Essay Thesis for Climate Change

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

‘’Our house is on fire’’ is the opening line of climate activist Greta Thunberg’s speech at the world economic forum conference this January (The Guardian 2019). Climate change is one of the most urgent and acknowledged challenges the earth and society are facing today. Now that this issue has become a world phenomenon, it is a political issue as well as an environmental problem (Kamarck 2019). Frankel highlights that by observing the GDP, it indicates that globalization has a positive effect on the economy. It is the non-economic aspects such as labor rights and pollution which hinder economic goals and the environment (Frankel 2002).

The challenge of Climate change

Climate change is already in motion and its effects are harming our planet. Due to emissions of greenhouse gases, parts of the globe will become so hot and dry that they will be inhabitable while other countries like parts of Miami and Bangladesh will be submerged underwater. Agriculture will not be able to adapt resulting in food shortages and the air and oceans will be polluted, killing the species that inhabit each. Economic, political, and social factors will also come into play as refugees leave their homes seeking a more bearable environment (Kamarck 2019). This issue is no new phenomenon as it dates back to the 17th century. The problem has spiraled as we did not address or react to it when we should have. Our economy has been evolving and technological change has been improving, creating economic growth. What we failed to consider was the pollution the technological growth was causing at the same time. The rise of economies like China is seen for their renowned change and improvements to the economy but what we have previously failed to recognise is the energy their rapid urbanization required. By delving into the environmental factors that are coupled with globalization, we can analyze how they are improving or harming the situation.

Addressing what is globalization

globalization is the integration of markets, economies, industries, and policymaking around the world. Economies enlist the aid of their foreign counterparts and are becoming increasingly interdependent. This is evident in the Hyperglobalistion thesis which sees a rapid increase in international trade leading to more connections and thus, countries’ dependency on each other grow. Its effects are felt by low labor power and by states who are made to lower corporation taxes (Kinsella 2019 (A)). globalization impacts every country and although it has an abundance of benefits it can also be debated that it possesses many negative traits. The lifespan of globalization is identified by theorists in their contributions to literature highlighting three different waves of globalization which involves three different perspectives. Held et al. (1999) deemed these waves to be the globalists, the skeptics, and the transnationalists (Martell 2007). The skeptics take a realist approach to IPE and are against the idea, of denying globalization was ever a thing. Globalists are more open to the thought and support it although they provide a quantitative explanation. Transnationalists on the other hand are also believers but rather than quantitative proof, they seek qualitative definitions (Talani 2018).

Openness to trade and free riding

globalization is represented by free trade which reduces barriers and restrictions to trading by enabling a free market policy, promoting economic growth (Collins 2015). The graph below gives us a visual representation of openness to trade from a global perspective. Since 1945, in the period of post-war growth, countries are now more in favor of internationalization and are straying away from protectionism (Ospina et al. 2018).

The graph above shows the degree to which countries are open to trade, but their balance of payments depends on many other factors than their willingness to trade. Yet, scholars believe that eventually, each country will converge in rates of economic exchange. Theorists and economists became interested in the convergence thesis in the late 1980s. This paradigm unfolds the hypothesis that poorer countries tend to grow faster than wealthy countries. This was found in empirical data measuring GDP as a comparison for many countries. The different dynamics of the countries and their per capita income should see them converge (Sala-i-Martin 1996). This nature of convergence and being a global economy focuses so much on being united and working together, it is ironic that one of the main challenges facing our global crisis of climate is free riders. All global problems are implemented on a local level, giving a great incentive for people to benefit from something without giving effort or payment for it. This results in welfare loss and enhances the tragedy of the commons situations. Behavioral studies have shown that individuals and society are not motivated to do something if it has high costs and the results are to benefit other people. This scenario is what is occurring on our planet today but on a national scale. When countries see others back out or not give their optimal efforts, they are enticed and inclined to follow in their footsteps (Tong 2015). An example of this can be seen in the mechanism formed in 2005 in Japan, namely the Kyoto Protocol. This system was established to tackle the emission levels of greenhouse gases by setting a carbon emission cut-off for member countries. Although this protocol proved to be a great success, reducing CO2 emissions by 12.5% by 2012, it ended that same year due to member countries dropping out and encouraging others to do the same (Zhao 2019).

How globalization can be a means of economic improvement

In his book, Frankel explores three means of how globalization can be of benefit to the environment. Firstly, he addresses the importance and relevance of exercising consumer power. Consumers who are environmentally conscious can use their purchasing power to influence market trends such as codes of corporate conduct and labeling. If international trade was not a mechanism, this tool would not be a thing. Secondly, environmental issues which are affecting at an international level must be addressed by international cooperation. Multilateral institutions are required to address issues as environmental objectives are interchangeable. These institutions such as GATT, are known to focus more on international trade as their core objective but they are also used to protect environmental factors. The WTO, while dealing with trading aspects is now also working with an environmentalist’s mind frame. Thirdly and one of the most beneficial aspects that comes from international trade is the benefits countries obtain from working together. By forming connections internationally, countries gain from observing what each other experiences. From statistical cross-country evidence, it has been proven that globalization and economic growth result in citizens demanding better environmental quality. Frankel argues that it does not matter how much countries do alone to battle this crisis, it is not enough if we want to eliminate this issue completely, ‘an international agreement is necessary’ (Frankel 2002).

How is globalization harming the economy?

In contrast to the positive aspects globalization can bring about for the environment, they are of course mirrored by harming factors. Frankel reviews three influential variables that highlight the role trade and economic growth play in the environment. First and foremost, the implication is that the more globalization that is occurring, the more pollution that is created. The larger the scale of activity in the economy means a larger flow of trade, releasing more greenhouse gasses. The more goods and services are traded, the more transport is required, releasing carbon at an increasing and lethal rate. He also speaks about the detrimental influence of the composition and techniques of economic activity. The processes used for economic production result in deforestation, killing our wildlife and polluting our oceans, wiping out marine life. Another key and increasingly dominant factor is the impact of technological change. The more data being used, the more data clouds create energy, resulting in further destruction of the planet’s scarce resources (Frankel 2002) (Kinsella 2019 (B)).

How are different social groups impacted by climate change?

The correlation between climate change and equity has always been evident. In the 1980s when climate change was beginning to be tackled, questions never arose as to how the problem originated, this was always clear. Greenhouse gasses were being emitted more and more by wealthy countries and it was the poorer regions that were feeling the effects of it most. A few decades on and this initial notion still stands even after extensive research (Downing and Smith 2003). The human development index has measured and grouped countries according to their exposure, impacts, and adaptive ability to climate change. The groupings consisted of ‘vulnerable’ countries such as Bangladesh which is an LDC. They are heavily exposed and expect large impacts of disasters such as high sea levels, droughts, and cyclones. They are not equipped to adapt to these changes. ‘Residual risk’ countries have a low chance of being impacted but also would not be able to adapt. Countries that have ‘’opportunities for coping with impacts’’ like the US are sufficiently resourced to deal with and adapt to any impacts. And finally, countries that have low expected impacts and high adaptive capacity. Examples of countries that have this classification would be Norway and Canada. Even if they face climate challenges they can continue to prosper and grow economically and sustain humanity and species (Downing and Smith 2003).

International agreements have been established giving poorer countries the opportunities they need such as giving them emission rights and enforcing restrictions on other countries’ emission levels. As previously discussed, the Kyoto Protocol was an agreement set up to reduce co2 emissions, particularly in heavily industrialized nations (Zhao 2019). The clean development mechanism (CDM) was developed under the protocol which ultimately transitions capital from rich to poorer countries. The CDM objectives include benefiting the environment with cost-effective emission reductions whilst attaining poverty reduction (Zoomer et al 2008). The CDM assists developed countries to meet their emission reduction promises by promoting and influencing clean development in developing countries (Osmani 2012).

Deglobalization

Frankel argues that reversing globalization is not the answer to ending global tensions. He explores the concept that countries could individually address environmental issues and labels this theory a myth. I strongly agree with his viewpoint. Going back to the increasing nature of free riders, countries will be allured by the prospect when seeing other efforts if multinational coalitions don’t exist. National sovereignty has a large impact on why some want a deglobalized economy. A group that strongly fears the national sovereignty of their nations is the anti-globalization movement which blames individual and environmental factors on an open, globalized economy (Brooks et al. 2011). There are, of course, arguments for and against globalization and when associating it with climate change it is evident why some people want to deglobalize our economy for security measures. However, ultimately even if we did live in a world of countries trading in isolation and closing up our economies, we would still be emitting greenhouse gases. Pollution would still be a global issue and we as a planet would still have to unite to battle climate change (Frankel 2002). Deglobalization may make reductions in our global climate change crisis but it does not eliminate it. This is not the answer.

Conclusion

After conducting in-depth research into the topic of climate change and its interaction with globalization, an apparent relationship between the two can be identified. Some will inevitably win, and some will lose. It all depends on the climate activities, when, and where they occur. By analyzing the impacts on the poor vs rich, it is clear the rich pollute more and the poor are left with the resulting circumstances due to a lower capacity to adapt and their vulnerable state of exposure (Downing and Smith 2003). Climate change is happening and will continue to occur. It was not derived directly from globalization and removing this mechanism will not directly mitigate the issue. It is a global problem that must be dealt with by a global resolution.

Click Here To Order Now!