Shipping millions of containers of stuff around the world might seem to be bad for the planet, but in the long run globalization will help us solve our environmental problems.
With apologies to anyone who took Econ101 in college and at the risk of oversimplification, here’s why:
-The global economy is not a zero-sum game.
-Trade benefits buyers and sellers
-Rrising incomes and wealth are good for the environment.
Ergo, globalization is mostly green.
This may seem self-evident to some, but as I follow the conversation about business, the economy and sustainability in a number of venues -- from the sparring over China in last week’s presidential debate to Mark Bittman’s musings about an ideal food label to the argument from some enviros that what we need is not economic growth, but “degrowth” -- I’m surprised by lack of understanding of the benefits of trade, globalization and growth.
Take China. Playing to middle-class anxieties over the decline in U.S. manufacturing jobs, President Obama and Mitt Romney tangled over China during the debate. “I’ll crack down on China,” Romney promised. To which Obama shot back: “Governor, you’re the last person who’s going to get tough on China.”
In the sustainability arena, the China-bashing has played out over the rise of Chinese solar-panel manufacturers. This month, the Obama administration upheld steep punitive tariffs on Chinese companies after finding that they were “dumping” solar panels into the US market. China will surely retaliate.
Image of green world supported by many hands provided by Maxstockphoto via Shutterstock.
Next page: Why crack down at all?
Light at the end of the
Light at the end of the tunnel! I was so relieved to see a bunch of comments at the end of this infuriating article that put my frustration to words better than I could.
I agree with the comments to
I agree with the comments to date, and don't understand how GreenBiz published this obviously flawed and outdated argument at all, no less why they positioned it first in today's newsletter. Joel - what's up with this?
Hmmmm....Difficult to know
Hmmmm....Difficult to know where to start picking apart the many many absurdities presented in this article/report. I was under the (false I now see) impression that old ideas like "more standard" economic thinking can can fix the problems it created" was pretty well outdated. If you try an idea a few times and don't get the result you wanted, perhaps its time to rethink the way you do it (or the idea itself), rather than just redo the same experiment over and over and over....and over the same way and hope for a different result. I'm surprised that anyone would be willing to put their name on such an ideologically ancient and flawed report like this in 2012.
A major fallacy in a
A major fallacy in a continuous growth economic model is that it presupposes that just because an economy grows (i.e GDP) that all people are better off. The US economy grows yet the average Joe isn't better off today. Globalization offers great benefits for those who can take advantage of it, but remember trade and power, among all sorts of other human activities, are self-interest driven enterprises. Industry (and individual businesses) aren't in the game to make the world a better place, however much we all would like to delude ourselves. We want to make a buck and then make a few more in the next quarter. Spinning that as sustainability actions is business as usual, and certainly not novel thinking.
By the way, statements like "Denmark cares more about green than Bangladesh" are weak arguments at best and clearly uninformed blather. Geography plays an important role in the wellness of a people as does governance, human right and a slew of other factors. The story of sustainability isn't one of business AND sustainability as if sustainability is a minor part of business activities, BUT that business is a subset of the social activities of all humans under the sustainability umbrella. The question isn't that business people are better than environmentally minded people as your closing statement suggests. One could easily demonstrate that neither group deeply understands the interconnected of the world, man-made or natural. And pointing fingers and excluding pertinent information to make one's case only shows one's own ignorance. If you want to speak on sustainability at least have an honest approach. What you have written is simply lobbying for business as usual.
I agree - an absurd argument.
I agree - an absurd argument. We should raise the living standards of all the poor people of the world to the level of Americans in order to 'green' the global economy? Really? It is the rapacious American lifestyle that is causing the environmental damage. What's necessary is to rethink how we do economic systems, and to learn how to live well while consuming less. Perhaps that will be by more reuse of materials, or perhaps by more efficiency.
What a lot of nonsense!
What a lot of nonsense! Globalization results in hunger for more and more unnecessary items resulting in more and more exploitation of our environment and resources. Like anything, Globalization should be viewed for its positive influences as well as the negatives. In my mind the negatives outweigh the positives by a thousand miles. I totally agree with anonymous above.
This is the typical and
This is the typical and refined example of propaganda, with the only backing is that it's "self-evident". It is not. This view is based on the old and failed dogma that the resources are infinite and growth is a good thing that can be sustained indefinitely. None of this is true. Globalization is not green by any measure possible - the resource efficiency is low in global trade, it drives fossil fuel consumption to astronomical levels, it supports mining (a finite activity by definition) and waste generation instead of building a close-loop systems consuming labor instead of resources, it destroys cultures and small businesses from Massachusetts to Cote d'Ivoire, it undermines the institution of state. The only group that truly benefits from globalization is financial sector, and them throwing a bone to dispossessed masses in the form of a MacDonald and the ability to (maybe) eventually afford an iPhone is a joke and an insult. It is sad to see environmentalists starting to drink the same CoolAid that crashed our financial system....