INTRODUCTION

Globalization has had far-reaching effects on our lifestyle. It has led to faster access to
technology, improved communication, and innovation. Apart from playing an important role in
bringing people of different cultures together, it has ushered a new era in the economic
prosperity and has opened up vast channels of development. However, globalization has also
created some areas of concern, and prominent among these is the impact that it has had on the
environment. Globalization has featured extensively in the debates on environmentalism, and
green activists have highlighted its far-reaching effects.

Activists have pointed out that globalization has led to an increase in the consumption of
products, which has impacted the ecological cycle. Increased consumption leads to an increase in
the production of goods, which in turn puts stress on the environment.

Globalization has also led to an increase in the transportation of raw materials and food from one
place to another. Earlier, people used to consume locally-grown food, but with globalization,
people consume products that have been developed in foreign countries.

Globalization is a term that has gained immense popularity over the past years. As a social
science discipline, the globalization process has fascinated the entire society with its key
functions being classified into economic, social, cultural, and political perspectives. In India,
globalization has had a huge impact on people and the environment, taking into consideration
that the country is rapidly industrializing and has a huge rate of population growth. The
economic, cultural and political differences between Indian provinces have become more
emphasized since 1990 after the country initiated neo-liberal transformation.[1] Growing
inequalities as well as the uneven development process has been concealed by high economic
growth rates. This document critically analyses how globalization has affected people and the
environment in India

The last twenty years has demonstrated as never before the inter-dependence of life on the globe.
The whole global environment is affected by changes in weather and land use which in turn have
direct implications for individuals and communities. Economic developments in one continent
can have almost simultaneous consequences in another. Conflicts in one area can provoke
 actions and reactions on the other side of the world which can be watched simultaneously on
television or the internet by the whole world.

People live and develop their potential in social groups. Throughout recent history, the ethnic
group and nation state have been defining characteristics of human society. Throughout the late
20th century and into the 21st century, people have increasingly found themselves in a globalised
world, with economic, social and cultural influences coming from many different sources. This
process has challenged human and social rights and affected individual and social development.
The nation state and ideas of ethnicity and social cohesion have been challenged by these
influences. This process has become known as globalisation.

People cannot realise their individual potential and human rights in isolation; they need
supportive circumstances to give expression to most of their rights and to realise their human
potential. At its most direct, these circumstances need to recognise

 the importance of peace and the avoidance of violent conflict,

 the existence of an equitable social order, and

 confidence in a sustainable natural environment which supports life

This is implicit in many international statements, including the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the International Declaration on the Rights of the Child. Other international
conferences and statements of special relevance to this policy include:

 World Summit for Children – 1990

 Conference on Environment and Development – Rio de Janeiro 1992

 Convention on Climate Change – Rio de Janeiro 1992

 Conference on Human Settlements – Habitat agenda and Agenda 21 – Istanbul 1992

 World Conference on Human Rights – Vienna 1993

 International Conference on Population and Development – Cairo 1994

 Declaration on Social Development – Copenhagen 1995, Geneva 2000

 Protocol on Climate Change – Kyoto 1997

 The World Conference against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related
intolerance – Durban 2001

 World Summit on Sustainable Development – Johannesburg 2002

GLOBALIZATION AS A CONCEPT

Globalization as a Concept Globalization is the act of globalizing; from the noun “global“ meaning
“pertaining to or involving the whole world“, “worldwide“, “universal”(Oxford English Dictionary).
Globalization, as a concept, refers both to the "shrinking" of the world and the increased
consciousness of the world as a whole. It is a term used to describe the changes in societies and the
world economy that are the result of dramatically increased cross-border trade, investment, and
cultural Exchange (New World Encyclopedia). Globalization is 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: 64). There are nearly as many definitions of
globalization. One review provides a classification of at least five broad sets of definitions (Najam,
Runnalls and Halle, 2007: 4-5): Globalization as Internationalization: The “global” in globalization is
viewed as simply another adjective to describe cross-border relations between countries. It
describes the growth in international exchange and interdependence. Globalization as Liberalization:
Removing government-imposed restrictions on movements between countries. Globalization as
Universalization: Process of spreading ideas and experiences to people at all corners of the earth so
that aspirations and experiences around the world become harmonized. Globalization as
Westernization or Modernization: The social structures of modernity (capitalism, industrialism, etc.)
are spread the world over, destroying cultures and local self-determination in the process.
Globalization as Deterritorialization: Process of the reconfiguration of geography, so that social space
is no longer wholly mapped in terms of territorial places, territorial distances and territorial borders.
Globalization is defined as the elimination of barriers to trade, communication, and cultural exchange.
The world today has become very different from what it was previously, because of globalization.
With advances in technology and communications, the world becomes deterritorialized, the
constraints of geography shrink and the world becomes more singular and unified (Abdulsattar,
 2013). Globalization is a cover term for a number of the significant social transformations people have
experienced: new information and communication technologies, reduced transportation costs, and as
a consequence of both the compression of space and time, resulting in an intensification of cross-
border economic processes, the weakening of the sovereignty of the national state, and a
restructuring of spatial and social conditions (Haberland, 2009).Covering a wide range of distinct
political, economic, and cultural trends, the term globalization has quickly become one of the most
fashionable buzzwords of contemporary political and academic debate. In popular discourse,
globalization often functions as little more than a synonym for one or more of the following
phenomena (Irani and Noruzi, 2011: 216): Economic Liberalization: The pursuit of classical liberal or
free market policies in the world economy, Westernization: The growing dominance of western
forms of political, economic, and cultural life, Internet Revolution: The proliferation of new
information Technologies, Global Integration: The notion that humanity stands at the threshold of
realizing one single unified community in which major sources of social conflict have vanished. The
process of globalization, which has been evolving over several centuries, has been greatly amplified
over the past two decades by the transnational economic reshaping of world trade and investment, as
free market economics has achieved ideological and political ascendancy. The concurrent revolutions
in human mobility and electronic communications have contributed to this interconnectedness
(McMichael, 2000: 1121). On the other hand, globalization presents a mixed blessing for the
environment. It creates new opportunities for cooperation but also gives rise to new issues and
tensions. For example, liberalized trade may generate economic growth, which, in turn, may translate
into increased pollution, including Tran’s boundary spillovers of harm and unsustainable consumption
of natural resources (Esty and Ivanova, 2003). This situation exerts a tremendous pressure on the
environment. The destruction of nature that comes with urbanization reaches dimensions that
threaten the future of all living beings. Therefore, cities become more and more away from being
livable in each passing day.

Environmental Education and Its Role in Solving Environmental Problems

In the 1960s, awareness of the negative impacts of mankind on the natural environment rose, and
environmental policies and programmes worldwide were developed. People became more aware of
their own impact on the environment in their everyday life and, in parallel, their influence on the way
their local community is run. The idea emerged that a citizen could influence public decisions that
impact ones quality of life (at least in democratic countries). That is when the need for environmental
education emerged, covering two aspects: inform people of environmental systems and educate them
so that they adopt a more responsible attitude towards the environment. The idea was not to dictate
how to behave but to help people make informed choices Environmental Education (EE) is a process
aimed at developing a world population that is aware of and concerned about the total environment
and its associated problems, and which has the knowledge, attitudes, motivation, commitment, and
skills to work individually and collectively toward solutions of current problems and the prevention of
new ones (Matarasso and Dung, 2002: 4). In 1977, the goals of environmental education were agreed in
the Tbilisi Declaration at the Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education held at Tbilisi.
They were amended at UNESCO meetings in the Asia-Pacific region in order to capture the notion of
sustainability. The three goals of environmental education agreed upon are (Institute for Global
Environment Strategies, 2004): To foster clear awareness of, and concern about, economic, social,
political and economic interdependence at local, regional, national and international/global levels; To
provide every person with opportunities to acquire the knowledge, values, attitudes, commitment and
skills needed to protect and improve the environment; To develop and reinforce new patterns of
environmentally sensitive behavior among individuals, groups and society as a whole for a sustainable
environment. The above goals were better defined 20 years later by 5 objectives which were outlined in
UNESCO-UNEP Environmental Education Newsletter. These objectives are to improve (Kadis and
Avraamidou, 2008: 64). Awareness: To help social groups and individuals acquire awareness and
sensitivity towards the environment as a whole, and issues, questions, and problems related to the
environment and development. Knowledge: To help individuals, groups, and societies gain a variety of
experience in, and acquire a basic understanding of, what is required to create and maintain a
sustainable environment. Attitudes: To help individuals, groups, and societies acquire a set of values
and feelings of concern for the environment, and the motivation to actively participate in protection of
the environment. Skills: To help individuals, groups, and societies acquire the skills for identifying,
anticipating, preventing, and solving environmental problems. Participation: To provide individuals,
groups, and societies with an opportunity, and the motivation, to be actively involved at all levels in
creating a sustainable environment. To achieve the above objectives, a system of guiding principles for
environmental educators has been set up, which are (Matarasso and Dung, 2002: 5): EE should consider
the environment in its totality – natural, man-made, technological and social (economic, technological,
cultural-historical, moral, aesthetic); EE should be a continuous and lifelong process, beginning at the
pre-school level and continuing through adulthood in all formal and non-formal sectors; EE should be
interdisciplinary in its approach, drawing on the specific content of each discipline in order to gain a
holistic and balanced perspective; EE should examine major environmental issues from local, national,
regional and international viewpoints so that students appreciate environmental conditions in other
geographical areas; EE should focus on current and potential environmental situations while taking into
account the historical perspective; EE should promote the value and necessity of local, national, and
international co-operation to prevent and solve environmental problems; EE should assist others to
explicitly consider environmental concerns when planning for development and growth; EE should
enable learners to play a role in planning their learning experiences and provide opportunities for
making decisions and accepting their consequences. EE should enhance environmental sensitivity,
knowledge, and problem solving skills and establish values; EE should help learners to identify the
symptoms and the root causes of environmental problems; EE should emphasize the complexity of
environmental problems and thus the need to develop the skills to think critically and solve problems;
EE should use diverse learning environments and a broad array of educational approaches to teach and
learn about, and from the environment, with an emphasis on practical activities and firsthand
experience. American International Journal of Contemporary Research Vol. 6, No. 2; April 2016 68 EE is
more than information about the environment. Differences between EE and environmental information
(EI) are as follows (EPA, 2015): EE increases public awareness and knowledge of environmental issues;
EI provides facts or opinions about environmental issues. EE teaches individuals critical-thinking; EI
does not necessarily teach individuals critical-thinking. EE enhances individuals' problem-solving and
decision-making skills; EI does not necessarily enhance individuals' problem-solving and decision-
making skills. EE does not advocate a particular viewpoint; EI may advocate a particular viewpoint. As
seen from the above descriptions and definitions, environmental education is a very comprehensive
instrument for the solution of environmental problems. Not only within the sc cope of formal education
in schools, EE should be implemented and expanded in all sectors of society .

GLOBALIZATION CAUSES RISE IN POLLUTION LEVEL

Increase In Consumption of Fuel is Responsible for Rise in Pollution Level

The amount of fuel that is consumed in transporting these products has led to an increase in the
pollution levels in the environment. It has also led to several other environmental concerns such
as noise pollution and landscape intrusion. Transportation has also put a strain on the non-
renewable sources of energy, such as gasoline

Depletion of Ozone Layer

The gases that are emitted from the aircraft have led to the depletion of the ozone layer apart
from increasing the greenhouse effect. The industrial waste that is generated as a result of
production has been laden on ships and dumped in oceans. This has killed many underwater
organisms and has deposited many harmful chemicals in the ocean.

The damage caused to ecosystem from the oil that spilled from one of the leaking containers of
British Petroleum in 2010 is just one of the examples of the threat globalization poses to the
environment.

Soil Pollution
Due to globalization and industrialization, various chemicals have been thrown into the soil
which have resulted into the growth of many noxious weeds and plants. This toxic waste has
caused a lot of damage to plants by interfering in their genetic makeup. It has put pressure on the
available land resources.

Encroachment Of Land
In various parts of the world, mountains are being cut to make way for a passing tunnel or a
highway. Vast barren lands have been encroached upon to pave way for new buildings. While
humans may rejoice on the glimmer with these innovations, these can have long-term effects on
the environment.

Plastic is The Major Cause of Pollution

Various studies over the years, have found that plastic is one of the major toxic pollutants, as it is
a non-biodegradable product. However, plastic is of immense use when it comes to packaging
and preserving goods that are to be exported. This has led to increased use of plastic, causing
widespread environmental pollution.

Globalization has made so many changes in our lives that reversing it is not possible at all. The
solution lies in developing effective mechanisms that can check the extent to which it can impact
the environment. Researchers are of the view that the answer to this problem lies in the problem
itself, that is, globalization itself can lend support to building a better structure which is
economically feasible and environment-friendly. Globalization is about competition, and if
certain privately-owned companies can take the lead in being environment friendly, then it will
encourage others to follow suit.

Globalization impacts on the Environment

Above analysis has shown that globalization has had a huge impact on economic, social and
political wellbeing of the society. It is important to note that the globalization has also had its
share of impacts on the environment. For instance, nuclear abolishment movements have often
been motivated by the rapid spread of modern technologies. Moreover, abolition agendas have
been spread through globalization processes as environment conservationist pressure
governments and major organizations to adopt pollution free technologies.[16] Experts have
been influential in educating the public on the importance of conserving the environment and the
dangers that are posed by the certain technologies. Examples are given of environmental
disasters such as the Hiroshima nuclear accident that led to massive environmental pollution.
Such information would not have spread rapidly in the absence of rapid globalization processes.

Although globalization has had major economic benefits in several countries, there have been
several negative impacts on the environment. Studies have shown that globalization has
accelerated the pace of industrial growth and urbanization in different parts of the world. Rapid
transfer of technology and creation of manufacturing hubs has led to environmental pollution and
massive emission of greenhouse gases. Globalization is regarded as a leading and most severe
factor that faces the global community.[17] However, some individuals are of the opinion that
the crisis related to the extinction of various species is also critical but has been avoided due to
human-centeredness or anthropocentricity.

Conflict over Natural Resources

Urbanization has made people to invest in activities that have led to conflicts with the
environment and other natural resources. Scholars have questioned if multinational civilians have
the ability of preventing environmental degradation in a similar manner that peace workers are
used to stop an escalation of armed conflicts.[18] In the 21st century, wars and conflicts have led
to competition over the usage and over exploitation of natural resources. Therefore, a huge
number non-violent, unarmed peacekeepers need to called upon to safeguard the environment.

As globalization continues to have a major toll on the environment, experts have persuaded
governments and major organizations to change their technologies and adopt those that are less
severe to the environment. For instance, analysts continue to debate if nuclear energy will reduce
global warming, or if it will simply substitute one type of dirty non-renewable source of energy
for another. In developed countries, nuclear energy was highly popular until the recent
Fukushima nuclear accident.[19]Some individuals still believe that nuclear power is crucial in
enabling the current society to maintain its current lifestyle. However, opponents have pointed
out to a pattern of consistent nuclear accidents, including Harrisburg, Chernobyl, Three Mile
Island, and the recent Fukushima. Nuclear scientists in each of these incidents insisted that the
disaster was as a result of outmoded designs and that they cannot recur with the modern systems.

As business operations continue to become global, organizations are looking for more
economical ways of conducting their activities. In India, critics argue that nuclear scientists are
not subjected to the same form of close scrutiny as that of climate scientists. Climate scientists
are subjected to criticism, threats and smear campaigns from individuals who want to cover the
impact of environmental pollution, and who are mainly sponsored by major polluting companies
like Exxon. Production of nuclear energy leads to the generation of nuclear wastes, yet
organizations have not effectively addressed the problem of radioactive waste. It is argued that
this problem is being postponed to the future generations which will be forced to pay for it. In
addition, the security, secrecy and centralization of nuclear power are regarded as anti-
democratic and unsustainable, as opposed to minimal security and decentralized nature of
renewable.

Experts continue to question whether nuclear energy is really necessary to supply the needs of
rapid globalization and assure a carbon-free future. The recent tsunami and earthquake that
devastated Japan confirmed the fears that have been presented by nuclear critics. However,
although Jose Etchverry and Chris Goodall are both environmental scientists, they continue to
stand divided on the issue of nuclear energy.[20] Chris argues although the UK has made huge
financial incentives, only a small amount of energy is produced by hydro and wind energy. On
the other hand, 10 nuclear power stations in Britain have the ability of producing same quality of
energy as 3,000 turbines. Therefore, nuclear technology is the only capable means of producing
huge amounts of non-pollutant energy.

Other scholars say that efficient technologies can be able to supply the needs of rapid
urbanization. For instance, Jose argues that nuclear plants should be demolished since they are
toxic and dangerous. In addition, they hinder the ability of different countries to adopt three
carbon-free energy options in the future, which include conservation, renewable, and efficient
energy.[21] Efficiency and conservation energy sources relates to doing more with less. They
also present some of the most viable opportunities of addressing climate change and creating
new jobs. For instance, electricity used by the U.S. and Canada is at high rates per capita
compared to other industrializing countries such as Germany and Denmark. This is because the
latter have found innovated regularly on efficient designs, regulated the ways its citizens use
energy, and have developed renewable energy sources.

The Tuna-Dolphin Case The origin of what became known as the "tuna-dolphin" case was the
United States' Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), which imposed a ban on imports of
tuna from countries that did not have a conservation program designed to protect dolphins in the
tuna-fishing process. Tuna, it turns out, are often found swimming in schools underneath
dolphins. In order to catch the tuna, fishermen used to drag large nets through the water and then
pull them up under the tuna. Dolphins swimming above the tuna would be caught at the same
time and die in the nets along with the tuna. The MMPA therefore required American tuna
fishermen to adjust their fishing practices to avoid such deaths, and banned tuna from countries
in which dolphin deaths from tuna fishing exceeded deaths from U.S. tuna fishing by more than
25 percent. As a result, tuna from Mexico, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, and the Pacific island
of Vanuatu were banned in 1990. Mexico and Venezuela challenged the U.S. action in the
dispute resolution system of the GATT and won their cases in 1991 and 1992. The decision in
the Mexico case is considered a key turning point in jurisprudence of the world trade system,
even though it was not officially adopted as a binding decision by the members of the GATT.
(Mexico and the United States later settled the dispute through negotiations.) Prior to reforms of
the Dispute Settlement Process in the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations (1986-1994),
adoption of a dispute panel report by the GATT could be blocked by the country found to be in
violation of GATT rules. Thus, many findings, including the tuna-dolphin panel decision, never
took effect. The Uruguay Round reforms reversed this—now, all panel reports are binding unless
a consensus of all WTO members blocks adoption. The dispute resolution panel decided that the
United States could not justify the MMPA's ban on Mexican tuna imports for several reasons.
First, the panel said that Article XX's exceptions must be interpreted narrowly so that any one
country cannot undermine the multilateral trade rules. Second, the panel said that the United
States had not proved that the tuna ban was "necessary," i.e., that it was the least-trade
restrictive way to protect dolphins, in contrast to, for example, negotiating dolphin-protection
agreements with other countries. Third, the panel said that the percentage link to U.S. dolphin
deaths made it difficult for Mexican authorities to predict in advance the acceptable level of
Mexican dolphin deaths. Finally, the panel said that the United States could not use the Article
XX exceptions to regulate natural resources outside of its borders. The case thus laid out some
of the issues that have continued to frame the debate over the environment and trade. The panel
approached the dispute with a distinct pro-trade bias, analyzing each of the contested points from
the perspective of the effect of the MMPA on free trade. Furthermore, the panel viewed
preserving the multilateral free trade system as more important than any one country's evaluation
of the need to protect the environment. These results should not be too surprising, however. After
all, the GATT panel's mandate was to interpret the GATT—a trade treaty. The panel evidently
could not find any authority for placing environmental concerns on par with the thrust of the
GATT to promote free trade. In addition, the decision explicitly limited the right of a country to
protect environmental resources extra-territorially. The panel could not find authority within the
language of the agreement to allow one country to affect the environmental resources in another.
This should not be surprising, since the prospect of one country taking actions to interfere with
the resources of another country could be abused and lead to innumerable disputes. Even now,
19 years later, the idea that one country can impose its view of the need for environmental
protection on another country's resources is highly controversial. In fact, a second dispute arose
out of the tuna-dolphin case because the MMPA also banned tuna and tuna products from third
world countries that imported tuna from other countries that did not comply with the MMPA.
The GATT overturned this ban, as well. Finally, another key issue from this case that continues
to affect the debate over environmental protection in a globalized economy is the contrast
between the wealthy United States and its ability to have sophisticated fishing techniques with
the limited resources of the developing countries and related constraints on the affordability of
environmental protection tools. After the GATT decision, the tuna-dolphin dispute was resolved
by agreements negotiated between the United States and the affected countries that called for
dolphin protection measures and through a multilateral declaration on the importance of dolphin
conservation. The U.S. Congress later called for a binding agreement to implement the
declaration, and the International Dolphin Conservation Program was established. Some
environmentalists, nevertheless, are skeptical that anything practically beneficial will come of
the program. Environment and Globalization http://www.globalization101.org 7 The United
States and Mexico both appealed the panel report and the Appellate Body circulated a new report
in May 2012. The Appellate Body reversed some of the panel's findings including the decision of
the court that the dolphin-safe labeling provisions were inconsistent with the TBT agreement.
The reversal of many of the panel's findings allowed for the U.S. to continue with its labeling
decision. Further, these findings significantly increase the jurisprudence relating to the TBT
agreement (Mayer Brown, 2012). The decision has led to the need for stronger dolphin safe
labeling requirements in dealing with future such issues. Was the tuna-dolphin case a victory or a
defeat, then, for the environmental movement? On the one hand, the GATT dispute resolution
panel gave priority to free trade over environmental protection (on sound grounds when viewed
in the context of Article XX). On the other hand, the U.S. loss before the panel gave impetus to
an internationally agreed-upon action program. In fact, the International Dolphin Conservation
Program could be more effective than a unilateral U.S. law. Yet we still do not know how
effective that program may turn out to be. In any event, the tuna-dolphin case dramatically raised
the stakes in the debate over the relationship between international trade and the environment
because it came at the same time that two major sets of trade negotiations were in high gear-
those to create the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) and to finish the Uruguay Round
in the GATT and create the WTO. The tuna-dolphin case therefore became ammunition for both
environmentalists and strict believers in American sovereignty.

What Can We Do?

Better global governance is the key to managing both globalization and the global environment.
More importantly, it is also the key to managing the relationship between the two. The processes
of environment and globalization are sweepingly broad, sometimes overwhelming, but they are
not immune to policy influence. Indeed, the processes as we know them have been shaped by the
policies that we have—or have not—put in place in the past. Equally, the direction that
globalization, the global environment and the interaction of the two will take in the years to
come will be shaped by the policy decisions of the future. Governance, therefore, is the key
avenue for action by decision-makers today. However, it is also quite clear that both
globalization and environment challenge the current architecture of the international system as it
now exists. Both dynamics limit a state’s ability to decide on and control key issues affecting it.
Globalization does it largely by design as states commit to liberalize trade and embrace new
technologies. The environment challenges the system by default as ecosystem boundaries rarely
overlap with national boundaries and ecological systems are nearly always supra-state. The role
of the state in the management of the international system has to evolve to respond to the
evolution of the challenges facing it. This evolution is already happening, but often in painful,
even contorted, ways. Having outgrown its old structure, the international system is designing a
new, more inclusive one. Many problems have been identified in the current system of global
governance: it is too large; it is chronically short of money and yet also wasteful of the resources
it has; it has expanded in an ad hoc fashion; it lacks coordination and a sense of direction; it is
often duplicative and sometimes different organizations within the system work at crosspurposes
to each other, etc. In terms of environment and globalization, we see three important goals for
the global governance system as it exists today

Managing institutional fragmentation: Although there already exist organs within the system to
address most problems thrown up by environment and globalization, the efforts of these
institutions are fragmented and lack coordination or coherence. The efforts and the instruments
for making the “system” work as a whole either do not exist or are under-utilized. The
institutional architecture that we have remains focused on precise issues even though the
pressing challenges of our times—particularly those related to environment and globalization—
relate to the connections between issues (e.g., labour and trade; environment and investment;
food and health; etc.). There is a pressing need, therefore, for meaningful global governance
reform that creates viable and workable mechanisms for making existing institutions work
together more efficiently and effectively than they have so far. Broadening the base of our state-
centric system: Despite some headway over the last two decades, the essential architecture of the
international governance system remains state-centric, even though neither the problems nor the
solutions are any longer so. In terms of environment and globalization dynamics, one now finds
civil society and market actors playing defining roles in establishing the direction and sequence
of events. Whether it is companies creating new global norms and standards through their
procurement and supply chains, or NGOs establishing voluntary standards in areas such as
forestry or organic products, we see that policy in practice is no longer the sole domain of the
inter-state system. It should be acknowledged that both civil society.

and business are beginning to be integrated into global governance mechanisms—for example,
through their presence and participation in global negotiations and summits and through closer
interactions with environmentally progressive businesses. This process needs to be deepened and
accelerated, and meaningful ways need to be found to incorporate them as real partners in the
global governance enterprise. Establishing sustainable development as a common goal: The post-
World War II international organizational architecture was originally designed to avoid another
Great War. In terms of what the system does and in terms of the types of goals that it has set for
itself (e.g., the Millennium Development Goals; stabilization of atmospheric concentrations of
CO2; eradication of diseases such as Malaria; control of HIV/AIDS; etc.), the system has
evolved to a broader understanding of what we mean by “security” as well as of what its own
role is. Yet, it is not always clear that the entire system of global governance is moving towards a
common goal. This creates undue friction between the organizations that make up the system and
results in disjointed policies. To the extent that a new common global goal has emerged, it is
sustainable development. Not only is sustainable development quintessentially about the linkages
between environment and globalization, it is also a goal that has increasingly been adopted by
various elements of the global system. For example, it is not only the overarching goal of all
environmental organizations and instruments, it is also now a stated goal of the World Trade
Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization and many others. Laying out a detailed
plan for achieving this shared goal is beyond the scope and mandate of this document. To a more
limited extent, an earlier related report, Global Environmental Governance: A Reform
Agenda,86 begins doing so for the process of environmental governance only. While
recommendations from that work are valid here, the challenge of environment and globalization
lays out an even bigger agenda for us to think about.

The Negative Impacts of

Globalization on the Environment
"Globalization" is a term that describes the growing interconnectedness of nations
through trade and communication. It has both positive and negative effects in social,
political and economic terms. It also has an effect on the environment, which is a
complex issue with many contributing factors. Mitigating the negative environmental
effects of globalization will continue to be an important issue as globalization increases.

Clear cutting is an example of negative globalization between people and the

environment. Clear cutting is the removal of all the trees in that given area. Clear
cutting takes away certain animal habitats, causing them to be threatened or extinct.
It also exposes more ground which causes greater warming and cooling in the area.
As well as hurting the animals and the environment, us as the people are being
harmed as well. Sustainability is the earth’s ability to provide the resources we need
to live. One of those biggest resources is the trees and their habitat. The trees that
are being cut down might not be ready for what they want, so it’ll end up being
thrown out. As a result the clear cutting does have a negative impact on
globalization, between people and the environment.

The POSITIVE Impacts of

Globalization on the Environment
The relationship between people and the environment is very delicate and extremely
important. As the world becomes more globalized more and more people are beginning to
abuse the environment and fall out of touch with their relationship with it. However, some
companies who produce tons of greenhouse gasses each month are beginning to use
alternative energy sources that are gentler and less harmful to the environment. These energy
sources, such as wind and solar power, have fewer environmental impacts. They also promote
sustainability because they do not waste non- renewable resources. These companies are also
looking to replace the fossil fuels that power Canada and most of the world with cleaner, more
sustainable energy sources. Although, these alternatives are slow to develop in our extremely
globalized world. However, many wind farms in Alberta have shown potential as a clean
alternative energy source. A newly developed hydroelectric plant in Alberta has also shown its
potential as a clean energy source. In the past, alternative energy sources such as solar power
was exceptionally expensive, however, these prices are readily dropping, making alternative
energy more affordable .These alternative energy sources contribute to the positive impact of
globalization on the relationship between occupants of the world and their environment.

CONCLUSION

It is far easier-and more realistic-to predict the disruption and possible demise of globalisation
than to devise strategies to cope with the environmental upheavals to come. Presumably,
physical environmental changes, including increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, changes in
temperature, melting of permafrost and oxidation of boreal peat deposits, changes in the
distribution and abundance of rainfall and storm events, sea level rise and changes in the ozone
shield will have to be dealt with primarily on an ad hoc basis, to the limited extent possible.
Many biological changes, such as introductions of exotic species and extinctions will similarly
have effects that are easy to describe but difficult or impossible to counter, especially with the
reduced economic resources available.

Nevertheless, opponents of the worst abuses of globalisation have no excuse to abandon their
efforts and wait for nature to bring globalisation to bay. In the realm of social and economic life,
much work needs to be done to end the evils of the growing disparities of wealth, the
exploitation of South by North, community disempowerment, and cultural and moral
impoverishment-all of which globalisation fosters. Responsible critics of globalisation must do
more to show the connection between globalisation and its dangerous side-effects, and to keep
this association in the public eye. Nor is the task entirely negative; we face the challenge of
developing workable socio-economic systems that have a strong regional element and are not
dependent on centralised, complex technologies-systems that preserve and enhance wealth in a
sustainable way. And we must do this before the chaos of resource exhaustion, ecosystem
collapse and global climate change makes the job even more difficult-or impossible.
International trade in goods and ideas will and should continue, but the only form of
globalisation that is acceptable is one that unites nations in meeting global threats and in
preserving the environments, life forms and civilisations of this planet.