Question:
Is Globalization bad for the environment? Why or Why not?
Instructions for Answering:500 WORDS (attaching two references I have to use)
- Begin your response by providing a clear and concise summary of the environmental consequences of transboundary activities facilitated by globalization, such as pollution, deforestation, or biodiversity loss.
- Discuss the role of international law in promoting cooperation among nations to address these cross-border environmental challenges. Highlight specific legal frameworks, treaties, or conventions that govern transboundary environmental issues.
- Analyze the effectiveness of international legal mechanisms in facilitating collaboration and achieving positive environmental outcomes. Support your arguments with evidence, such as case studies or examples of successful international cooperation efforts.
- Consider the challenges or limitations that exist in implementing and enforcing international environmental law in the context of transboundary issues. Discuss any gaps or areas where improvements could be made.
- Reflect on the potential future directions or strategies for enhancing international cooperation and legal frameworks to better address transboundary environmental challenges.
1. Anderson, Kym, and Brian R. Copeland. “2009 – Globalization and the Environment.” Australia’s Economy in Its International Context the Joseph Fisher Lectures, University of Adelaide Press, Adelaide, 2009, pp. 575–595. Globalization can be good for the environment too. An early example comes from Denmark in the 1700’s, where there was an ecological crisis due to deforestation – excessive harvesting of trees for construction allowed sand dunes to encroach inland (see Kjaergaard, 1994). Two factors helped alleviate the crisis. German engineers (an example of trade in services) helped build dikes to stabilize the coast line and prevent further erosion; and imports of timber from neighboring countries reduced pressure on local forests. In more recent times, technology transfer has meant that new factories in developing countries are often much more energy efficient than would be the case without foreign technology. And by outsourcing production to low cost suppliers new environmentally friendly products (such as hybrid cars) are cheaper to produce and are therefore adopted more quickly by consumers. But as we know, growth is not always bad for the environment. Water quality in many rivers and lakes in Europe and North America is better now than it was 40 years ago, and air quality in major urban centres such as London and Tokyo has improved in the same time period. This is where the other two channels of change matter. Changes in methods of production and consumption can alter emission intensities and the use of environmental services. These “technique effects” can be driven by technical change, but in most cases they are driven by regulation. There is a great deal of evidence that as incomes have risen in industrial countries, environmental regulation has also tightened up.6 Technique effects therefore act as a countervailing force against scale effects. Finally, there are also composition effects. Growth and trade also lead to changes in the mix of production and consumption activities. At the macro level, countries may shift from agriculture to industry to services, all of which have different impacts on the environment. But also within any sector, changes in environmental impacts occur as specialization and innovation change the mix of economic activity. Consumption in the transport sector, for example, may shift from bicycles to cars (which raises pollution) or from cars to subways (which reduce pollution). 2. Ehrenfeld, David. “The Environmental Limits to Globalization.” Conservation Biology, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 318–326. April 2005, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.12010.x. Among the environmental impacts of globalization, pehhaps the most significant is its fostering of the excessive use of energy, with the attendant consequences. This surge in energy use was inevitable, once the undeveloped four-fifths of the world adopted the energy-wasting industrialization model of the developed fifth, and as goods that once were made locally began to be transported around the world at a tremendous cost of energy. China's booming production, largely the result of its surging global exports, has caused a huge increase in the mining and burning of coal and the building of giant dams for more electric power, an increase of power that in only the first 8 months of 2003 amounted to 16% (Bradsher 2003; Guo 2004). The many environmental effects of the coal burning include, most importantly, global warming. Fossil-fuel-driven climate change seems likely to result in a rise in sea level, massive extinction of species, agricultural losses from regional shifts in temperature and rainfall, and, possibly, alteration of major ocean currents, with secondary climatic change. Other side effects of coal burning are forest decline, especially from increased nitrogen deposition; acidification of freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems from nitrogen and sulfur compounds; and a major impact on human health from polluted air. Dams, China's alternative method of producing electricity without burning fossil fuels, themselves cause massive environmental changes. These changes include fragmentation of river channels; loss of floodplains, riparian zones, and adjacent wetlands; deterioration of irrigated terrestrial environments and their surface waters; deterioration and loss of river deltas and estuaries; aging and reduction of continental freshwater runoff to oceans; changes in nutrient cycling; impacts on biodiversity; methylmercury contamination of food webs; and greenhouse gas emissions from reservoirs. The impoundment of water in reservoirs at high latitudes in the northern hemisphere has even caused a small but measurable increase in the speed of the earth's rotation and a change in the planet's axis (Rosenberg et al. 2000; Vorosmarty & Sahagian 2000). Moreover, the millions of people displaced by reservoirs such as the one behind China's Three Gorges Dam have their own environmental impacts as they struggle to survive in unfamiliar and often unsuitable places. Despite the importance of coal and hydropower in China's booming economy, the major factor that enables globalization to flourish around the world-even in China-is still cheap oil. Cheap oil runs the ships, planes, trucks, cars, tractors, harvesters, earth-moving equipment, and chain saws that globalization needs; cheap oil lifts the giant containers with their global cargos off the container ships onto the waiting flatbeds; cheap oil even mines and processes the coal, grows and distills the bio-fuels, drills the gas wells, and builds the nuclear power plants while digging and refining the uranium ore that keeps them operating. Paradoxically, the global warming caused by this excessive burning of oil is exerting negative feedback on the search for more oil to replace dwindling supplies. The search for Arctic oil has been slowed by recent changes in the Arctic climate. Arctic tundra has to be frozen and snow-covered to allow the heavy seismic vehicles to prospect for underground oil reserves, or longlasting damage to the landscape results. The recent Arctic warming trend has reduced the number of days that vehicles can safely explore: from 187 in 1969 to 103 in 2002. But I do not see renewable energy coming in time or in sufficient magnitude to save globalization. Sunlight, wind, geothermal energy, and biofuels, necessary as they are to develop, cannot replace cheap oil at the current rate of use without disastrous environmental side effects. These renewable alternatives can only power a nonglobalized civ ilization that consumes less energy (Ehrenfeld 2003b). Already, as the output of the giant Saudi oil reserves ha started to fall (Gerth 2004) and extraction of the remain ing oil is becoming increasingly costly, oil prices are clim ing and the strain is being felt by other energy sources. F example, the production of natural gas, which fuels mor than half of U.S. homes, is declining in the United State Canada, and Mexico as wells are exhausted. In both the United States and Canada, intensive new drilling is being offset by high depletion rates, and gas consumption i creases yearly. In 2002 the United States imported 15 of its gas from Canada, more than half of Canada's total gas production. However, with Canada's gas productio decreasing and with the "stranded" gas reserves in th United States and Canadian Arctic regions unavailable un til pipelines are built 5-10 years from now, the Unit States is likely to become more dependent on importe liquid natural gas (LNG). Here are some facts to consider. Imports of LNG i the United States increased from 39 billion cubic feet in 1990 to 169 billion cubic feet in 2002, which was still <1% of u.s. natural gas consumption. the largest natu- ral gas field in the world is in the tiny persian gulf state of qatar. of="" u.s.="" natural="" gas="" consumption.="" the="" largest="" natu-="" ral="" gas="" field="" in="" the="" world="" is="" in="" the="" tiny="" persian="" gulf="" state="" of="">