Globalization and Environment
Some scholars proposed that globalization
is an “engine of wealth creation… that will fund environmental improvement” (Carter,
2007, pp. 272-273). I think so but it applies to only some extent and to
particular small proportion of people around the globe – the rich! Mol (2003)
argued that “economic globalization” has since resulted “the increased
transport of raw materials, commodities, semi-processed materials, parts,
finished goods and waste, greater energy consumption and more pollution – plus
the risk of major environmental accidents” (Carter, 2007, p. 273). By this, it
reflects me that the environmental problem nowadays is not a natural phenomenon,
but is the result of human’s activity. For instance, global warming, ozone
emission, acid rain, air pollution, water pollution, waste all are the “achievement”
of globalization of which we suppose to develop our world, yes, maybe in term
of economy rather than environment.
From the liberal institutionalists’ point
of view (Carter, 2007, p. 274), they believe that global governance could help
resolve environmental problems. Then, it must be the task of Kyoto Protocol and
other form of international agreement created to address the global
environmental issues. It sounds good in each protocol’s regulation. But the
questions are that: how much has this protocol, Kyoto for instance, achieved?
Does the global governance, as stated by the liberalists, have enough capacity
to enforce other members to follow? Then why does United States refuse to sign
the Protocol while she is one of the big shareholders of smoke producing
country? Or maybe she knows that the Protocol will not work!
Free Trade and Environment
Neo-liberalism stated that “free trade
contributes to economic growth, which generates the wealth necessary to fund
environmental improvements… and market liberals make a brave and perhaps overly
optimistic assumption that firms will spend their extra wealth on greener technologies
such as pollution abatement equipment, rather than just taking it as profit…”
(Carter, 2007, p. 275). Whatever they indicated are just their “assumption,”
and in the reality and interpretation often are different. Let’s have a look on
“investment theory”: cheaper labor, resource availability are the elements that
attract investors. In practices, investors will not invest somewhere with
higher cost expenditure for they find it difficult to compete in international
market. Meanwhile, it reflects to “industrial flight” of which signifies that
industry owner would move their business from higher environmental standards to
another country particularly with lower environmental standards, at the same
time, to avoid pollution abatement cost (Carter, 2007, p.277). This also
responses back to “comparative advantage” theory.
From my point of view, I do not truly
believe that the investors are willing to invest in any country whose law and
regulation are stricter than the others. They, always, and most of the time, as
also described in theory, look for somewhere could support them with cheap
labor and less strict rule and regulation, as so to generate more profit. In
case the targeted country could not provide them convenience of cheaper cost
expenditure comparing to other countries, in competitive advantage theory, they
will, of course, move to the cheaper one. In contrary, if the comparison is
almost the same in their own country, then, why would they have to spend extra
money moving their business or factory oversea? Also, Thai electric company
will not invest hydropower dam in Burma if the cost is the same if the company
invest in Thailand and if the project is environmental friendly.
I am mostly being negative to these
theories, often I regard these as “Western Context,” or maybe has my country –
Cambodia – experienced a lot of abuses by foreign countries who have “more
power and economic development” over decades; and am I traumatized by those
“sound-good” theories and, still, we are now being exploited by those richer
countries.
Can we choose both, economic growth and
environmental protection, at the same time? What mechanism should we apply to
achieve both aims? Or shall we forget environmental protection first for our
people are now poor and being starved?
