Globalization is variously defined in the literature as:

1. ‘The intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant

localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events
occurring many miles away and vice versa.’ (Giddens 1990: 21)
2. ‘The integration of the world-economy.’ (Gilpin 2001:364)
3. ‘De-territoriatization—or ... the growth of supraterritorial relations
between people.’ (Scholte 2000: 46)
4. ‘time-space compression.’ (Harvey 1989)
• Over the last three decades the sheer scale and scope of global
interconnectedness has become increasingly evident in every sphere
from the economic to the cultural. Sceptics do not regard this as
evidence of globalization if that term means something more than
simply international interdependence, i.e. linkages between countries.
The key issue becomes what we understand by the term ‘globalization’.
It can be defined as:
A historical process involving a fundamental shift or
transformation in the spatial scale of human social organization that
links distant communities and expands the reach of power relations
across regions and continents.
Such a definition enables us to distinguish globalization from more
spatially delimited processes such as internationalization and
regionalization. Whereas internationalization refers to growing
interdependence between states, the very idea of internationalization
presumes that they remain discrete national units with clearly
demarcated borders. By contrast, globalization refers to a process in
which the very distinction between the domestic and the external
breaks down. Distance and time are collapsed, so that events many
thousands of miles away can come to have almost immediate local
consequences while the impacts of even more localized developments
may be diffused rapidly around the globe
Globalization since 9/11 2004 was still a good one for globalization.
International trade grew by a robust 9 percent, and trade became more
central to most national economies. Trade in merchandise led the way,
growing even faster than services. Many countries in the developing
world shared in the profits as commodity prices soared, thanks to
powerful demand from China. And it wasn’t just steel, fuel, and
concrete that headed east. So too did piles of mostly Western cash:
Foreign investment in Asia jumped 45 percent from the previous year.
Latin America also got a boost from foreign investors, who upped their
ante in the region by 44 percent. Overall, foreign direct investment
increased 9 percent, and most of that increase was due to investment
in developing countries.’ (Foreign Policy, Nov. / Dec. 2006)
• Globalization is evident in the growing extensity, intensity, velocity,
and deepening impact of worldwide interconnectedness. •
Globalization denotes a shift in the scale of social organization, the
emergence of the world as a shared social space, the relative
deterritorialization of social, economic, and political activity, and the
relative denationalization of power. • Globalization can be
conceptualized as a fundamental shift or transformation in the spatial
scale of human social organization that links distant communities and
expands the reach of power relations across regions and continents. •
Globalization is to be distinguished from internationalization and
regionalization.
Patterns of contemporary globalization
Globalization, to varying degrees, is evident in all the principal sectors
of social activity: Economic: in the economic sphere, patterns of
worldwide trade, finance, and production are creating global markets
and, in the process, a single global capitalist economy—what Castells
(2000) calls ‘global informational capitalism’. Multinational
corporations organize production and marketing on a global basis while
the operation of global financial markets determines which countries
get credit and upon what terms. Military: in the military domain the
global arms trade, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
the growth of transnational terrorism, the growing significance of
transnational military corporations, and the discourse of global
insecurity point to the existence of a global military order. Legal: the
expansion of transnational and international law from trade to human
rights alongside the creation of new world legal institutions such as the
International Criminal Court is indicative of an emerging global legal
order. Ecological: a shared ecology involves shared environmental
problems, from global warming to species protection, alongside the
creation of multilateral responses and regimes of glbal environmental
governance. Cultural: involves a complex mix of homogenization and
increased heterogeneity given the global diffusion of popular culture,
global media corporations, communications networks, etc.,
simultaneously with the reassertion of nationalism, ethnicity, and
difference. But few cultures are hermetically sealed off from cultural
interaction. Social: shifting patterns of migration from South to North
and East to West have turned migration into a major global issue as
movements come close to the record levels of the great nineteenth-
century movements of people.
The engines of globalization
Explanations of globalization tend to focus on three interrelated
factors, namely: technics (technological change and social
organization); economics (markets and capitalism); and politics (power,
interests, and institutions). Technics is central to any account of
globalization since it is a truism that without modern communications
infrastructures, in particular, a global system or worldwide economy
would not be possible. Economics—crucial as technology is, so too is its
specifically economic logic. Capitalism’s insatiable requirement for new
markets and profits lead inevitably to the globalization of economic
activity. Politics—shorthand here for ideas, interests, and power—con
—stitutes the third logic of globalization. If technology provides the
physical infrastructure of globalization, politics provides its normative
infrastructure. Governments, such as those of the USA and the UK,
have been critical actors in nurturing the process of globalization
The three waves of globalization.
Globalization is not a novel phenomenon. Viewed as a secular
historical process by which human civilizations have come to form a
single world system, it has occurred in three distinct waves. In the first
wave, the age of discovery (1450-1850), globalization was decisively
shaped by European expansion and conquest. The second wave (1850-
1945) evidenced a major expansion in the spread and entrenchment of
European empires. By comparison, contemporary globalization (1960
on) marks a new epoch in human affairs. Just as the industrial
revolution and the expansion of the West in the nineteenth century
defined a new age in world history, so today the microchip and the
satellite are icons of a globalized world order.
A world transformed: globalization and distorted global politics
Consider a political map of the world: its most striking feature is the
division of the entire earth’s surface into over 190 neatly defined
territorial units, namely states. To a student of politics in the Middle
Ages such a representation of the world, which gave primacy to borders
and boundaries, would make little sense. Historically, borders are a
relatively recent invention, as is the idea that states are sovereign,
selfgoverning, territorially delimited political communities or polities.
Although today a convenient fiction, this presumption remains central
to orthodox state-centric conceptions of world politics as the pursuit of
power and interests between sovereign states. Globalization, however,
calls this state-centric conception of world politics into question. Taking
globalization seriously therefore requires a conceptual shift in the way
we think about world politics.
The Westphalian Constitution of world politics 1. Territoriality:
humankind is organized principally into exclusive territorial (political)
communities with fixed borders. 2. Sovereignty: within its borders the
state or government has an entitlement to supreme, unqualified, and
exclusive political and legal authority. 3. Autonomy: the principle of
self-determination or self-governance constructs countries as
autonomous containers of political, social, and economic activity in that
fixed borders separate the domestic sphere from the world outside.
“the once bright line between domestic and foreign policy is blurring. If
I could do anything to change the speech patterns of those of us in
public life, I would like almost to stop hearing people talk about foreign
policy and domestic policy, and instead start discussing economic
policy, security policy, environmental policy.” (quoted in Cusimano
2000: 6)
Questions 1. Distinguish the concept of globalization from that of
regionalization and internationalization. 2. What do you understand by
the Westphalia Constitution of world order? 3. Why is global politics
today more accurately described as distorted global politics? 4. Outline
the principal causes of globalization. 5. Review the sceptical argument
and critically evaluate it. 6. What are the principal characteristics of the
post-Westphalian order? 7. identify some of the key elements of
political globalization. 8. What are the principal characteristics of
contemporary globalization? 9. Distinguish the concept of global
politics from that of geopolitics and inter-state politics. 10. Outline the
main elements of cosmopolitan global politics. 11. Is the state being
eclipsed by the forces of globalization and global governance? 12. Is
state sovereignty being eroded or transformed? Explain your answer.
Terrorism: the impact of globalization Al Qaeda, or ‘The Base’,
received global recognition as a result ofits attacks conducted in
NewYorkand Washington on 11 September 2001. But what exactly is Al
Qaeda? Is it a global terrorist group that threatens Western civilization
and values, a sub-state financial and resource provider to like-minded
terrorist groups, or merely the purveyors of an extremist set of beliefs
that justifies political violence to fulfil militant Islamic myths? Experts
continue to debate what Al Qaeda is, what it represents, and the actual
threat that it poses. Part of the reason for the disagreement stems from
the fact that Al Qaeda, as the standard bearer for militant Islam, has
evolved considerably since the invasion of Afghanistan. Immediately
after 9/11, Al Qaeda was depicted as the centre of a global nexus of
terrorism connected to almost all terrorist groups. More recently,
however, Al Qaeda has appeared less as a group and more as a global
movement that markets and exploits its own form of militant Islam in a
loose network of ‘franchised’ cells and groups. Regardless of how one
views Al Qaeda, one cannot dispute the influence and appeal of its
message across national boundaries. Efforts to explain the vitality of
global terrorism in general— and Al Qaeda in particular—focus on
three areas linked to aspects of globalization: culture, economics, and
religion.
A globalizing economy
One key reason for disagreements over the extent and significance of
economic globalization relates to the contrasting definitions that
different analysts have applied to notions of globality. What, more
precisely, is ‘global’ about the global economy? The following
paragraphs distinguish three contrasting ways that the globalization of
trade and finance has been broadly conceived, namely, in terms of: (1)
the crossing of borders; (2) the opening of borders; and (3) the
transcendence of borders. Although the three conceptions overlap to
some extent, they involve important differences of emphasis. Most
arguments concerning economic globalization have pitted sceptics, who
adopt the first perspective, against enthusiasts, who apply the second
notion. However, the third conception of globality offers a more
distinctive and revealing approach. Later sections of the present
chapter therefore develop that alternative notion in relation to trade
and finance.
Globalization and legitimacy On the face of it, globalization potentially
creates several problems for the political stability of the current order.
Not least is this so with regard to its legitimacy. There is a widely shared
view that the emergence of a diffuse protest movement against
globalization is symptomatic of a new wave of resistance to it. This
creates tensions at several levels. The central problem is understood to
be one of the limited effectiveness of democratic practice in present
world conditions. At a time when so much emphasis is placed on the
virtues of democracy, many question its viability when organized on a
purely national basis, given the context of globalization. There are two
facets to this issue: representation and accountability. It is all very well
for citizens to be represented in national electoral institutions, but what
voice does this give them in controlling those very economic, social,
and cultural forces that cut across national borders, if their own
governments do not have the capacity to deal with these? Conversely,
this creates an issue of accountability. There may be little point in
holding national and local politicians accountable through elections if
these politicians remain relatively powerless to exercise influence over
global corporations, global technology, global environmental changes,
or the global financial system. These concerns apply specifically to just
how democratic are bodies such as the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund, as well as international organizations
such as the United Nations. On a regional level, there has been
recurrent anxiety about the so-called legitimacy deficits that afflict the
institutions of the European Union (see Ch.25). The general issue is the
lack of congruence between the geographical organization of our
various political systems, and the ‘deterritorialized’ nature of our
current economic, social, and political activities. In the face of these
concerns, there has been much debate about the role of an emerging
global civil society (Keane 2003). This embraces a variety of
crossnational social movements, including anti-globalization activists, as
well as a multitude of international non-governmental organizations,
such as Greenpeace and Amnesty International. Their proponents see
these movements as the only feasible way of directly influencing global
policies on such matters as development, environment, human rights,
and international security, and hence as the best way of democratizing
global governance. Others, however, remain sceptical. There is nothing
inherently democratic about global civil society as such, as there is no
legitimate basis of representation or accountability to many of these
movements (Van Rooy 2003). They may simply represent sectional
interests, and make policy hostage to those that are better organized,
have greater resources, and are more vocal. Indeed, from the
perspective of many governments in the South, global civil society may
aggravate the inequalities between rich and poor. Civil society is
resented as an extension of the power of the North, for the reason that
such movements have a much more solid basis in the developed world,
and are more likely to speak for its interests. This is illustrated, for
example, in the tension between the economic development objectives
of many governments in the South, and the preferred policies of many
environmental movements in the North. The possible objection is that
this perpetuates the sense of two contrasting global orders, one for the
North (represented both by strong governments and strong civil society
movements), as against the South (led by weak governments, and
weakly organized civil society). This may contribute to a perceived crisis
of legitimacy for the state in the developing world.
An international order of globalized states? Finally, the chapter returns
to whether globalization can be regarded as the defining element in
contemporary order. Globalization could be taken to represent the
mainstay of today’s order only if it superseded all traditional elements
of the international order. But if globalization is an addition to, not a
substitute for, the existing international order, then it is not wholly
adequate to the task of providing us with the single key to the post-cold
war order. If it can be convincingly held that globalization is not some
process over and above the activities of states, but is instead an
element within state transformation, we can develop on this basis a
conception of the globalized state. Globalization does not make the
state disappear, but is a way of thinking about its present form. By
extension, globalization does not make redundant the notion of an
international order, but instead requires us to think about a globalized
international order. In short, what is required is a notion of
international order composed of globalized states. Much of the
confusion results from the tendency to see globalization as exclusively
pertaining to the environment in which states find themselves:
globalization is a force wholly external to the individual states, and
demands an outside-in perspective on the resulting outcomes. On this
view, globalization is a claim about the degree of interconnectedness
between states, such that the significance of borders, and the reality of
separate national actors, is called seriously into question. There is no
denying that this is part of what globalization signifies. But what such a
one-sided interpretation leaves out is the extent to which globalization
refers also to a ‘domestic’ process of change within states. Regarded in
this alternative way, globalization can be understood as an expression
of the profound transformations in the nature of the state, and in state-
society relations, that have developed in recent decades. This requires
an inside-out view of globalization as well. This leads us to think not of
the demise or retreat of the state, but about its changing functionality:
states still exist but do different things, do some things less well than
they used to, and also have taken on new responsibilities in exchange.
Even in an age of globalization, there remain both states and a states-
system. While, as noted above, the idea of international order is more
limited than that of world or global order, the suggestion that
globalization refers (at least in part) to a condition within states invites
us to develop a theory about the nature of international order
appropriate for globalized states. We need to face the seeming paradox
that there can indeed be an international order of globalized states.
The mistake then is to imagine that globalization signifies the end of all
projects for international order, when what in fact is underway is the
reconfiguration of the principles of international order to reflect the
new realities of globalized states.
The Pros And Cons Of Globalization
A story in the Washington Post said “20 years ago globalization was
pitched as a strategy that would raise all boats in poor and rich
countries alike. In the U.S. and Europe consumers would have their pick
of inexpensive items made by people thousands of miles away whose
pay was much lower than theirs. And in time trade barriers would drop
to support even more multinationals expansion and economic gains
while geo political cooperation would flourish.” There is no question
that globalization has been a good thing for many developing countries
who now have access to our markets and can export cheap goods.
Globalization has also been good for Multi-national corporations and
Wall Street. But globalization has not been good for working people
(blue or white collar) and has led to the continuing deindustrialization
of America. Globalization is a complicated issue. It is necessary to
evaluate the pros and cons before drawing any conclusions. Pros
Supporters of globalization argue that it has the potential to make this
world a better place to live in and solve some of the deep-seated
problems like unemployment and poverty. 1. Free trade is supposed to
reduce barriers such as tariffs, value added taxes, subsidies, and other
barriers between nations. This is not true. There are still many barriers
to free trade. The Washington Post story says “the problem is that the
big G20 countries added more than 1,200 restrictive export and import
measures since 2008 2. The proponents say globalization represents
free trade which promotes global economic growth; creates jobs,
makes companies more competitive, and lowers prices for consumers.
3. Competition between countries is supposed to drive prices down. In
many cases this is not working because countries manipulate their
currency to get a price advantage. 4. It also provides poor countries,
through infusions of foreign capital and technology, with the chance to
develop economically and by spreading prosperity, creates the
conditions in which democracy and respect for human rights may
flourish. This is an ethereal goal which hasn’t been achieved in most
countries 5. According to supporters globalization and democracy
should go hand in hand. It should be pure business with no colonialist
designs. 6. There is now a worldwide market for companies and
consumers who have access to products of different countries. True 7.
Gradually there is a world power that is being created instead of
compartmentalized power sectors. Politics is merging and decisions
that are being taken are actually beneficial for people all over the
world. This is simply a romanticized view of what is actually happening.
True 8. There is more influx of information between two countries,
which do not have anything in common between them. True 9. There is
cultural intermingling and each country is learning more about other
cultures. True 10. Since we share financial interests, corporations and
governments are trying to sort out ecological problems for each other.
– True, they are talking more than trying. 11. Socially we have become
more open and tolerant towards each other and people who live in the
other part of the world are not considered aliens. True in many cases.
12. Most people see speedy travel, mass communications and quick
dissemination of information through the Internet as benefits of
globalization. True 13. Labor can move from country to country to
market their skills. True, but this can cause problems with the existing
labor and downward pressure on wages. 14. Sharing technology with
developing nations will help them progress. True for small countries but
stealing our technologies and IP have become a big problem with our
larger competitors like China. 15. Transnational companies investing in
installing plants in other countries provide employment for the people
in those countries often getting them out of poverty. True 16.
Globalization has given countries the ability to agree to free trade
agreements like NAFTA, South Korea Korus, and The TPP. True but
these agreements have cost the U.S. many jobs and always increase our
trade deficit Cons • The general complaint about globalization is that it
has made the rich richer while making the non-rich poorer. “It is
wonderful for managers, owners and investors, but hell on workers and
nature.” • Globalization is supposed to be about free trade where all
barriers are eliminated but there are still many barriers. For
instance161 countries have value added taxes (VATs) on imports which
are as high as 21.6% in Europe. The U.S. does not have VAT. • The
biggest problem for developed countries is that jobs are lost and
transferred to lower cost countries.” According to conservative
estimates by Robert Scott of the Economic Policy Institute, granting
China most favored nation status drained away 3.2 million jobs,
including 2.4 million manufacturing jobs. He pegs the net losses due to
our trade deficit with Japan ($78.3 billion in 2013) at 896,000 jobs, as
well as an additional 682,900 jobs from the Mexico –U.S. trade-deficit
run-up from 1994 through 2010.” • Workers in developed countries like
the US face pay-cut demands from employers who threaten to export
jobs. This has created a culture of fear for many middle class workers
who have little leverage in this global game • Large multi-national
corporations have the ability to exploit tax havens in other countries to
avoid paying taxes. • Multinational corporations are accused of social
injustice, unfair working conditions (including slave labor wages, living
and working conditions), as well as lack of concern for environment,
mismanagement of natural resources, and ecological damage. •
Multinational corporations, which were previously restricted to
commercial activities, are increasingly influencing political decisions.
Many think there is a threat of corporations ruling the world because
they are gaining power, due to globalization. • Building products
overseas in countries like China puts our technologies at risk of being
copied or stolen, which is in fact happening rapidly • The anti-globalists
also claim that globalization is not working for the majority of the
world. “During the most recent period of rapid growth in global trade
and investment, 1960 to 1998, inequality worsened both
internationally and within countries. The UN Development Program
reports that the richest 20 percent of the world’s population consume
86 percent of the world’s resources while the poorest 80 percent
consume just 14 percent. “ • Some experts think that globalization is
also leading to the incursion of communicable diseases. Deadly diseases
like HIV/AIDS are being spread by travelers to the remotest corners of
the globe. • Globalization has led to exploitation of labor. Prisoners and
child workers are used to work in inhumane conditions. Safety
standards are ignored to produce cheap goods. There is also an
increase in human trafficking. • Social welfare schemes or “safety nets”
are under great pressure in developed countries because of deficits, job
losses, and other economic ramifications of globalization. Globalization
is an economic tsunami that is sweeping the planet. We can’t stop it
but there are many things we can do to slow it down and make it more
equitable. What is missing? Leadership – We need politicians who are
willing to confront the cheaters. One of our biggest problems is that 7
of our trading partners manipulate their currencies to gain unfair price
advantage which increases their exports and decreases their imports.
This is illegal under WTO rules so there is a sound legal basis to put
some kind of tax on their exports until they quit cheating. Balanced
Trade – Most of our trading partners can balance their trade budgets
and even run a surplus. We have not made any effort to balance our
trade budget and have run a deficit for more than 30 years resulting in
an $11 trillion deficit. The trade deficit is the single biggest job killer in
our economy, particularly manufacturing jobs. We need the
government to develop a plan to begin to balance our trade deficit
even though this is not a political priority in either party. Trade
Agreements – Both the NAFTA and the South Korean Korus trade
agreements might have been good for Wall Street and the multi-
national corporations but they eliminated jobs in America and
expanded our trade deficit. The upcoming Trans Pacific Trade
Agreement will do the same thing and Congress should not fast track
this bad agreement for a dozen reasons. Enforcing the rules – China
ignores trade rules and WTO laws with reckless abandon. Besides
currency manipulation they subsidize their state owned companies to
target our markets, and provide funding to their state owned
companies that dump their products in America. They also steal our
technologies, sell counterfeit versions of our products, and impose
tariffs and other barriers anytime they want – as we do nothing to stop
them. China does not deserve to be on our most favored nation list and
we need to tax their exports to us until they stop these illegal activities.
What is good for third world countries, like Kenya, or countries with
tremendous growth, like China, has not been good for American
workers. Globalization is deindustrializing America as we continue to
outsource both manufacturing blue collar and white collar jobs.
Supporters of globalization have made the case that it is good because
it has brought low priced imported goods, but they have not matched
the decline of wages in the middle class and will not offset the loss of
many family wage jobs Globalization is like being overwhelmed by a
snow avalanche. You can’t stop it – you can only swim in the snow and
hope to stay on top. I would like to make the argument that the US
should try a lot harder to swim in the snow and stay on top. We can’t
stop globalization but there are many policies and strategies we can use
to make it more equitable. We can enforce the trade laws, force the
competition to play by the same rules, and stop giving our competitors
the tools (technology and R& D) to ultimately win the global war.
GLOBALIZATION - PROS AND CONS Joachim Wilmeyer believes that "participation, the right to
performance, equality of opportunity, equitable funding, equity between human generations at the
level of basic satisfaction are desirable assured by globalization, but only under the conditions of a
governing system. The United Nations recognizes that Globalization with the human face is a concept
that also involves taking into account concepts of sustainable development, sustainable human
development, balanced development and sustainable development of the environment. Besides these,
it is proposed to establish a set of principles that give the concept of globalization the human face.
Starting from these considerations, we can formulate a series of positive and negative effects of
globalization:

The positive effects of globalization

1 . Reducing the sense of isolation of poor countries 2. Expanding the Information Society and
Enhancing Access To Information 3. Increasing the speed of commercial, financial and technological
operations 4. Globalization can be a factor in integrating people into the world community 5. Efficiency
of the entire economic activity at the planetary level Acceptance against Paul Kennedy said: "The planet
is cut off today by a huge line: a part of it is the young societies that are rapidly growing, resourceless,
underdeveloped and under-educated, and on the other are wealthy but old, inventive populations
technological, but dying demographically. " Zygmund Bauman argues that "Capital liberalization has the
effect of depopulation, the destruction of local economies, the exclusion of millions of people unable to
absorb the new global economy." Quality – Access to Success, 19(S1) 125 If globalization has negative
effects, that is the consequence of the flawed way in which governments conceive and realize
globalization, most likely in the case of developing countries lacking the CTN vector (the transnational
corporations), the conclusion is simple: globalization is for the benefit of countries that know to manage
the developed countries, "concludes UNESCO.

Negative effects of globalization

1. Security deficit, poverty, personal insecurity, migration turns into a global threat; 2. There are no
national solutions to transnational issues; 3. Demographic Deficit: is narrow national intellectual
potential and increase export of human resources; 4. Ecology deficiency: the natural world of the world
is rapidly deteriorating in line with the growth of the national and global economy; 5. Reducing the
number of jobs.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Beyond the positive or negative effects of globalization, we find that the most serious threat to
globalization is the growing shortage of natural resources, and the largest consumers are states such as
the United States, China, India, where the demands grow every day and are forced to convert from
exporters to importers of natural resources and other raw materials. We can thus expect a depletion of
natural resources by the first half of the 21st century. Scientists are trying to solve this problem by
creating environmentally friendly fuels, natural sources of energy, such as the solar and wind, that will
save the planet from both global warming and the increasing emphasis of these vital sources. The most
acute problem that we will face in the coming years and which is becoming more and more felt is the
outbreak of conflicts that can distort in real wars. Until now, these conflicts are more likely to occur
within a nation than between two countries. Unresolved social and environmental issues have a
determining effect on human security. This is because the needs and interests of opposing groups that
are related to the same land and environmental resources are often irreconcilable. The third world
population has a great deal to suffer from these conflicts, but this is due to corruption and poor
administration. The most feared conflict that can occur due to global warming and lack of natural
resources is Russia and the West. There can be a fierce competition for the mineral resources in the
Arctic. The melting of the ice cap can lead to this conflict that is very likely to degenerate into a real war,
a "Second Cold War" this time alone, for the resources in the Arctic ice cap. Other dangers that will lead
to many problems for mankind can be the increasing emphasis among poor and rich societies. Because
industrialized societies are the reason for global warming, its effects have stronger repercussions on
poor or developing societies. For all these conflicts, homes are expected to make little effort in the
future to solve them. Global warming specialists have already set up the changes that will make the
planet over the next hundred years. These changes will be felt most in very crowded urban areas. There
will be a lack of natural resources, a drop in water resources, food, health will be put to severe testing,
many cases of respiratory diseases, allergies, cardiovascular and gastrointestinal diseases will appear.
The effects of global warming are graduated and there is a possibility for governments in the world to
take the necessary measures to adapt the population to the new conditions. But these measures are
related to strategy, education, help, etc., which are not yet easy to maneuver. And what is most lacking
in achieving this is the political will on the part of many states, such as the United States and the issue of
the Kyoto Protocol. When the economic problem arises, many states retreat and do not think enough
about the effects they produce in the world. But one thing is gratifying, however, that many economists
have realized that cooperation between the economy and the environment will be beneficial to our
future and we will succeed in leaving the generations a living Earth.