Different Aspects of Globalization  Industrial - emergence of worldwide production markets and broader access to a range of foreign products for consumers and companies  Financial - emergence of worldwide financial markets and better access to external financing for corporate, national and subnational borrowers  Economic - realization of a global common market, based on the freedom of exchange of goods and capital.  Political – struggles towards coordination of world government which regulates the relationships among nations and guarantees the rights arising from social and economic globalization.

 Informational - increase in information flows between geographically remote locations  Cultural - growth of cross-cultural contacts; advent of new categories of consciousness and identities such as Globalism - which embodies cultural diffusion, the desire to consume and enjoy foreign products and ideas, adopt new technology and practices, and participate in a "world culture"

Environmental Globalization  Ecological- the advent of global environmental challenges that can not be solved without international cooperation, such as  climate change  cross-boundary water and air pollution, over-fishing of the ocean  the spread of invasive species.

Environment and Globalization: Some Examples of Interaction

5 propositions about globalization and the environment   PROPOSITION #1:   The rapid acceleration in global economic activity and our dramatically increased demands for critical, finite natural resources undermine our pursuit of continued economic prosperity.

  PROPOSITION #2:   The linked processes of globalization and environmental degradation pose new security threats to an already insecure world. They impact the vulnerability of ecosystems and societies, and the least resilient ecosystems. The livelihoods of the poorest communities are most at risk.

  PROPOSITION #3:   The newly prosperous and the established wealthy will have to come to terms with the limitations of the ecological space in which both must operate, and also with the needs and rights of those who have not been as lucky.

  PROPOSITION #4:   Consumption—in both North and South— will define the future of globalization as well as the global environment.   (For example, while global population doubled between 1950 and 2004, global wood use more than doubled, global water use roughly tripled, and consumption of coal, oil, and natural gas increased nearly five times).

  PROPOSITION #5:   Concerns about the global market and global environment will become even more intertwined and each will become increasingly dependent on the other.   (significant part of international trade is in environment- related goods—ranging from trade in resources such as timber or fish to flowers and species, and much more. Moreover, trade in just about all goods has environmental relevance in the manufacture, transport, disposal and use of those goods).

Environment and Global Inequality

 sentations/human-development-trends html sentations/human-development-trends html sentations/human-development-trends html

Affluence or Poverty: Which is the Most Damaging?  Poverty- Poor people are frequently the leading edge in cutting down tropical rain forests? But is the cause of destruction agriculture shifting agriculture or “shifted” agriculture”. Land inequality where the farmers came from?  Environmental degradation leads to more poverty.  But on the other hand, very poor people consume virtually nothing. They live in “involuntary simplicity”

Affluence: the IPAT model  Impact (Environmental) = Population X Affluence (Level of) X Technology.  Environmental impact a function of number of people, amount of goods they consume and technologies used to produce those goods.  One finding: increasing population increased CO2 emission.  But: At highest levels of affluence, C02 emissions begin to decline. But only in top 25% of 111 nations. Shifting from manufacturing to service.

Consumption of the Affluent  In 1997, the world’s 225 richest people had a combined wealth of over 1 trillion, equal to the wealth of 47% of the world’s population.  Average MDC person consumes six times as much grain fish and fresh water, ten times as much energy and timber, 13 times as much iron and steel, 18 times as many chemicals

Environmental Impacts of Inequality  Affluent are best able to afford higher prices and or energy taxes or to purchase energy efficient cars, homes etc.  Environmental justice: poor and minorities are disproportionately impacted by toxic waste sites.

Sustainable Development or a Sustainable Society  “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987)

The Future: Limits to Growth  Club of Rome research group argued that on a global basis, the whole of humanity will replicate the more limited ecological crash experience of the Mayans and the Mesopotamians.  Argued that the combination of population growth, exponentially growing per capita economic productivity and consumption, and pollution would eventually overburden the subsistence base for human societies.  Early 1970s was also a period of many current environmental laws and agencies: Environmental Protection Agency, Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act

Your ecological footprint  ecological footprint-biologically productive land and water required to produce the resources consumed and to assimilate the wastes generated by a given human population.  Calculation that humans need 2.1 hectares (around 5 acres) on average.  US-12.2 hectares, 6.3 for Germany, 1.8 for china,.6 for Bangladesh

Does Affluence Buy Happiness?  Is there a relationship between affluence and happiness? Very small overall differences in the reported happiness found in very rich and very poor countries….although the upper classes in every society tend to be happier than the poor.  Since the 1950s Americans have nearly doubled their consumption, both in terms of GNP and personal consumption expenses per capita. Yet the percentage of Americans who report themselves to be “very happy” peaked in 1957 and ha slowly declined since that time…except for the poor, link between increasing wealth and happiness is not all clear.