FREE ESSAY ON GLOBALISATION AND SUSTAINABILITY

GLOBALISATION AND SUSTAINABILITY

Globalisation and Sustainability:
The Importance of Government
Sidney Rua
Student #: 990129213
Frasier Valentine
POL103Y1
April 10, 2000
The world was once vast and unknown. Communication was once dreaded as messages would
take exceeded amounts of time from one point of destination to the next. Countries would
not know of each other's affairs for months because the world was large beyond anyone's
imagination. But as soon as technology reared its head the world rapidly became smaller.
It modified everything within its grasp. Communication that once took months could now
take seconds. Travelling abroad that would have taken years now took hours. Every
institution that fell into this form of globalisation changed.
It is obvious to see that governments have also been effected by globalisation in such
ways that they can either imitate or contrast with each other. Yet a controversy exists
about the issue on the effect of globalisation on governmental power. On one side of the
argument globalisation is considered as a force that weakens the power of government
whereas others debate the contrary, claiming that there is no effect and power remains
constant. Still both arguments fail because of the extremity that they impose. A better
argument would be that globalisation does effect government power, not to the point of
weakening, but ensuring that no abuse of power occurs unknowingly. Globalisation is
simply a tool that enables the actions of governments to be monitored by other countries
and world organisations. With comparison of Australian and Canadian environmental policy,
it will be clear that actions taken by the government have been influenced (not
controlled) by globalisation.
The idea of the world becoming a small interactive village is what many would consider
the effect of globalisation. Boundaries are no longer an issue and can be crossed with an
easy click of the mouse. But globalisation is far from being a new concept that came
along with technology. It has existed since humans have had curiosity. The exploring of
new lands, the discovery of new peoples and nations, to the fascination of nature's
physical features, people have been in the process of globalisation for centuries.
Technology had simply allowed globalisation to progress a little more rapidly than what
it had accomplished in the past. 
Although it seems that globalisation brings promise of a unified Utopian society this is
far from becoming the truth. Today's world is based on the market. The selling of goods
and services to the consumer to gain profit. Therefore globalisation has become the
expansion of the market place with greater opportunities for production and trade in new
locations.1 Relations are established between nations, not for the mere satisfaction of
peace, but for the insurance that a trading partner exists where profit can be gained.
This motivation from profit leads to the element of the manufacturing process. In order
to achieve maximum profit corporations need to spend less in producing a product. They go
about this through means of cheap energy fuel (usually fossil fuels like coal), low
labour wages, and cutting costs in waste disposal. For an exceeded amount of time
corporations have been able to escape the clutches of the law because it was seen that
damage to the environment was a small price to pay in exchange for high profits. For
instance abuse to the Canadian forests in the past two centuries has led to a large
proportion of it being cut, 8 000 kilometres long and hundreds of kilometres wide.2 When
large damage has been inflicted only then will people's concerns be aroused. Governments
then needed to intervene, to steer corporations from inflicting anymore damage to
resources and environment. Canadian government had only made environmental policy a main
concern since 1985. It was in the Ontario provincial election where pollution was made a
significant issue. This was the first time ever that the issue of pollution was made a
priority. Ever since the topic of concern for pollution has been maintained by both
provincial and federal institutions.3 Australia on the other hand began its involvement
on the issue in 1980. It was in this year that the World Conservation Strategy was
published and the country took it upon itself to formulate a similar document that would
help enforce the idea of sustainable environment throughout the nation.4 
Although government intervention seems to guarantee some progress towards sustainability
the idea of globalisation alters the desired effects. World trade allows the cheapest
producer to gain maximum profits. Competition for profits is then always present. In
order for competition to exist all producers must somehow keep product costs low while
maintaining or increasing product output. If legislation is passed within a country that
holds a corporation responsible for destruction to the environment by means of their
waste, corporations can still outrun any consequences from their actions. It is difficult
to prosecute institutions because they are essential.5 They provide jobs, goods and
services, and distribute money towards many organisations. The industry allows economy to
prosper as well as many citizens that partake in the production and consumption of the
goods. The destruction of the environment is seen as irrelevant to the benefits of cash
profit that the industry brings.
What corporations fail to observe is the future outlook. The concern is only on maximum
exploitation for maximum gain. No corporation has interest in conservation because of the
mentality of whatever is left by a corporation will simply be used by a competitor.6 Yet
the immediate gains will not always be present because sooner or later resources will be
exhausted and there will then be a failure to produce, soon followed by a collapse within
the industry production and profit. Sustainability will ensure that resources can be
reserved as well as allowing time for some replenishment. It is for this reason that
governments have decided to be involved, for a fall in industry would lead to a fall in
the economy and the welfare of the state. Canada and Australia share the same vision when
it comes to sustainability. Both understand that environmental policy is essential to
maintain a prosperous nation. There has been a similar vision on the purpose of
developing environmental policy. The development is to allow (i) multiple times scales in
which the present is considered as well as the near and farther future; (ii) effect on
various dimensions of social life where economy, environment, and social equity are
viewed as equal; and (iii) diverse social and ecological scales where region and locality
are a concern as well as the global nation.7 All three aspects are to produce an
ecologically balanced society, with stable institutions designed to assure equilibrium
within tolerances that the natural environment can support.8 This is much easier said
than done. The event of there being total agreement is never achieved and compromising
always leads to one or all parties involved to be unsatisfied.
In order to satisfy government policy, as well as avoid negative outbreaks by
environmental conscience citizens, corporations need to follow the specified guidelines
of environmental sustainability. Institutions then need to pay much more attention and
effort towards waste elimination and treatment. This costs a substantial amount of money.
Two options are to either increase product prices or cut spending on other operations
within the process. Increasing prices would allow costs to be covered and avoid in any
profit loss experienced by the corporation but high prices could cause for decrease in
profit for it causes a decrease in profits by the lower prices This again is a of current
competitors. This is the reason why the second option is more favourable. Cutting costs
in the operation allows for the same amount to be spent on production and in some
instances even less. Most popular method of cutting is within the removal of management
layers. By eliminating certain amounts of staff and replacing them with computers and
automation manufacturing processes companies can then compete in the world market.9 This
occurs mostly in wealthy nations such as Canada, Australia, England, and the United
States. Since poor nations have no strict policies on labour leading to low wage
structures, production by corporations within these nations can produce product cheaply
and sell at an admirably low price.10 Since wealthy nations have high labour costs,
expensive social programs, and a high degree of foreign investment, in order to compete
in the world market they choose to employ less.11 It seems to be a simple enough tactic
but other corporations have been so used to a certain process of production that instead
of changing their methods they would rather relocate to poorer nations in which they
could keep profits or exceed them tenfold.
Globalisation leads to the reallocation of corporations. In less hostile environments,
these corporate conglomerates can destroy and manipulate the environment to their
pleasing and will not be accused for they supply many jobs in a poor nation that needs
income to fuel its economy. This global mobility allows corporations to escape
environmental policy. The acceleration of jobless growth in poor nations leads to
unemployment, creating pressures that allow economic activity that is destructive as well
as it undermines efforts of mitigation, planning, and regulatory enforcement.12
Environmental policy with absence of enforcement leads to the lack of interest in
enforcement. The NAFTA agreement, the elimination of tariffs among trading countries,
between the United States, Canada, and the developing Mexico is a good example of how
businesses escape strict policy. Because of Mexico's low wage enforcement and anti-union
government, environmental policy falls prey to lower standards and enforcement.13 The
nation really does feel opposed to the destruction but if they fail to allow industries
to do so they will lose business to global mobility. The problem is does not lie on
government passing legislation for policies have been made. The problem lies within the
amount of enforcement that is dedicated on ensuring that the policies are practised to
the full extent. Not every country has the same view when enforcement of policy is the
issue. Some nations are better off than others so it is easier for them to proceed with
strict enforcement but Third World countries, in order to compete in the world market,
are more lenient because of the need to better establish a prosperous economy. This is a
main concern among many because the problem is never fully solved but simply reallocated.
This is when international policy becomes a suggested solution.
Governments need to strike a common chord with each other when it comes to environmental
sustainability. It needs to be seen that if restrictions are present and enforced equally
throughout all nations then the concept of conservation will be spread throughout
globally. In order for this to succeed a new flow of financing and technology for
environmental conservation needs to be achieved.14 Third World nations would also not
feel the pressure to exploit for maximum profit if debts were alleviated and industrial
countries initiated programs to provide access to technical assistance, training
technology transfer, and planning grants to increase their capacity to manage
environmental and energy challenges.15 Through this method it would allow nations to
stand on equal ground and be able to maintain a harmony between nature and industry. This
is a fantasy to be achieved for the motive of wealth is always the motivation that leads
to the neglecting of policies. The proposal of a world government is an idea that could
ensure that a universal policy be followed by all countries and ensure that enforcement
be weighted equally among all nations.
A world government generates both relief and fear when it boils down to policy making.
The relief comes that all nations are treated equally and must follow all laws that have
been passed by this supreme institution. Yet, not all nations are equal even though the
idea of it sounds appealing. Some nations are better off than others are so it is
difficult for everyone to participate fully when some nations can achieve goals easier
than others can. The main fear springs from the idea of losing identity and power. A
single government representing the world of many different cultures and beliefs is very
hard to imagine. Minorities might feel threatened in that they have no legitimate say in
the outcomes of producing legislation. This in turn leads to the representation of
governments in countries. They would feel threatened in the sense that they truly have no
power since the world government would be the one in control of matters of all countries
globally. So, what needs to be done is not the production of a world government but an
alliance between world organisations and existing governments. Globalisation through this
method does not infringe on the power of government but allows for compromise to occur
and for then to understand the need for a unified co-operation to maintain the
environment and resources for future enjoyment and use. In Australia for instance, the
Confederation of Australian Industry and the Australian Conservation Foundation, along
side with a number of state governments, agreed to endorse the National Conservation
Strategy for Australia in 1986.16 This promoted the need to save the environment and
ecological beauty of Australia for there was a realisation that damage to the environment
would lead to damage to the economy. The concern was in tourism. The natural environment
is a critically important part of tourism and is increasingly being recognised as such
through the term "Ecotourism".17 Through globalisation and government assistance it is
possible to see the importance of conservation which in turn would set precedence for
other countries to follow. This was the main intention by the Australian Tourism Industry
Association who argued that tourism can and does (i) enhance environmental appreciation
by changing people's attitudes; (ii) act as a justification for environmental
conservation; (iii) enhance environmental management for conservation; and (iv) enrich
the social and cultural environment of the Australian community.18 A global government
may have a unilateral authority and may think broadly but it can not possibly reach out
to everyone's interests in the decision making.19 Mutual adjustment is the best method to
solving the environmental problem by the use of global co-ordination. When this occurs it
produces policies and plans that take account many positions that exist. A country's own
government needs to be aware of the essential needs of its people and must respond to the
concerns of various authorities of energy, roads and highways, land use, city planning,
air and rail transport, and industrial policy.20 These needs then need to co-relate with
those needs presented by organisations that stand for the protection of the planets
resources and environment. Governments have not lost power but need to re-learn how to
distribute their influence.
Both the federal and provincial governments, at least in Canada, hold the distribution of
authority over environmental policy. The municipal governments still participate even
though they have been given no authority over the matter.21 But the majority of the work
is achieved by organisations that press governments for swifter actions towards policy
making. In Canada, the Greenpeace group, located in Vancouver and Toronto, had a revenue
of 7.4 million dollars without government or corporal aid from 1987 to 1990.22 The source
of revenue came from concerned individuals within the country who see the needed value of
conserving the planet. In response, political parties must address these issues to ensure
that the public receives the results that they desire. When the creation of the National
Conservation Strategy in Australia took place both the Fraser Liberal government and the
Hawke Labour government played an important role in the structure that the policy was
comprised of.23 
Through globalisation the world can look upon itself and see that there are better
methods of approaching problems. Profit can not constantly exist if there is no planet to
work from. The governments see this and pressure each other to abide by a universal
understanding that there is a great need for sustainability. Powers are not decreased or
removed but simply placed into a different context where instead of the individual gain
the overall gain should have more precedence. Both Canada and Australia have set example
that industry and environment can exist together and it is the governments duty to ensure
that guidelines are set to allow enforcement take place. Globalisation can help
environmental policy only if other countries have full understanding of the benefits and
participate with means of improvement. The poorer nations need to be guided by the
wealthy to prevent any further destruction on the remaining resources that the planet
contains. Global understanding and consensus will allow for countries to maintain their
distinctiveness but allow for one common trait to exist, a total appreciation of the
shared home we call earth. 
Endnotes
1. Melody Hessing and Michael Howlett, Canadian Natural Resource and Environmental
Policy: Political Economy and Public Policy (University of British Columbia Press, 1997),
243.
2. Robert Paehlke, "Green Politics and the Rise of the Environmental Movement," edited.
Thomas Fleming, The Environment and Canadian Society (International Thomas Publishing,
1997), 270.
3. Doug Macdonald, The Politics of Pollution (McClelland & Stewart Inc., 1991), 56.
4. D. McEachern, "Environmental Policy in Australia 1981-91: A Form of Corporatism?,"
Australian Journal of Public Administration Vol. 52 No. 2, June 1993, 175.
5. Robert Paehlke, 270.
6. James Meadowcraft, "Planning for Sustainable Development: What can be Learned From the
Critics," edited. Michael Kenning and James Meadowcraft, Planning Sustainability
(Routledge, 1999), 25.
7. Ibid., 35.
8. Ibid.
9. Robert Paehlke, 271.
10. Ibid.
11. Melody Hessing, 243.
12. Robert Paehlke, 270.
13. Ibid.
14. James Gustave Speth, "International Policies Will Conserve Global Resources," edited.
Matthew Polesetsky, Global Resources: Opposing Viewpoints (Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1991),
239.
15. Ibid., 240.
16. D. McEachern, 175.
17. Richard Bramley, "The Management of Natural Tourism Resources," edited. Richard
Cordew, Australian Planner Vol. 31-32 1993-95 (Royal Australian Planning Institute,
1995), 40.
18. Ibid.
19. Charles E. Lindblom, "A Century of Planning," edited. Michael Kenny and James
Meadowcraft, Planning Sustainability (Routledge, 1999), 62.
20. Ibid., 63.
21. Doug Macdonald, 51.
22. Ibid., 44.
23. D. McEachern, 181.
Bibliography
Bramley, Richard. "The Management of Natural Tourism Resources." Edited by 
Richard Cordew. Australian Planner Vol. 31-32 1993-95: (40-44). Royal Australian Planning
Institute, 1995.
Hessing, Melody and Michael Howlett. Canadian Natural Resource and Environmental 
Policy: Political Economy and Public Policy. University of British Columbia Press, 1997.
Lindblom, Charles E. "A Century of Planning." Edited by Michael Kenny and James 
Meadowcraft. Planning Sustainability. Routledge, 1999.
Macdonald, Doug. The Politics of Pollution. McClelland & Stewart Inc., 1991.
McEachern, D. "Environmental Policy in Australia 1981-91: A Form of Corporatism?," 
Australian Journal of Public Administration Vol. 52 No. 2: (173-185). 1993.
Meadowcraft, James. "Planning for Sustainable Development: What can be Learned 
From the Critics." Edited by Michael Kenning and James Meadowcraft. Planning
Sustainability. Routledge, 1999.
Paehlke, Robert. "Green Politics and the Rise of the Environmental Movement." Edited 
by Thomas Fleming. The Environment and Canadian Society. International Thomas Publishing,
1997.
Speth, James Gustave. "International Policies Will Conserve Global Resources." Edited 
by Matthew Polesetsky. Global Resources: Opposing Viewpoints. Greenhaven Press Inc.,
1991.