Geography of Globalization

Individual Essay

Session 7 – Sustainability, Resources and the Environment

Q. What are the main mechanisms shaping globalization and how do these produce, in different
ways, positive and negative environmental outcomes?

By
Isaac Owuor Rayola

Human Ecology

106278

Presented To
Prof. Bas van Heur

January 14th 2013

Mechanisms that shape globalization and their impact on the environment

“Capitalist production is accomplished not for fulfillment of needs in general, but for the
fulfillment of one particular need: profit. In such of profit, capital stalks the whole earth. It
attaches a price to everything it sees and from then on it is this price tag which determines the
fate of nature.” (Smith, 1984/1990).

Introduction

What is globalization? What are the mechanisms that shape it and what impacts do they have on
the environment? To some, globalization it is a process of economic integration that embraces
markets as well as governance (Boyce, 2004). Tramošljanin (2012) observes that the
mechanisms that shape globalization include: economically powerful companies, financial
institutions e.g. the World Bank, broadcast media, human rights movement, secret organizations
e.g. the Bilderberg Group, Military alliances and science and technology. At the same time, Van
Veen-Groot and Nijkamp (1999) explicitly states that “Globalisation is at present a ‘vogue’ word
that refers to opening up and increasing internationalization of markets, worldwide
communication and mobility, changing consumption patterns and lifestyles, key positions of
multinational firms in world markets, and shifting of industrial activities all over the world. All
these structural changes are likely to have an impact on environmental
practices and conditions in all regions of the world”. However, there is debate
whether globalization has positive or negative impacts and whether it has impacts at all on the
environment (Hayter et al 2003. Consequently, this essay will, in a more theoretical way, but
with few empirical examples, explore the positive and negative outcomes of these mechanisms.
As far as Geographical scope the essay will have a global perspective including both resource
peripheries and the core starting with the positive impacts then moving onto the negative impacts
of globalization.

Environmental impacts

First, the development and expansion of multinational companies majorly from the industrialized
western countries has seen an increasing migration of dirty industries to resource peripheries and

1
culminating to environmental cost shifting by separating those who benefit due to dirty industries
from those who pay the environmental costs. As a consequence, there has been increased
pollution in the south from the unsustainable industrial production of companies from the
developed North (Boyce, 2004). At the same time, companies from the developed world have
continued to prospect for natural resources from the resource peripheries; these include crude oil,
timber, agricultural products, fisheries and minerals. There is evidence that the nature of
abstraction of these resources has not been sustainable and has tended towards overexploitation
accompanied by techniques and methods that are not environmentally friendly. For example
studies have shown that the current consumption of resources by industry globally has exceeded
the capacity of nature by between 25-30% and that 60% of ecosystems are currently
overexploited (Halle et al, 2007).

Science and technology is the technical means by which capital accumulates (Smith, 1984/1990)
and definitely one of the drivers, if not the core driver of globalization (Tramošljanin (2012).
People can now travel around the world in record time due to faster transport means,
communication is faster and efficient, thanks to the invention of satellite technology .But, behind
all this success there is the issue of pollution which comes in many forms. Air pollution from the
increased use of fossil fuels is of particular concern. It is predicted that international transport
induced by globalization will increase in the next decades (Van Veen-Groot and Nijkamp, 1999)
culminating into increased pollution. Also, there is an increasing outcry over the proliferation of
electronic waste particularly in the developed world where old computers, cell phones and other
electronic gadgets are “dumped” either as aid or to serve markets for used electronics. Most of
these have a shorter lifespan and end up in landfills within a short period of time hence there is
continuous supply of electronic waste from developed countries to developing countries. Another
potential pollutant is nuclear technology, having been praised as the epitome of clean energy this
technology has failed the test of time as far as environmental concerns. There have been few but
deadly cases of nuclear disasters which made environments inhabitable and posed threats to
human life such as the 1986 Chernobyl accident that claimed the lives of at least 30 people and
lead to the evacuation of about 220,000 (Bennet et al, 2006). Apart from the accidents, military
use of nuclear weapons is a real threat to the environment. These was registered as early as the
second world war when the atomic bomb was first used by the allied forces in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki –Japan whose environmental effects and impacts on life is still being felt today. At the

2
same time, arms races during the cold war lead to an increase in the number of countries with
nuclear capabilities. Interestingly the arms race has not stopped and other countries such as
North Korea and Iran are still working on improving their nuclear capabilities ,this remains a
potential threat to the environment and life on earth in case of a global nuclear war. The threat of
nuclear war is evident in the daily debate about nuclear technology landing into “irresponsible”
hands or “terrorists”.

The use of military power to influence the course of global relations has its place in the current
international scene. This is evident by the formation of military alliances chief among them the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Tramošljanin, 2012) and also the use of military force by
individual states to define relations with other states that are considered hostile to global stability
or particular national interests. Recent examples include the Russian invasion of Georgia and the
United Status’s presence in and Iraq. At the same time, globalization has enabled different
antagonists to gain access to destructive weapons and therefore engage in wars that are
destructive to the environment (Boyce, 2004).

On the other hand, the positive impacts of globalization on the environment are explained for
example by the concept of “ecological modernization” which argues that there is a possibility of
integrating industry and technological advancement with environmental protection (Gibbs,
2006). It describes the contemporary changes in the industrial production process where
industries strive to use fewer raw materials and reduce emissions resulting in both economic
growth and environmental protection (Boyce, 2004). While some environmental gains have been
realized by these changes, legitimate criticisms abound on the application of this concept chief
of which is that it can be hijacked by multinational companies as a slogan for sustainability but
that the companies may avoid making actual changes to their practices for environmental good
(Gibbs , 2006). Also, it is argued that the theory is Eurocentric and does not factor in realities
from other parts of the world (Buttel, 1999), thus it is based on the erroneous assumption that
environmental quality gradient runs North-South (Boyce, 2004). The theory also, lacks in
addressing power relations (McCarthy and Prudham, 2004). Boyce,2004 observes that
communities who are historically poorer and less educated would bear more environmental
burdens compared to the rich well educated ones, in other words, it is more ‘efficient’ for poorer
people to breath dirtier air since they are not able pay for the clean air.

3
Also, there is a general view that economic growth spurred by globalization would actually lead
to environmental protection. Proponents of this view argue that as a country becomes more
economically prosperous its citizens may tend to demand for environmentally friendly products.
Secondly, the country would tend to develope new technologies that are more efficient and hence
use less raw materials and or pollute less. However, this view has its limits since most
technological developments are environmentally motivated per se but have to be economically
beneficial. At the same time, the view only applies to short term environmental concerns such as
local waste water treatment and has almost no relevance to long term issues such as carbon
dioxide emissions (Van Veen Groot and Nijkamp, 1999).

Globalization has seen the rise of governance institutions such as Greenpeace and Amnesty
International that look into issues of environmental concerned and human rights respectively.
Also, there has been increase in international agreements such as the Montreal protocol which
banned the use of chemicals that destroy the Earth’s ozone layer (Boyce, 2004).

Development of communication technology has reduced the distance between people in the
world such that information travels so fast, people in different end of the globe can receive the
same communication at the same time or in the shortest tie possible. Therefore, people are more
aware of environmental concerns elsewhere and demand for better environmental practices. This
is evident in protests in the core concerning poor environmental practices in the resource
peripheries (Hayter et al 2003). Furthermore, awareness about global environmental issues
particularly climate change where there is no environmental cost shifting would probably
encourage overall policies towards environmental protection both from the core and resource
peripheries (Boyce, 2004).

Finally key financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank
have continually provided funds for countries to invest in conserving their natural environment.
However, there is debate as the effectiveness of these efforts since the Structural Adjustment
Loan pioneered by the IMF and world Bank in the 70s and 80s have been widely implicated in
worsening the economies of countries that were supposedly to benefit. Considering this in the
context of economic development equaling better environment quality then these institutions
have failed the test by contributing to environmental degradation in the south and by extension

4
globally. Whether this was a case of bad economics or a case of capital trotting the earth with the
sole aim of making profit remains unclear.

Conclusion

Globalization has a double effect on the environment; the mechanisms that drive and shape the
relationships between different regions in the world can either make or destroy the environment.
The big question remains as to how globalization can achieve environmental polarization instead
of divergence. It can be deduced that the tasks is manageable and can be done factoring in the
challenges and opportunities. Environmental governance will be a key here; however, two things
stand out as a way forward in this continuing debate. One there needs to be a concerted effort
towards addressing the power balance between those who stand to gain and those who stand to
lose from environmental governance. Secondly, there needs to be a shift from a wealth –based –
approach to a rights based approach where all individuals or groups of people regardless of
economic status or ability to pay for a clean environment actually have the same rights and
access to a clean living environment.

References

Bakker, K. and Bridge, G. (2006) Material worlds? Resource geographies and the 'matter of
nature', Progress in Human Geography 30(1), 5-27.

Bennett, B. et al, Eds. (2006) Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care
Programmes. Report of the UN Chernobyl Forum Expert Group "Health.Geneva.2-3

Boyce, J. K. (2004) Green and brown? Globalization and the environment, Oxford Review of
Economic Policy 20(1), 105-128.

Bridge, G. (2010) Geographies of peak oil: the other carbon problem, Geoforum 41(4), 523-530.

Bulkeley, H. (2005) Reconfiguring environmental governance: towards a politics of scales and

networks, Political Geography 25(8), 875-902.

Buttel, F.H. (1999) Ecological modernization as social theory. Geoforum 31 (2000) 57±65

5
Hale, M.et al (2007) Environment and Globalization Five Propositions.1-3.

Hayter, R. et al (2003) Relocating resource peripheries to the core of economic geography’s

theorizing: rationale and agenda, Area 35(1), 15-23.

Le Billon, P.(2001) The Political ecology of war: natural resources and the armed conflicts,
Political Geography 20(5), 561-584.

McCarthy, J. and Prudham, P. (2004) Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism,
Geoforum 35(3), 275-283.

Smith, N. (1984/1990) The production of nature, in Uneven Development: Nature, Capital and
the Production of Space, Blackwell, 34-65. Reprinted in: Harald Bauder and Salvatore Engel Di-
Mauro (eds.), Critical Geographies: A Collection of Readings, Praxis (e) Press, 2008.

Gibbs, D. (2006) Prospects for an environmental economic geography: linking ecological modernization
and regulationist approaches, Economic Geography 82(2), 193-215.

Tramošljanin, B. (2012) Globalization and its mechanisms of achievement. Review Article, UDC
316.42.063:339.54.45-47.

Van Veen-Groot, D. B. and Nijkamp. (1999) Globalisation, transport and the environment: new
perspectives for ecological economics, Ecological Economics 31(3), 331-346.