mi".I i -r     .pie -.ised Knjrlish bs their mother tonjpie By the VMWh. this number had swollen to over 3Ti<) million native speaker*, with «0O million man; using English us a second language. Today, more than SO per cent of the content posted un the Internet is Ln English. Almost half of the worlds growuif; population uf foreign studenú; i* enrolled at institution? in Anglo-American countries.
At the same time, however, the number of spoken Language* m the world hab dropped fmra about 14.S0O in 15O0 tu less than 6,500 in 2Ú12 (see Figure H). Given the current rate of dedine, some linguists predict that .no-SO per tvnt nt' the currently existing languages will have disappeared by tlie end or the '1 1st century. But the world's language*are not the only entities threatened with extinction. The spread of nmsumerist values and materialist lifestyle* has endangered the ecological health of our planet «S vrtil,
Chapter 6
The ecological dimension of globalization
Although w have examined the economic, political, and cultural aspects of (duhaliuition»pantety, it is important tn emphasize that each of thes* dimensions impacts on and his Consequences tor the other domains, Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than ill the ecological dimensions of gluhaii/Ation. In recent years, global enviruiinientnl issues such a* global climate change and HajLibuundary pollution have received enormous attention from research institutes, the media, politicians, and economists. Indeed, the ecological effects of globalization nre increasingly recognized as the mint significant and potentially life threatening; for the world as we have inherited it from our ancestor*. The worldwide impact of natural and roan-made disasters such as the hornfyiug unclear plant accident* at Chernobyl, Ul^raine and Fukushima. Japan 13011), dearly shows that the formidable ecological problem' of uur time can only be tarkled b>' a gluhal alliance of states and rrvi] society actors.
[11 addition to economic nnd political lactnrs, cultural values greatly Influence how people view their natural environment. For example cultures steeped inTaui.it. Ituddhist, and various .inimist religions tend to emphasize the inteTdrpcnde-nce nf all living beings—a perspective Dial calls for a delicate halancc In-tweeii human wants and ecological needs. Judcu-Chrutian humanism, on the other hand, contains deeply dualixtic values
N
farmland?, have been tuleň as somewhat degraded' and one-third have Seen marked as 'jrtroiijrly degraded' Half the world* wetlands liavc already hecu dtstmná. and fhe biodiversity of fresh wn(er CCUB>Ttcrjw is. under serious threat. Thnr-quatiers i>f vmridwide genetic dis entity it) aRrvidrura) rrop and animal breeds has been lost since 1900. Some experts fan that up to50 per cent of all plant and animal species—most of them in the global South—will disappear by the end of this century. Hence, man}' emiroiunentalisti hasv argued tltal biudrwrsny slwuld be treated as a planetary asset nnd held in tntst Uw the hcaetU offuture a^neratiiiiw. *
Some of the measures eurrently undertaken to safeguard biodiversity include the creation of hundreds of'gene banks' located in (jvrf a hundred countries around the world. One of tike most spectacular of these hanks is the- Svalbard Global Seed Vault buried in permafrost in a mountain on the Artie islaikd of Spitsbergen. Officially opened in 2CHJ8, this-"Doomsday Vault' was funded hy The Global Crop Diversity 'Ihisl : financed by inlematlunal donors like the Gates and Bockefellef FouiMlation* and specially designed to store back-up copies of the seeds of the world's major food crops at minus 1« degrees Celsius. Operating like a safrty deposit box in a hank the Global Seed Vault is free of charge to pnbhc and private deposiUtrs and kept safe hy the Norwegian government. But it ts doubtful tlmt such laudable 'hack-up' measures arc sufficient to reverse the escalating lnss uf biodiversity brought about by humanity's eeulnjrical footprinL
I ransDuundary pollution represents another grave danger to uur roUecttve s-urvival. The release of vast amount* uf tyntltetic chemicals intu the air and water has created cundiixms tor human and animal life that ire outside previous limits of biological experience. For example, dilottstluorocarinns have been used in the lecoixl half of the aoth century as nontlammahle refrigerants, i ndustrial solvents, ťuaminjt agents, and aerosol propellants. In the mid-1970s, researchers noted that the unregulated release of CFCa i iitu the air seemed Ui be depleting Earth's prolertise riwrne las er. A
91
decade later, the discovery of large ozone holes' over Tasmania, New Zealand, and Urge parti of the Antarctic finally resulted in a coordinated international effort to phase nut production of CFCs and other «ttone-deplfting substances. In WVJ, .wicntists warned that the risk <if damage to the world's ozone layer lias increased as a result nf mure frequent and severe storms as a result of glohal climate dian^e Other tonus of iransbuundar. pnUutiort include industrial emissions of sulphur and nitrogen oxides. Returning to the ground in the form of arid rain', these chemicals damage forests, soils, and freshwater ecosystems. Current acid deposits in Northern Europe and parts of Ninth America are at least twice as high as the critical level suggested by environmental agencies,
Finally, the twite of hwnan-induced climate change has emerged as a major focus of domestic and intergovernmental policy as well as grass roots activism. Brought to public attention by former US Vice President Al Gore in the 2W0* through his award-winning documentary, An l»amvmt€Jit Truth, as well as the production of !   nunvcruu? scientific reports outlining the dire consequence* of '   unchecked global wan i.ni:  .1 n;i'.i diange is ciearfy one of the top three global pruhlems' lacing humanity today, The consequences of worldwide climate change, especially global w arming, could lie catastrophic. A Urge number of scientists worldwide are calling for concerted action by governments to curh greenhuuse gas emissions,
Indeed, global warming represents a grim example of the decisive shift in both the intensity and extent uf contemporary enviionmenlal problems. The rapid build-up at' gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous and sulphur oxides, and chlorolluoruearbcHis in our planet s atmosphere has greatly enhanced Earth » capacity tn trap heat. The resulting 'greenhouse effect' is responsible for raising average temperatures worldwide :.sec Illustration 10).
The precise effect* of glohal warming are difficult to calculate, in 2006, Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist for the World
9i
The Greenhouse Ette-cl
5Cm tatr rj-n! 1:
I ■»fktl«l tv re Earth end tht ilinoepue-*
EofcrracWo', :kHi Mncta-tn
Some ri tihm
trtf il n.nftun and hxt* riart>:rt)«ja-i| * amrtK n »1 Byui(«ercia8
SU rote J?, rh» utori a r<* a » wr r« E»tt>t **f*M moreen Unusa-ior
ATMQSPHFqc
-tfcat ntaftr a^-^^^ , jDHrtMd by the £»r W>*j£ir        qdofei * V iTi"^"VXlnvrreit   ~^tl   rnttfHfromHe
10. Ihr grrenhniiM-erTect
dank, released a comprehensive and alarming report on the J economic and ecological impacts of climate change. 'The 'Stern | Report', commissioned by the UK government, asserts that $ average global temperatures have already risen by 0.5 degrees a. Celsius based on pre-industriahxation temperatures. Based on current trends, average global temperatures will rise by an i additional 2 to 3 degrees Celsius over the next fifty years. In the next century, they might rise another 3 degrees Celsius- In some parts of Africa, average temperatures have already risen by more than 3 degrees Celsius in the last twenty years.
These significant increases in global temperatures have been Leading to meltdown* of huge chunks of the world's major ice reserves. The North Polar ice cap, fur example, has lost 1-9-20 per rent of its mass every decade since 1SW) and might vanish by SOUL The complete melting nf the large Greenland ioc sheet would result in a global rise of sea leveb of 22 feet- Huwiever, even 1 much smaller sea level rise would spell doom lor many coastal nej-HrtK around the world. The small Pacific island nations of Tuvalu and Kiribati, for example, would disappear. Large cuastal
cities such as Tokyn,       York. I xindofl, and Sydney would low significant chunks of their urban, landscapes.
But sea level ami Witter temperature rise as a result of global warming are not the only serious proWcm* threatening the health of our planet* oceans. Overfishing, the low nt'coral reefs, nustal pollution, oadiftcation, mega-oil spills such as the one hiilowinj the 3O10 BP oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico, and illegal dumping of hazardous wastes hnve had a devastating impart on Earth'* marine envirnnnkents l.see Figure J}.
Consider, for examplr, the'Great Pacific Garbage Patch*—a gigantic floating mass of often toxic, non-rModcxradaMc plastic* and chemical sludge twice the size of Texas that circulates permanently in the powerful BltftWll of the Northern Pacific Ocean- Or, perhaps even more horrifying, Lake the huge floating debris field generated by the devastating Japanese eartltqiiake and tsunami of March 2011 that killed more than 15,000 people across Japan. The disaster caused the partial destruction of the Rukushima Doiichi 11 uclrur plant, in The process allowing the escape of harmful r.idioactive particles into air ami water. Stretching for nearly 2.000 miles and still containing 1 ..1 million lolls of detritus (3,5 million tons haw already sunkj, this debris field crossed the Pacific in uilly fifteen months. It deposited orl North America's Pontic coast massive amounts of partially tnxic materials such as wall insulation, nil and gas canisters, car tires, fishing nets, and Styrofbam buoys. Heavier items are drifting underwater and might wash up in years to cumc, Experts tear that some of these materials might exceed safe levels of raditiuetivity. Various computer models show that the debris field will dick back to Hawai'i, and possibly Japan, between 2013 and 201-ri. only tn Mart anew its ominous journey toward the Pacific shores of North America.
The central feature of all these potentially disastrous environmental problems is that they are gtohuJ', thus making them serious prohlems for all sentient beings inhabiting our
94
ll- -..1.1.1.11,11:,
SVutIT: < I 111 ,
magnificent blue planet. Indeed. traudHiLiidai •...... glnk-ii
warming, climate change, and species extinction are challenges that cannot be contained within national or even regional borders. They do not have isolated causes and etTerts fnr they are caused bs aggrveale collective human ml:mi,' ,nn.l lln - n.i|u n. .i coordinated jrtVihal Trsponse.
To he sure, ecological pmhiems aggravated by gkihauvatkin also have significant economic ramifications. Although these effects will be mete significant thr less developed countries than tor ricJi countries, they will nonetheless affect all people and all nations. Poor countries dn not have the necessary infrastructure or income to adapt to the
umvtridablr donate clMmgeslout w-j| n-air because nl carbon cnusftiims already in the earths atrticspljere. As we noted above, devx-loping report* are already warmer on average than most developed cou ntoe* ami tonRrquetith Mjffer from ft high degree of variability in ttin&ill. lb make matters worse, lea developed cnuntries are also heavily dependent on a^Scuhure fhr the majority of iheiT income. Since agriculture is the rruut climate scnsitivr uf all cmnomit wrturs, developing nanoiis will be more adversely affected by climate change than developed onuntric*-
Further consequences of this vicious circle include increased illnesses, escalating dcflth rates, and crumbling infrastructure. Thr wist of living will continue to rise, leaving poor households and cnmnimutiea unable Uj «i%t fur future emergencies. Recent scientific rnwi like the Stem Report explicitly link the problem nf climate change to development and aid provision in poor countries They will require e   a«islanre from the developed world if diev .ire t<> ftiLipi an<l survive I   dlinatf change. Thus, climate change awl global warming are nol mereh cnvirnnmucital or scientific issues. They arc economic political, cultural hut above all ethical issues that have been cxpalKlcd and intensified by the process of gWialuatinn.
There hat been much debate in puhlic and academic circles about the severity of climate change and the be^l ways fnr the global fwmirtuiuty \a respond to it. As can be gleaned fruit) the list nf major global environmental treaties, provided below, international discussion on the issue of glubal warming and environmental degradation has been occurring for over thirty years. Yei, while much has been written and spoken about this issue, tew coordinated measures have been implemented. Mnst international envininniental treaties still lack effective enforcement mechanisms.
For the most part, political will in favour of immediate change has been weak and limited. However, the [runt significant obstacles to the creation and utiplementatiun of an effective global
-
environmental agreement has ommefrom the unwillingness of China and the United States—the world's two largest polluters—tn ratify key agreements. Both nations see measures to reduce carbon
emissions and thereby slow global warming as threats to their economic gruvvth. Yet inactiun un dimatc change today will have more dire consequences for economic growth tomorrow, (stt Figures K and I.l.
Still, there are some grounds for guarded optimism. For example, significant agreement exists lhal certain limitations un carbon emissions mast be placed on all nations. Some rich countries in the EL' and Australia managed to impose a national carbon lax un emitters-. Bui poor countries argue that they should not he bound by the same carbon measures or trading schemes as developed countries. They make (his argumem fnr iwu reasons, Firstly, they need to bu ild up theiT industries and infrastructures in order to pull Lhemselve*, out of poverty. Placing significant carbon emissions restriction* nn their industries would seriously impede their economic deselopment. Secondly, they argue that poor countries luive not been responsible lor the production uf must of the gretuliuuse gases lhal have caused the current pmhlem. Identifying developed countries as tile primary producers uf greenhouse gases, they suggest that the major burden for limiting the production of greenhouse gases should fall on lite develnpcd world—at leant until developing countries have pulled their |Kipulations out of rvtrcmc poverty.
The United Stales has expressed strong opposition tu tbe.se arguments by insisting that all countries should be subjected lo the same 1 imitations on carbon emissions. At the Thirteenth Conference of the Piolies (OOP t;j) to the United Nations. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bali 3007, the US-delegation repeatedly blocked negotiations by demanding that developing countries take more responsibility tut their contribution to global warming. At lbe same time.
y í
Sturm: CD1AC Itp w Xtmmtit Miin A» fiWWft<JaJ, faMw^rMM un-m/Dm »^i<?*-MDCAf-»ii»Kj-lrv>jtTT.|>
however, America has been reluctant to enter into any agreement that might <lu» its own economic growth. Throughout the 2l>uOs, the Bush administration walked away tram key international treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol
Year	Million metric tonnes of carbon
17s0	3
18(H)	8
1 1s50	54
1900	m4
1950	1,630
2000	6.7ö0
•joos	8,7*9
I. Lung term *IiiIihI CO, <
while remaining significantly behind older developed countries in its commitment* un tapping and rednring carbon eniiisions.
Untortunately, the next US government did not fundamentally Wreak with the approach of its predecessor, Althuugh President Bamck Ob&nia madestroikjeT rhetorical gestures in favour of environmental protection, his actions did not match his words. Kiw example, at the 3005 Copenhagen Climate Summit. Obamji acquiesced to unspeciiic nnn-legally binding agreement* that fell far short of tli* Summit's goal to establish a strong and binding global climate agreement hy 2012.
In the same vein* the much anticipated aoia UN conference on Sustainable LVvelopment in Brazil—known as Rio + 20 because it was held twenty years after the historic 1.992 Rio Summit on Climate Change—merely produced toothless documents tliat paid lip service to a 'eommon vision' of environmental sustainability but failed to mandate hinding emission reduction targets. National state* proved themselves to be unwilling to engage Ln llie sort of environmental multilateralism lliat would produce measurable results in the worldwide struggle against global
warming.Thr only mujur achievement of Riu - jo was the launching nf the 'People's Sustainabllity Manifesto' by hundreds of civil society organizations' which seek to build a global-local movement for the protection of the environment. The nest UN Climate Summit to he lveld in Qatar in J01 :J—the country with the world * highest per capita carbon emissions—Is unlikely tn break the pattern of weak and uon bowling state action (see Figure MX
In their comprehensive study, Globolisnthm anil ttti Kn-riummt-nt (2013), thr Australian political scientists Peter ChrisLoff and Rnbyn Erkerslcy have identified five deep-seated and interlocking problems thin has e prevented the creation and ratification uf an rffectivc global environmental treaty system:
1. State* have failed to integrate environmental and economic governance at the national level.
2. State* have failed to integrate environmental and economic grcvernatwe at the international leveL
3. Powerful social force* continue to reswt or co-opt efforts to transform economies and «ooeties in a more ecologically sustainable direction.
4. The neulihcral economic discourse retinitis, globally dominant, undermining sustaitvabJe development and ecological modernization discourse* and practices
a    All of the above persist* because national and international accountability- mechanism* remain weak and inadequate in a globalizing world.
Many leading scientist* believe that a further decade of inaction would matte it impossible to avoid the disastrous impacts of climate change and ecological degradation. Indeed, the 201'J edition of the UN Environment Program's (Hobal Environmental Outlook confirm* their worst fears by documenting a planet
I Uff Dutt-" aim«e Summit
I (or lb
wi-aoia
pushed to its ecological limits. Confronted with the ill health nf our Mother Earth in the second decade of the 21st century, it has becumr abundantly clear tu many people that the contemporary phase of globalization has been the most environ mentally destructive period of human history. It remains to he seen, however, whether the growing recognition nf the ecological
Ifll
limit* otaut planet will translate into tackling the five problems identified alww! hy Christoffand EckcrEley. Aii they note in Point 4, much depend* <m counteracting powerful ideologies that are rooted in tike worship uf unfettered markets and the desirr; tw the unlimited accumulatum and consumption of material things.
in j