Globalization: Compatible with the Environment?
This article touches on many of the things we discussed in class on Tuesday, specifically that globalization has caused many of the environmental problems occurring today but that globalization can also help to solve many of the very same problems that it has spawned. The article illustrates the effects of globalization on the environment through graphs and pictures, then goes into specific ways that globalization has damage the environment. First, the article says that globalization has increased greenhouse gas emissions through increased transport and increased competition in which businesses pollute to cut costs. Then it mentions some of the struggles of dealing with environmental problems, specifically that they are often transnational in scope but that the solutions must come from the national level.
In my opinion, environmental problems are actually going to reinforce the current state system. In order for activists to achieve any meaningful change, they must lobby the state to regulate businesses polluting or must put pressure on the state to protect the environment. As we have seen with international agreements like the Kyoto Protocol, states are not bound to follow international regulations and often break them due to a lack of enforcement. Regulation and preservation of the environment must come from within a state through citizens putting direct pressure on their state to change. Despite the global nature of environmental problems, the solutions must come from direct pressure on the state from the citizens, thus reinforcing the legitimacy of the state and the state system.
I think we often point to "failures" like the Kyoto Protocol when we discuss how states are obstacles to the environment and that real change must come from the people. However, we should acknowledge successes. Back in November, the US and China struck a deal wherein China will, for the first time in history, cap its emissions (as opposed to slow the growth rate of) by 2035, if not earlier, and use more renewable sources of energy with the US taking steps as well. While the deal was lambasted by Republican members of Congress, it nonetheless represents, at the bare minimum, the potential that states have to work together and work together to reduce emissions.
ReplyDeleteWhile this could be a success, it is way too early to tell whether or not it will actually live up to its hype so to speak. Will China actually hold up their end of the agreement? If they do, that's great then there is hope that states can work together to solve these problems. However, if they don't, then what? What sort of power does the US have to make sure they hold up their end of the bargain? I think the deal you point to might be a make or break type agreement for the future of global environmental politics.
DeleteDo you think that lobbyist in a state system would achieve more success internationally than say an international institution which would bring together representatives from all nations that would then enforce certain protocols in their respective states?
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of environmental movements gain support because of local politics and the push by the citizens in that state. Governments are more likely to work on problems to fix environmental degradation if the electorate supports it. I think a lobbyist system has great potential to bring real change on the international stage.
ReplyDeleteI think the Kyoto protocol had a lot of potential and good intentions but they failed to play out as successfully. Too much time had passed by the time the protocol was enacted to get countries to reduce their carbon emission levels by 5% of their 1990 levels by 2008-2012. I think that in order to enact really environmental change, countries need to work together to achieve realistic goals. Also the United States, signed the agreement but then congress failed to ratify. And their is no international enforcement mechanism and there probably won't be because it would require states to give up sovereignty rights.
Much like what Val said, I am unsure as to whether a lobbyist in our system would truly have an effect on the global stage in many countries. And with the problems that the international institutions are having, what do you propose would be a way for countries to combat this issue, seeing that not all countries are as "environmentally-conscious" as we are?
ReplyDeleteAs a former intern on Capitol Hill, it is easy to spot out big money/big deal lobbyists. Some of them are simply out for the money, they do not care if they lobby for cigarettes companies or sweatshop foreign labor in Indonesia. We need to tackle this issue at the top, too often people are willing to throw away environmental regulations for money's. Environmental concerns are second to their profits.
ReplyDelete