One of the main features of the development of the world community in recent decades has been globalization as part of the profound integration processes that are changing the world structure. Since globalization has become a real agenda for the geopolitical arena, critical transformations have taken place in the world. Some are inclined to call such changes optimistic, leading to the formation of common humanity, with common cultural traditions and values. However, it is impossible not to trace the destructive effect of globalization, namely the decline of the sovereignty of developing countries under the oppression of stronger, developed powers. In an attempt to create universal solutions to catastrophes and crises, stronger states can impose their own ideologies on weaker ones, resulting in a natural reduction of cultural and political diversity in the world. This includes the climate threat, which has the potential to harm the environment and human communities critically. This essay seeks to assess this problem in detail and to define the theoretical limits of globalization.
The Impact of Globalization on Climate Protection
The problem of climate change has entered the field of research interest ever since society began to take care of nature. Using the resources of the world around us as tools in an era of intensive industrialization, the only concern of entrepreneurs has been to create conditions under which ecosystems can conserve and store components for future production. In other words, the real well-being of the environment was not as attractive to research as the possibility of making a profit in the long run. Gradually, however, humanity’s environmental consciousness has evolved, and many of today’s multinational companies are implementing enhanced social responsibility and sustainability programs actually to protect the planet. The fight against drastic climate change — through initiatives to reduce production waste, find greener fuels, and do away with toxic resources — is one of the central focuses of such sustainable development, with the goal of preserving a healthy environment for future generations.
The solution to the problem of climate change could not be realized without the intensified action of globalization processes. The entire global community has an interest in solving the planetary threat as effectively as possible, and thus working together to do so is essential. As is to be expected, this interaction results in the decline of the sovereignty of the global south under the pressure of the more developed global north. The opposition of poorer, developing southern regions to more decadent developed powers is a classic concept of world bipolarity. In addressing climate risks, the global north tends to take the initiative, imposing ideas of international importance on the global south. Suffice it to recall the Paris Agreement of 2015 as a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, an international initiative to curb the rate of change of the average annual temperature. One solution to such an Agreement was the transfer of relevant skills and equipment from developed countries — including the United States and Western Europe — to poorer countries: this case traces a culture of continuity in which the developed countries of the northern hemisphere act as the older, more competent regions for the weaker countries.
Moreover, one of the stumbling blocks of the nearly two-week negotiations was the definition of a critical level to which all of humanity should aspire. Whereas the northern countries proposed setting this at two degrees Celsius, the island nations of the southern hemisphere, the most vulnerable to rising temperatures, expressed a desire to reduce the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. However, in the final protocol ratified by the UN member states, the critical level was kept at 2 degrees Celsius. In the same context, it is relevant to mention that the Paris Agreement implies the involvement of a large number of non-state actors, including businesses, many of which may have economically vested interests to manage the climate crisis. It is easy to predict that in this case, transnational companies, traditionally headquartered in regions of the northern hemisphere, may implement initiatives and monitoring that are not aimed at the well-being of both hemispheres.
Another example that illustrates the ineffectiveness of globalization solutions is the Sustainable Development Goals, signed by the UN in 2015. Seventeen of these goals are concepts for theoretically favorable world change from different angles, with the potential to improve socioeconomic, political, food, environmental, scientific, and gender agendas. A single index has been created to compare countries according to their rate of achievement of the SDGs; however, the top spots in this ranking are expectedly occupied by countries in the northern hemisphere. However, this index does not reflect the real agenda since the consumption of natural resources by the leaders of the ranking is many times greater than the same figures for developing countries. It turns out that poorer southern regions consume fewer natural resources but are not in the top ten in the Sustainable Development Index.
A 2011 case study perfectly confirms the low effectiveness of globalization in addressing the problems of poor regions. In particular, Munslow and O’Dempsey write that “Globalization increases inequalities and those who are currently the losers will carry the greatest burden of the costs in the form of the negative effects of climate change and the humanitarian crises that will ensue”. Globalization leads to a densification of economic relations between regions, and rich countries can use cheap labor and resources of developing regions, bringing such states harm in the long run.
Spread of Capitalist Ideology
One of the main effects of the globalization process has been the spread of philosophies and state ideologies popular in regions of the global north. In particular, this refers to the capitalist system, defined as an economic system based on the distribution of production and resources. At the core of capitalism is the concept of private property and free enterprise, encouraging business development and the pursuit of profit maximization. Unlike other political-economic systems, capitalism does not seek to create conditions of equality for all citizens but recognizes the equality of legal rights and freedoms for everyone. Turning to the history of the development of capitalism, one can see that this concept first appeared in the Western European countries, namely Germany, Britain, and France. It is with the regions of the northern hemisphere that the names of the key figures of the capitalist theory are associated: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Weber, and Schumpeter. Each of the Europeans made a positive contribution to the development of capitalist structures, and some progressive countries, especially those that disagreed with the ideas of capitalism, even built states that contradicted those ideas: the example of the USSR perfectly confirms this. Along with the development of capitalist doctrine, the mechanism of managing colonies of developing countries from the developing world as home to a large number of valuable resources became popular. In an attempt to maximize their profits, states and prominent businessmen invested in the economic “enslavement” of southern countries.
By now, many nations on the planet exist on a capitalist economic basis, encouraging business and private ownership. In turn, the spread of capitalist ideology has made unanimous recognition of the importance of extrapolating these ideas to solve the climate crisis, including through privatization mechanisms. State and commercial privatization of natural property — especially seen in the Antarctic regions — and the delegation of natural area management responsibilities to private sector companies have resulted in attempts to increase profits under the guise of real protection of the territory. The South Pole of the world, which is most vulnerable to the threat of climate change, is actively inhabited by military and scientific bases of various states that conduct research in the cosmopolitan territory. Even if the marginal benefits of privatization as a manifestation of capitalism are observed to solve the climate crisis, the real agenda is to concentrate resources and power over individual, independent natural areas in the hands of individual companies or states.
Capitalism spreading from the north has led to a culture of tangible economic, political, and even cultural superiority of post-industrial countries over regions of the developing world. As a result of this migration of influence, climate initiatives emanate mainly from regions of the northern hemisphere but have an impact on the whole world. Thus, increasing opposition between the global north and south is dictated by an attempt to figure out which regions contribute more to the planet’s carbon footprint. While statistics have consistently shown that the countries of the global north are responsible for climate warming, these countries are taking it upon themselves to dictate climate action to the southern regions.
Predominant Effects of Influence
It seems clear that the current system of world order will not be able to be changed instantly, which means states and communities will continue to exist under rules that have a historical basis. The regions of the global north will continue to utilize the resources and labor force of developing countries from the southern hemisphere since, in this case, the economic and probably even cultural benefits are evident to all. In this system of densified economic relations, however, the problems of climate governance are given the least weight since these threats may seem abstract and long-lived. A capital-growth-oriented system is not considered satisfactory for addressing environmental security issues. In turn, a climate crisis that occurs independently of communities — although the anthropogenic factor as a central predictor of the crisis is not in question — has serious consequences for vulnerable communities from poor regions. Maintaining the current pace of world evolution thus reinforces globalization processes and the spread of the capitalist economy but does not show much effectiveness in addressing the climate crisis.
Meanwhile, the threats to the well-being of nature are not only due to the relative inaction of the global community but are instead primarily dictated by the active study of the natural zones of the southern region. The resource-rich areas of the global south, where governments lack the skills and equipment to extract resources, motivate northern private companies and states to invest in these regions to locate their equipment there. Such actions, in turn, generate adverse effects for the climate crisis. The factories established in natural areas and the mining industry emit carbon emissions that affect the greenhouse effect on the Earth. A concrete example of such actions could be the widespread expansion of Australian gold mining operations (refers to the global north) Resgen in areas of Africa, resulting in an economic, cultural, and social invasion. In addition, there may be massive deforestation, affecting not only animal migration but also climate warming due to the disruption of natural cycles of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the biosphere.
The southward movement of capitalism also affects changes in the world’s sovereign economies. A study by Langley et al. reported that the development of carbon capital ideas to make production more environmentally friendly is proving to be compromised and subversive. In other words, the current progress of government programs is proving uncertain as real change is not being seen. Moreover, the spread of capitalism increases the influence of northern regions on southern politics and economies. It is reported that “global reinsurance companies are making billions in profits, in part by selling new kinds of protection schemes to developing countries that have done almost nothing to create the climate crisis”. This also applies to the specific example of the construction of dams in the Amazon riverbed to produce green hydropower: such ecological innovations cause damage to the local environment, which is in a state of water scarcity. This applies not only to structural changes in local ecosystems but also to food security issues for communities in Peru and Bolivia. Including, “Moreover, in Peru, the misconduct of diplomatic, business and political ties among non-state and state actors imperil state legitimacy and security”. The persistence of such an agenda, in the long run, could lead to a complete reduction of sovereign power in the regions of the southern hemisphere due to the pressuring spread of influence from the global north.
Bibliography
Bäckstrand, Karin, Jonathan W. Kuyper, Björn-Ola Linnér, and Eva Lövbrand. “Non-State Actors in Global Climate Governance: From Copenhagen to Paris and Beyond.” Environmental Politics 26, no. 4 (2017): 561-579. Web.
Collier, Stephen J., Rebecca Elliott, and Turo-Kimmo Lehtonen. “Climate Change and Insurance.” Economy and Society 50, no. 2 (2021): 158-172. Web.
da Silva, Luis P. B., Larry Swatuk, and Lars Wirkus. “The ‘Boomerang Effect’ and The Unintended Side Effects Of Climate Action.” Climate And Security In Latin America And The Caribbean (2017): 121-142. Web.
Davies, Gareth. “Privatisation and De-globalisation of the Climate.” Carbon & Climate Law Review 7, no. 3 (2013): 187-193. Web.
Gonçalves, Guilherme Leite, and Sérgio Costa. “From Primitive Accumulation to Entangled Accumulation: Decentring Marxist Theory of Capitalist Expansion.” European Journal of Social Theory 23, no. 2 (2020): 146-164. Web.
Guerrero, Dorothy Grace. “The Limits of Capitalist Solutions to the Climate Crisis.” In The Climate Crisis, edited by Vishwas Satgar, 30-46. Johannesburg: Wits University Press, 2018.
Hammond, Marit. “Imagination and Critique in Environmental Politics.” Environmental Politics 30, no. 1-2 (2021): 285-305. Web.
Langley, Paul, Gavin Bridge, Harriet Bulkeley, and Bregje van Veelen. “Decarbonizing Capital: Investment, Divestment and the Qualification of Carbon Assets.” Economy and Society 50, no. 3 (2021): 494-516. Web.
Mehling, Michael, Harro van Asselt, Kasturi Das, Susanne Droege, and Cleo Verkuij. “Evolving Context of Climate Cooperation and International Trade.” Designing Border Carbon Adjustments for Enhanced Climate Action 2, (2017): 17-25. Web.
Munslow, Barry, and Tim O’Dempsey. “Globalisation and Climate Change in Asia: The Urban Health Impact.” Third World Quarterly 31, no. 8 (2011): 1339-1356. Web.
PRRAC. “Equity Considerations in Climate Adaptation Plans: A Call for Advocacy.” Poverty & Race Research Action Council (2017): 1-20. Web.