The Globalization of Pollution
The above article was written in the Washington Post about the global effects that pollution, coming from China in particular, is having on the rest of the world. The article opens in a very interesting way, crediting the smog that can be seen in Los Angeles to the factories in China. Because of the rampant industrialization in China, emissions have been so high that they are beginning to waft across the Pacific and hurt the U.S. The countries closer to China are effected even worse. The author is basically calling on the world to continue to make improvements in eliminating emissions, building off of the success of the Montreal Protocol.
This article directly correlates to our discussion of globalization as it pertains to the environment that we discussed in class Tuesday. The pollution in China is just a microcosm of the pollution that is happening in industrializing nations throughout the world. Many of the BRIC countries are using high levels of emissions to become competitive in the economic marketplace, but it is coming at a major cost to the environment. I believe that this would make any widespread emissions standards difficult to reach the efforts we would intend them to, simply because many of the countries would not be willing to adhere to it. I believe that as the world is becoming more globalized and countries are trying to become more competitive, pollution will continue to rise. It will be difficult to come to a conclusion to lower emission standards, and it seems as though we may be far off in the future from seeing another Montreal Protocol.
Do you think the best way to frame this problem is through states? For instance, should we be fretting about China's pollution? Or should we possible shift to thinking about industries or some other entity?
ReplyDeleteI like Prof. Shirk's point about changing the way we frame this problem. It's definitely something to consider - states/sovereignty certainly poses problems when trying to tackle environmental issues. However, we should be careful about totally dismissing states in the endeavor to solve/combat environmental issues. States, not industries, have the ability to institute policies; policies that can help reduce pollution and help the environment (Cap and trade, etc.)
ReplyDeleteFirst off, coming from Los Angeles I find it almost laughable that the author blames China for the smog problem we face back home. Smog has been a problem in LA for a hundred years and has gotten dramatically better over the past 30 years. The real problem for LA is that it naturally traps pollution (even dust or natural occurrences) in a sort of bowl due to the mountains and onshore breeze. This smog is pretty much stuck there until it rains, yet as we all know it almost never rains there anymore. Anyway I just found that idea absurd since pollution and smog have been a problem in Los Angeles for decades and has gotten better, not worse, in recent years coming from someone who actually lives there.
ReplyDeleteNow to the actual substantive part of my post. I think one of the ways to lower pollution is to reduce the incentives for companies to conduct business and production in states with nearly no environmental regulations. If the production that has been outsourced from the US to Mexico or China was brought back here, industries would be subject to US environmental regulations and law which are pretty strict in a global context and could drastically reduce worldwide pollution. Thus I think that this is an indirect way of using state sovereignty to combat pollution.
I definitely think that how we frame the problem is important and I think a lot of times the problems are the corporations that outsource to China and other nations and the laws and regulations are kind of in the grey area. This makes it difficult to not only place the blame on say China who could set environmental protection regulations but then struggle to enforce them on an American corporation that is operating out of China.
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to believe that the smog in LA is caused by pollution in China. But I do think this speaks to a larger issue. Pollution in one state can cause environmental degradation in another state. I think deciding who should be culpable for environmental degradation is hard. Should it be the state that the pollution occurs in, the company that outsourced and is causing the pollution, or the state the company originated in? I think companies need to be held more responsible for their actions. China alone produces 29% of carbon emissions, the have 16 of the worlds most polluted cities, and toxic water ways. China also needs to be held responsible in addition to the companies operating within its borders. The states also need to be held responsible. Both a global and domestic environmental movement is needed to persuade china enact policies and curb its pollution.
ReplyDeleteI think that you all bring up a very good point in the idea that framing the problem is part of the issue. I think it is difficult to pinpoint where "blame" should be shifted, but all areas must take responsibility. States need to work together to come up with better ways to control pollution in their borders, but international companies need to stress the importance of being eco-friendly (something they are not easily willing to do outside of for press reasons). I think Matt's idea of lowering the incentives to work in a less eco-friendly country is a good idea, in theory, but I don't know how it could work on the global stage. The process of finding the proper ways to handle the environment are extremely difficult, as we can see from the carrying viewpoints we all have. I think a series of steps should be taken by all parties involved to slowly work towards a long-term solution.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand enough about smog accumulation to possibly put my two cents in, but when it comes to environmental degradation.... I have something to say.
ReplyDeleteChina is a place to go for cheap labor and next to no safety or environmental regulations. That is why companies move there plain and simple. But how do we fix that? Tell companies that if they don't get back over stateside we are going to punish them in taxes, punish them anyway we can. If the United States on top of those threats gave incentives for clean industry and green initiatives.... then these companies would be back in a heartbeat. They will be profitable and doing well. I honestly do not get the bureacratic loopholes that have been created. To me that is just unpatriotic.