The Double Edge Of Globalization

NEW HAVEN

An electrician who came to my house torepair some lights asked what I did at Yale. He was shocked that I worked at theuniversity's Center for the Study of Globalization. "Isn't it true thatglobalization destroys the rainforest?" he asked, explaining his surprise.Although I do not work for globalization, his concern is valid and shared bymany who take to the street protesting globalization.

That charge holds if, by globalization, one simplymeans expanded international trade. The other charge, that multinationalcompanies wreak havoc on the global environment by moving operations tocountries where environmental regulations are weak or nonexistent, is a littlemore difficult to prove. A recent World Bank study shows that clearing foreststo grow crops accounted for some 20 percent of global carbon emissions.

But the bank has found little evidence that companieschose to invest in such countries to shirk pollution-abatement costs in richcountries. Instead, the most important factor in determining the amount ofinvestment was the size of the local market. It has also been found that withina given industry, foreign-operated plants tended to pollute less than localpeers

The World Trade Organization, and by extensionglobalization, also stands accused of destroying the global environment.Expanding trade driven by globalization has brought about increased fishing,destruction of forestland, and the spread of polluting industries to thedeveloping world. In a November 2005 report, the UN Food and AgriculturalOrganization reported that each year about 18 million acres of the world'sforests--an area the size of Panama or Sierra Leone--are lost due todeforestation.

Serious critics of globalization acknowledge thatdeforestation cannot be laid at the door of globalization alone. But theyrightly point out that globalization does serve as both a conduit and anaccelerator for many of the forces that cause the loss of forest coverworldwide.

By encouraging trade, globalization encouragesconsumption, which leads to more logging worldwide. Governance at both local andglobal levels has failed to promote conservation and reforestation.

China is a case in point. A major beneficiary ofglobalization as the world's factory, it increasingly turns to other countriesto meet its burgeoning demand for food. That is good news for Brazilian farmerswho want to cash in on China's growing demand for soybeans: The environmentalorganization Greenpeace estimates that more than 2.5 million acres of tropicalforest have been cleared in recent years to plant soybeans. Greenpeace alsoclaims that there is "a 7,000 km chain that starts with the clearing ofvirgin forest by farmers and leads directly to chicken nuggets being sold inBritish and European fast food restaurants" and labels the British importof soy animal feed from Brazil as tantamount to "forest crime,"according to an article in the Guardian.

China's blazing economic growth, supplying cheapproducts to the world, has other costs, too. Accelerated burning of coal and useof chemicals to fuel the export machine pollute not only China's air and waterbut the world's environment as well. A 2004 study found that the jet streamdispersed chemicals like mercury, spewed by factories in China, to locationsthousands of miles away. A researcher traced a plume of dirty air from Asia toNew England, where analysis of collected samples revealed the chemicals hadoriginated in China, reported the Wall Street Journal in 2004.

A major change between past globalization and itspresent state is the visibility of the connections. In today's hyperconnectedworld, the backlash can rise and proliferate faster than in the past.

The instantaneous transmission of news and images hasturned the thoroughly connected and even marginally connected citizens of theworld into spectators and consumers of ideas and information. Images of naturaldisaster and human suffering elicit instinctive human sympathy and support inthe wake of a tsunami or an earthquake.

The threat of global warming, a matter of increasingconcern, increasingly claims front-page attention in newspapers around theglobe. A New Haven electrician is globally aware, worrying about destruction ofthe Amazon rainforest and how that might impact the world's climate.

Global warming has the potential to shrink the globaleconomy by 20 percent and to cause economic and social disruption on a par withWorld Wars I and II and the Great Depression, according to a report prepared byeconomist Nicholas Stern. The connection between carbon-emitting economic growthand increasing trade and industrialization brought by globalization isunmistakable.

As world trade grows and millions of factories jointhe global supply chain, as mines are exploited and timber is felled to meetrising consumer demands, increased pollution is often the price. Pollution hitsthe originating country first, contaminating its soil and water, but soon isabsorbed in the atmosphere, where it becomes a global problem--poisoning the airand bringing acid rain to other parts of the world.

The millions of migrants who might be forced out oftheir homes because of flooding caused by global warming are still in the realmof speculation. Surprisingly, despite the availability of energy-efficienttechnologies and know-how, little use is made of them. The world seems paralyzedabout how to face the threat of global warming.

The world's top emitter of greenhouse gases, theUnited States, has refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, and the nations that havesigned it have been inconsistent with its implementation, making onlyperfunctory attempts to grapple with the challenge of global warming.

Yet there is dramatic evidence that with thecommitment of nations and effective global governance, it is possible to avertdangerous trends. Thanks to concerted action taken in combating ozone depletionthrough the Montreal Protocol, the ozone hole has shrunk. There are even signsthat as a result of economic growth, urbanization and enlightened publicpolicies born of global awareness, more nations are reversing the longstandingtrend toward destruction of their forests.

Life in every country today is so inextricablyintertwined with the rest of the world that failure to appreciate thisinterdependence and its long-term effects could risk the world's drifting towarda major crisis. The international system is lacking institutional capacity toaddress the issues we face. The current ineffective state of the United Nationsin tackling some of the major humanitarian disasters illustrates the dilemma.Blaming the UN makes little sense, however.

Rather, the root cause is the unwillingness--orinability--of key actors on the global scene and their constituencies to empowerthe UN to a level that corresponds with tomorrow's global realities andpossibilities. A multitude of non-governmental organizations worldwide--the newpreachers--have performed valuable services in addressing many problems raisedby interconnectedness. But nothing can replace the power of sovereigngovernments working in concert to tackle global challenges.

Although no one is in charge of globalization,history shows that political power can channel or obstruct the multitude ofcurrents that feed globalization, and lead to a change in course.

Nayan Chanda is director ofpublications and editor of YaleGlobalOnline. This article is adapted from his book Bound Together: HowTraders, Preachers, Adventurers, and Warriors Shaped Globalization, publishedby Yale University Press in May 2007. Click here for an excerpt of the book. Rights: © 2007 Yale Center forthe Study of Globalization