high as 500 micrograms on the access roads to the mine, while the daily average limit set by the WHO is 50 micrograms. An NGO’s report said farmers' fields near the mines had been repeatedly contaminated by various pollutants, causing long lasting damage to the soil where they plant their crops, which they were not adequately compensated for. While Glencore exports copper at the expense of the local environment, polluting local air, drinking water and soil, there is insufficient media coverage and action taken against this global corporation, which leads to more environmental damage at the hands of globalisation. Damage to the environment also comes from global corporations like Amazon, whose fast delivery services for single items continue to cause pollution and waste that damages the environment. Amazon’s annual carbon footprint is 44.4 million metric tons, equivalent to roughly 600,000 tanker trucks of gasoline, a number that comes close to the pollution rates of some small nations. This shows that globalisation has caused extreme environmental damage through the companies that contribute to a large proportion of global warming.

While it is evident that the effects of global corporations are detrimental to the environment, some action is being taken to prevent this, and to ensure a greener future. For example, Larry Fink, the CEO of Black Rock, writes a letter to the CEOs of the world every January, and stated that climate change “has to become an integral part of the investing thesis for companies,” and threatening to “pull his investments from them” if they do not begin to take action. This led to the creation of the climate innovation fund, which pledges to invest a billion dollars over the next 4 years to combat climate change, largely due to the negative effects that the companies that these CEOs run have on climate change. Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon, pledged 10 billion dollars, and wants 50% of all shipments to be carbon neutral by 2030, investing in 100,000 electric trucks, wind and solar to power computer servers. Microsoft is already carbon neutral today, but plans to be carbon negative by 2030, and wants to be carbon negative for its entire history since 1975, removing all carbon they put into the atmosphere, and investing in carbon capture to build machines to do what trees do naturally. This public and generous involvement from global corporations in fighting climate change will help to reduce and reverse some of the impact that globalisation has had on the environment, though globalisation will continue to negatively affect the environment for a while despite this aid, and government action is needed to create laws and big change. This also does not prevent the corrupt companies, like Glencore, from continuing to damage the environment, as they have made little acknowledgement of the impact they are having, and subsequently do not pledge to help reduce it.

 In conclusion, it is clear that globalisation is bad for the environment, because trade greatly increases the carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere, causing damage through increased imports and exports globally. Oceans and marine environments are also damaged from waste created by the production and consumption of goods, as well as from catastrophic oil spills. Global corporations are bad for the environment, as despite some of their efforts to reduce their impact, they still account for much of the global carbon dioxide emissions, and the corruption in some like Glencore means that local environments are also disregarded and damaged by the work that happens there.

Zara Dove