William Mehner
Debate Paper #5
2/10/16
Sustainability Debates
Debate Paper #5: Is Globalization a Sustainability Problem?
(Word Count: 1446)
1. Trading between nations has been occurring for thousands of years. The Silk Road in Asia
and the Crusades of the middle ages are both examples of different parts of the globe exchanging
both goods and ideas. But in recent years, the world as experienced a period of
interconnectedness that it has never experienced before. Socks from China, cars from Germany,
bananas from Costa Rica, etc. are all examples of how things we use everyday come from
countries other than our native ones. Not only has our global reach increased, but also the time
that it takes to complete these interactions has dramatically decreased. It used to take a month or
two to cross the Atlantic Ocean by boat, but now it only takes hours to fly (or minutes if you’re
on the internet).
This has proven to be extremely beneficial to humans, as the interchanging of ideas,
goods, and services now happens in the blink of an eye. But has globalization directly hindered
the sustainability of our planet, whether it is social, economic, or environmental? Many argue
that it has and that the only way to remedy the situation is to change the way we do business.
Stakeholders at the local level are local businesses, governments and citizens. If
importation were to decrease, local businesses would thrive and local governments would need
more power to regulate more quickly. Stakeholders at the federal level are larger corporations,
as well as government agencies that rely on foreign goods/information. Stakeholders at the
international level include trade organizations (such as the EU), world organizations (such as the
WHO), and countries that have more of a globalized culture/economy (U.S., Germany, Japan,
etc.)
Some sub-issues that should be addressed are

How does globalization directly impact the environment through consumption?
William Mehner
Debate Paper #5
2/10/16
Sustainability Debates

Does human population play a role in globalization and sustainability?

How should a country transition to a less globally involved state without having a total
breakdown?

How do most people view a more primitive, but less globally involved future?
2. Jerry Mander makes several interesting points in his magazine article. He out rightly declares
that globalization is a sustainability issue and that anyone who says otherwise is lying. Mander
believes that after the Bretton Woods conference of 1944 (which established that globalization
was something to be strived for) increased global interconnectedness has negatively affected the
environment, produced a monoculture around the world, and led to a more export oriented
method of production that hurts local/regional economies. (Mander)
Mander argues that globalization has made companies make decisions that make
economic sense, but not environmental or even common sense. The example he uses is a
toothpick, where trees would most likely be grown in Canada or the U.S., then shipped to Japan,
processed into a toothpick, and then sent back to the U.S./Canada where it would be used. These
sorts of actions take place every single day, even if they end up hurting the environment.
(Mander)
Mander further argues that globalization benefits large corporations, such as Wal-Mart,
that can produce goods cheaply in Country A (where the environmental, social, and economic
impact is large) and sell these goods for a profit in Country B, where they experience the benefit
of having cheap goods without the environmental impacts. By focusing on larger companies, we
further facilitate an export-oriented economy and leave smaller, local producers to fend in a
market where they are clearly outmatched. (Mander)
William Mehner
Debate Paper #5
2/10/16
Sustainability Debates
3. Mander makes several strong arguments that I vehemently agree with. However an argument
can be made after reading this article that the problem isn’t globalization itself, but the lack of
government regulation that is causing these problems. Mander states that governments generally
go along with what major economic industries (oil, agriculture) want in order to facilitate the
growth that they both want. Mander admits that globalization has brought a lot of good to
mankind, but that the never-ending progress of globalization is what has hurt the planet. Apart
from his monoculture argument, this issue could be solved if companies were just more aware of
their impacts on the environment.
4. In an article written by Graham Land, he makes the argument that globalization can actually
be beneficial for the environment. While some people say that globalization has caused a race to
the bottom, in which countries lower their regulatory standards to both attract and keep
businesses, Land makes the argument that interconnected nations are actually starting to do the
exact opposite.
Land states that when a certain country has a regulatory standard having to do with the
environment, similar countries (or countries that it does business with) will raise themselves to
that standard. So instead of propagating the lowering of standards, environmental standards are
created as nations try to make themselves equal to that of their competitors! Land attributes
some of the success to having more environmentally conscious leaders finding their way into
both government and non-governmental organizations. If this sort of thinking does catch on, it
might not be necessary to even lobby for some environmental actions. The countries/agencies
will be doing it themselves!
5. This argument made by Graham Land raises some interesting ideas about how environmental
legislation may proceed in the future. If it works out it would be fantastic, but there are some
William Mehner
Debate Paper #5
2/10/16
Sustainability Debates
loopholes in his reasoning. First, his study mostly focused on developed nations in Europe. The
whole “follow the leader” examples took place in countries that already had developed
economies and were currently aiming to be more sustainable. Developing nations might not
follow this path, as it would still be beneficial to focus on increasing their overall production.
Land proposes even greater cultural diffusion in order to create similar policies. While
this may be good for the environment, it may create a monoculture between certain nations. It is
important to take the social impacts into account, as it is our race’s cultural diversity that allows
us to see things from different viewpoints and solve complex problems.
6. A blog post by L. Graham Smith looks positively upon globalization, saying that the
economic benefits of globalization dwarf the current environmental problems we face. His main
argument is that by focusing on actually increasing the interconnectedness between nations, by
lowering trade barriers and removing tariffs, that we can achieve economic and environmental
prosperity through globalization. Smith’s argument works nicely with Graham Land’s argument,
as increased global trade with raised environmental regulations would most definitely be a
positive outcome.
7. One of the first courses I ever took in college focused first on sustainability and secondly on
localization. The course continuously reinforced how localization/regionalization is the key
towards creating a sustainable planet. So I guess you could say that I was quite biased before
writing this paper.
I firmly believe that globalization is a sustainability issue that must be dealt with. The
amount of resources that are used to facilitate this global economy is both staggering and
appalling. I work in a supermarket and it is amazing how many countries we get our food from.
Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico, Belize, France etc., every item you pick up is from a different
William Mehner
Debate Paper #5
2/10/16
Sustainability Debates
country! While this has proven to be extremely beneficial to most humans, bringing us things
we would have never dreamed of having a hundred years ago, it is the farthest thing from
sustainable.
Because Americans rely so heavily on foreign goods/conveniences, it would cause a
radical lifestyle change if we were to stop importing foreign goods. Switching to a regional/local
system instead of a global economy would probably mean large technological cutbacks. No
more T.V., Xboxes, or IPods, as these all require foreign labor and parts to produce. Most
people would have to learn to grow crops or raise chickens. Because there will be less flow of
resources around the world, human population (all over the world, not just the U.S.) would most
likely decline over time. People may disagree with my view, but the collapse of the global
market will have large scale impacts that may include pushing the human population back to
preindustrial times.
There are some priority actions that need to take place in order to solve the globalization
issue. The first part would probably be to increase the home rule states, as municipalities are
better equipped to deal with local issues. From there, people would have to be “re-educated” in
how to live in a more agricultural based society. After that, anything is possible. Once local,
diverse food sources are established, people will be able to focus on other issues such as
technology and inter-state trade. While the end of globalization may mean the end of our current
way of life, it would most likely lead to a period of great environmental prosperity.
William Mehner
Debate Paper #5
2/10/16
Sustainability Debates
Works Cited
Land, Graham. “The European Union and Climate Change: Is Globalization Actullay Good for
the Environment?,” November 13, 2009. http://www.greenfudge.org/2009/11/13/theeuropean-union-and-climate-change-is-globalization-actually-good-for-the-environment/.
Mander, Jerry. “Economic Globalization and the Environment.” Tikkun, October 2001.
http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/economic-globalization-and-the-environment.
Smith, L. Graham. “Globalization and Sustainability,” February 26, 2007.
http://ecomythsmith.blogspot.com/2007/02/globalization-and-sustainability.html.