8/4/2019 POLS20031 Essay

1/10

Effective environmental governance is impossible in the face of global economic competition.

The global environment is a vast, interconnected web of systems. Resilient, yet fragile1 this web

supports all life on our planet. Cumulative scientific knowledge tells us that we are now altering our

environment in ways that may be irreversible and that, without drastic change to our patterns of

consumption, these alterations will continue to accelerate and the damage will be catastrophic. Can

we confront such issues in the current global socio-economic climate? Some argue that

globalisation and free-market capitalism provide positive environmental effects, while others see

them as the primary cause of environmental degradation. This paper will argue that, while

globalisation could conceivably be harnessed as a positive force for the environment, the

competitive free-market capitalism engendered by neoliberal doctrine makes effective

environmental governance impossible.

Biodiversity and ecosystems are important as key productive assets2, for the 'services' they provide3

now or in the future, and for the sheer pleasure we get from their continued existence4. Given that

human impacts on the Earth's natural resources and systems are barely beginning to be understood,

the presumption that we have sufficient knowledge to manage these systems sustainably is arguably

an arrogance borne of abysmal ignorance or irrational optimism! What little we do know is

alarming in the extreme. The environmental disaster caused by human beings is such that by 2000

half the worlds forests had disappeared and a staggering 25% of mammal species and 11% of birdspecies were threatened with extinction and this extinction rate is increasing to a point where it

could equal any mass extinction episode in the planet's history (Yenken and Wilkinson, 2000, p. 24).

Marine life has been relentlessly over-exploited to the point where some species have been wiped

1 And quite possibly beyond the limits of human ingenuity to ever fully understand.

2 e.g. fish, or timber

3 e.g. as carbon sinks or in water purification.

4 Aesthetic values, cultural values, etc.

8/4/2019 POLS20031 Essay

2/10

out and long term protein sources for human beings are imperilled (Baylis et al., 2008, p. 358).

Among the complicated, synergistic effects of human activity on our natural environment, those

introduced by carbon emissions and other 'greenhouse gasses' (GHGs) are recognised as the most

serious and intractable with evidence of the severity of the looming 'climate change' catastrophe

building daily. The Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change's last report said of the more than

29,000 observational data series, from 75 studies, that show significant change in many physical

and biological systems, more than 89% are consistent with the direction of change expected as a

response to warming (Pachauri and Reisinger, 2007, p. 33). Eleven of the twelve years to

2006 rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of

global surface temperature5 (Pachauri and Reisinger, 2007, p. 30), while global average sea

level rose at an average rate of 1.8 mm per year over 1961 to 2003 in contrast to an average rate of

about 3.1 mm per year from 1993 to 2003 and data showed that annual average Arctic sea ice extent

has shrunk by 2.7% per decade6 (Pachauri and Reisinger, 2007, p. 30). That these observations are

consistent with anthropogenic causes is accepted almost unanimously by reputable scientific bodies.

Global environmental action has a somewhat chequered history. Adams (1990, p. 16-17) cites mid

to late nineteenth century dates for the establishment of conservation organisations and related

legislation. The development of green politics gathered pace over the next century and, fuelled by

public discourse from the 1960s, demands for environmental governance emerged worldwide as apotent political force. This evolving shift towards global environmental governance allowed for the

introduction, in 1987, of the Montreal Protocol on control of CFCs (Dauvergne, 2008, p. 469), in

1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and, in 1997, the

Kyoto Protocol which eventually came into force in 2005 (Dauvergne, 2008, p. 473). The Kyoto

Protocol requires developed countries to reduce GHG emissions by 5% below 1990 levels between

5 Since 1850.6With larger decreases in summer of 7.4% per decade.

8/4/2019 POLS20031 Essay

3/10

2008 and 2012 in an effort to combat climate change (Dauvergne, 2008).

It is important at this point to clarify the primary terms relating to 'global economic competition',

namely neoliberalism and globalisation. It is crucial to a thorough understanding of this debate to

appreciate that these two terms, while related, refer to two distinct sets of mechanisms (Dumnil

and Lvy, 2005, p. 27) and that the growth of international trade, the flows of capital, and the

global... economy are, in no way, neoliberal innovations (Dumnil and Lvy, 2005, p. 27).

Globalisation refers to an ongoing and accelerating process that is restructuring and increasing

connections among economies, institutions and civil society (Dauvergne, 2008, p. 449) and as such

does not necessarily require an ideological standpoint. Neoliberalism, on the other hand, is an

ideology, a specific set of beliefs about the way in which the global economy should be run. It

embodies a new set of rules by which governments must cede control of the economy to the free

market, which many claim benefits wealthy elites and 'the core' to the detriment of workers and 'the

periphery' (Dumnil and Lvy, 2005, p. 28, Bergesen, 1997, Moore, 2003, Hornborg, 2003). It can

in fact be thought of as market fundamentalism (Heywood, 2007, p. 52). In neoliberal ideology

what Adam Smith termed the invisible hand of the market (Smith, 1776, IV.2.9) was extended by

thinkers such as Freidrich von Hayek and Milton Freidman to claim that all government was

inherently incompetent, corrupt and/or inefficient (Friedman and Friedman, 1962, Hayek, 1972)

while attributing near-miraculous qualities to the market (Heywood, 2007, p. 52-53).

Neoliberalism is a concept conceived in economics departments and sold to the world bypoliticians, it is not a force of nature: it is a social construction that has been created by a series of

political choices over time. It is not independent of the social and political; it is embedded in them

(Hutton, 2011, p. 40).

Due to the interconnected nature of environmental systems, many environmental problems are

inherently global and, because of this, it is claimed that the solutions must necessarily be global too

8/4/2019 POLS20031 Essay

4/10

(Dauvergne, 2008, p. 344). Peter Singer claims that There can be no clearer illustration of the need

for human beings to act globally than the issues raised by the impact of human activity on our

atmosphere (2002, p. 16). This line of thought leads some to claim that globalisation is a source

of progress and ingenuity and, through promoting global integration and environmental norms

and standards(Dauvergne, 2008, p. 449) it enhances the ability of nation states to manage the

environment and respond appropriately to environmental threats, through knowledge and

technology sharing (Dauvergne, 2008).

Globalisation also enhanced the ability of civil society to organise and cooperate globally. It is

claimed that conservation campaigns of environmental pressure groups within industrialised

countries have been vociferous and increasingly effective in influencing the actions of banks and

aid agencies (Adams, 1990, p. 192) while studies claim that many TNCs are increasingly learning

to integrate environmental concerns into their business strategies (Banerjee, 1998).

Even if globalisation could conceivably be a powerful tool for effective environmental governance,

it can be argued that the same can not be said for neoliberalism. The neoliberal view, virtually

deifies the market for its percieved 'infallibility', and its supposed environmental credentials centre

around the idea that once the value of natural resources is established, and market distortions

created by state subsidies are removed, environmental assets will be exchanged for their actual

prices, with positive environmental results(McAfee, 1999). However the usefulness of economicsolutions for the protection of biological and aesthetic values is limited; because it fails to grasp the

inherent value of nature, other than simply in its benefit to human beings (Foreman, 2004, Singer,

2001) and, damningly, because economic values remain largely unknowable in the present and

foreseeable state of scientific uncertainty despite the conviction of some theorists (eg. Pearce et al.,

1989). Cost-benefit analysis may ensure scarce resources are allocated efficiently in the short term

but cannot include reliable values for biological services, intrinsic values, social benefits or future

8/4/2019 POLS20031 Essay

5/10

value that forest species may provide in the development of pharmaceuticals or alternative

food/fodder resources. Consequently the commercial value of many environmental resources in a

situation of future scarcity is likely to outrank the hypothetical 'value' of conservation.

It is commonly claimed that neoliberalism is a predatory system (Dumnil and Lvy, 2005, p. 36)

and as such, without strict regulation, many claim capitalist competition leads to a 'race to the

bottom' (Porter, 1999, Rudra, 2008, Woods, 2006) and in a globalised and starkly unequal world

such a race results in cost cutting through exploitation of the developing world. This exploitation

occurs as TNCs relocate environmentally damaging production to countries with lower or no

environmental standards and regulations (Grimes, 2003, Dauvergne, 2008, Frey, 2003) where

environmental costs of production and transport increase dramatically (Dauvergne, 2008, Grimes,

2003). Shifting environmentally damaging production to locations far from the point of purchase

allows for an 'out of sight out of mind' mentality which severely restricts consumers using market

pressure for environmental benefit. This process of consumer disconnection from the production

process of their good is a problem exacerbated by 'green wash' and other similar 'corporate social

responsibility' ploys (Lyon, 2011, Hamann and Kapelus, 2004, Mulligan, 1999).

Since the 1990s the international consensus has been an official creed suggesting that growth is the

general solution to environmental problems a neoliberal idea often called ecological

modernization(Hornborg, 2003). It is even claimed by proponents of this 'creed' that poverty is theprimary cause of environmental degradation and as such, global capitalism is solving environmental

problems by lifting people out of poverty (Radetzi, 1992, Hornborg, 2003). The predominance of

neoliberal ideology means that often the very groups most capable of creating and enforcing global

environmental regulations are instead part of the problem: Conservation groups have repeatedly had

to lobby international bodies like the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), the World

Bank (WB) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) arguing mechanisms to change

8/4/2019 POLS20031 Essay

6/10

unsustainable consumption andproduction patterns have been qualified as trade barriers (Lovera,

2000). Taxation and regulation could have dramatic effects on global environmental management

but neoliberal doctrine derides state intervention and the IFIs, precisely the organisations that could

be putting in place strong environmental protections, instead focus on protecting the integrity of the

deified market system. Taxation incentives are recognised to be the most cost effective means of

encouraging altruistic investments in biodiversity conservation by the private sector (Young,

1996).

Claims that poverty is the primary cause of environmental degradation are arguably absurb because

they fail to recognise the difference between localised environmental impacts and global

environmental degradation. While many environmental problems are indeed global in scope, it is

an overstatement and a mistake to assume that all environmental problems possess this quality

(O'Brien and Williams, 2010, p. 347). Localised damage can be caused by a poor community

polluting their water supply or clearing forest for fuel but is unlikely to have long term effects on

the global environmental system. The global degradation caused by neoliberalism and the

overconsumption of the 'West' on the other hand, while often more subtle, causes long term, far

reaching environmental damage such as species loss and climate change (Cole, 1997, Dasgupta,

2002).

The neoliberal ideology encourages an 'every man for himself' mentality which is completely

incompatible with the efforts needed to remedy the long term, global environmental issues which

face us. It is a cult of selfishness: The rich argue that it is fair for them to be so wealthy... [they]

increasingly believe they owe little or nothing to society, government or public institutions. They

accept no limit or proportionality to their wealth, benchmarking themselves only against their

fellow rich... philanthropic giving is declining; tax avoidance is rising; and executive pay is rising

exponentially. All three are justified by the doctrine that the rich simply deserve to be rich (Hutton,

2011, p. 28).

8/4/2019 POLS20031 Essay

7/10

Neoliberalism encourages consumption, while globalisation hides the more obvious degradation

caused by production from the eyes of the consumer leading to blind consumption. George Bush

Snr. Once famously said the American lifestyle is not up for negotiation (George H. W. Bush

cited Singer, 2002, p. 2). Peter Singer notes that this refusal to 'negotiate' on lifestyle is true even if

maintaining this lifestyle will lead to the deaths of millions of people (2002, p. 2) 7. Jorgenson

claimed in 2003 that there is a general consensus among academics that the capitalist world-

economy is in crisis because it cannot find solutions to key dilemmas including the inability to

contain ecological destruction (Jorgenson, 2003).

Does this necessarily have to be the way in which the global economy works? Importantly it is

claimed that Injustice is not a given... or something that we simply have to accept to service the

greater good of economic efficiency (Hutton, 2011, p. 27).Shifting from this nationalist,

anthropocentric view, under the perverse incentives of global economic competition, in the

necessary time-frame to remedy looming environmental catastrophe, is a wildly utopian notion.

While global interconnectedness could conceivably be harnessed to promote effective

environmental governance, the focus on economic growth and global competition engendered by

neoliberalism make true environmental conservation efforts an impossibility. Most people happily

subscribe to the neoliberal 'cult of me' and show limited preparedness to moderate their

consumption in any way that involves foregoing a benefit or delaying gratification. Only a huge raftof global incentives and draconian sanctions could begin to achieve the desired shift and such

regulation can only be managed by governments and international institutions all of which are

controlled or scuttled by neoliberal 'small government' dogma.

7Let alone 'negotiating' the 'Western' lifestyle for the benefit of non-human animals and the rest of the natural world.

8/4/2019 POLS20031 Essay

8/10

Bibliography

ADAMS, W. M. 1990. Green Development, London, Routledge.

BANERJEE, S. B. 1998. Corporate environmentalism. Management Learning, 29, 147.

BAYLIS, J., SMITH, S. & OWENS, P. 2008. The globalization of world politics : an introduction

to international relations,New York, N.Y., Oxford University Press.

BERGESEN, A. 1997. Discovering the environment.Journal of world-systems research, 3, 364.

COLE, M. A. 1997. The environmental Kuznets curve: an empirical analysis.Environment and

development economics, 2, 401.

DASGUPTA, S. 2002. Confronting the environmental Kuznets curve. The journal of economic

perspectives, 16, 147.

DAUVERGNE, P. 2008. Globalization and the Environment.In: RAVENHILL, J. (ed.) Global

Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

DUMNIL, G. & LVY, D. 2005. The Neoliberal (Counter)Revolution.In: A., S. F. & D., J. (eds.)

Neoliberlaism. A Critical Reader. London: Pluto Press.

FOREMAN, D. 2004. Putting the earth first.In: BALL, T. & DAGGER, R. (eds.)Ideals and

Ideologies: a reader. New York: Longman.

FREY, R. S. 2003. The transfer of core-based hazardous production processes to the exportprocessing zones of the periphery: the maquiladora centers of northern Mexico.Journal of

world-systems research, 9, 318.

FRIEDMAN, M. & FRIEDMAN, R. 1962. Capitalism and freedom, Chicago ; London, University

of Chicago Press.

GRIMES, P. 2003. Exporting the Greenhouse: Foreign Capital Penetration and CO Emissions

19801996.Journal of world-systems research, 9, 261.

8/4/2019 POLS20031 Essay

9/10

HAMANN, R. & KAPELUS, P. 2004. Corporate Social Responsibility in Mining in Southern

Africa: Fair accountability or just greenwash?Development, 47, 85-92.

HAYEK, F. A. 1972. The road to serfdom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

HEYWOOD, A. 2007.Political ideologies: an introduction,New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

HORNBORG, A. 2003. Cornucopia or zero-sum game? The epistemology of sustainability.Journal

of world-systems research, 9, 205.

HUTTON, W. 2011. Liberal social democracy, fairness and good capitalism.Priorities for a new

political economy: Memos to the left. London: Policy Network.

JORGENSON, A. K. 2003. Globalization and the Environment.Journal of world-systems research,

9, 195.

LOVERA, S. 2000. Forests in between Cattle, the CSD and WTO. In: FOEI (ed.)Forests,

consumption and trade: addressing unsustainable consumption and related trade as a major

underlying cause of deforestation and forest degradation. Friends of the Earth International.

LYON, T. P. 2011. Greenwash: corporate environmental disclosure under threat of audit.Journal of

economics & management strategy, 20, 3.

MCAFEE, K. 1999. Selling nature to save it? Biodiversity and green deveiopmentaiism.

Environment and planning C, Government & policy, 17, 133.

MOORE, J. W. 2003. The Modern World-Systemas environmental history? Ecology and the rise of

capitalism. Theory and society, 32, 307.

MULLIGAN, P. 1999. Greenwash or Blueprint? Rio Tinto1 in Madagascar.IDS bulletin, 30,

50.O'BRIEN, R. & WILLIAMS, M. 2010. Global political economy: evolution and dynamics,

Palgrave Macmillan.

PACHAURI, R. K. & REISINGER, A. (eds.) 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report,

Geneva: IPCC.

PEARCE, D. W., MARKANDYA, A., BARBIER, E. & ENVIRONMENT, G. B. D. O. T. 1989.

Blueprint for a green economy, Earthscan.

8/4/2019 POLS20031 Essay

10/10

PORTER, G. 1999. Trade competition and pollution standards:race to the bottom or stuck at the

bottom.Journal of environment & development, 8, 133.

RADETZI, M. 1992. Economic growth and environment.In: LOW, P. (ed.)International Trade

and the Environment. Geneva: The World Bank.

RUDRA, N. 2008. Globalization and the race to the bottom in developing countries: who really

gets hurt?, Cambridge University Press.

SINGER, P. 2001. Equality for Animals.Practical Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

SINGER, P. 2002. One World: the ethics of globalisation, Melbourne, The Text Publishing

Company.

SMITH, A. B. 1776. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Library of

Economics and Liberty.

WOODS, N. D. 2006. Interstate Competition and Environmental Regulation: A Test of the Race to

the Bottom Thesis*. Social Science Quarterly, 87, 174.

YENKEN, D. & WILKINSON, D. 2000.Resetting the Compass; Australia's Journey Towards

Sustainability, Collingwood, CSIRO Publishing.

YOUNG, M. D. 1996.Reimbursing the Future: An Evaluation of Motivational, Voluntary, Price-

based, Property-right, and Regulatory Incentives for the Conservation of Biodiversity: a

Report.