Entering the debate of Globalism is daunting- with our wealth of knowledge on the topic, how do so few people understand this movement that seeks to alter our world (for better or worse)? Globalism ties in messy, convoluted, and controversial topics- this makes it difficult for the layman to enter the debate, allowing these world changes to happen without the public really realizing it. Let’s take a moment to explore globalism in one context that is regularly overlooked- How is it impacting nature?

A commonly accepted definition of globalization is the intensification of cross–national interactions that promote the establishment of trans–national structures and the global integration of cultural, economic, ecological, political, technological and social processes on global, supra–national, national, regional and local levels (Rennen and Martens 2003). To put it simply, this means that the more a country trades, the higher demand for resources to manufacture goods, the more a country depends on these “trans-national structures”, the higher the environmental impact. This isn’t always the case, though. How sustainable is this countries’ manufacturing? Where/How do they source their resources? There are so many factors that play into how globalized a country is and its impact on the environment, which is why a clear association isn’t being addressed. 

To begin answering this question, let’s start with how globalism functions (f0r more information, check out these links): http://www.globalissues.org/issue/38/free-trade-and-globalization

http://www.globalissues.org/article/3/structural-adjustment-a-major-cause-of-poverty

To make a complex issue simple, international institutions like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organizations work to “fund” developing countries, giving them loans in return for liberalizing their economy (called structural adjustment). This allows multi-national corporations in Western nations to enter these countries and use natural resources and unsafe/underpaid labor that is now available in the now underregulated economy. This allows the nation to gain wealth through trade, but the recipients of this wealth are mainly the corporations that encouraged this entire interaction- preventing the actual populous to feel any gain. 

(Some efforts to globalize from NGOs target specifically the general populous of a country, or support local businesses and markets, this has different impacts on the country.)

If globalism were to result in healthy, well-fed, equitable countries that can participate in the global economy with agency, then the known benefits would be well worth it. But, it is seen to contribute to economic inequality, environmental degradation, corruption, and a neo-liberal colonial state. This is the crux of the debate around globalism- given the same information, data can be interpreted multiple ways, and it becomes hard to interpret a given truth- it is hard to see the true nature of it. Even still, globalism, as it is currently functioning, is encouraging rampant natural resource extraction through unsafe and underpaid labor- this is not only unjust but unsustainable, and cannot continue the way it is. 

In the end, the non-Western world needs the technology and means to reduce mortality rates, increase lifespan, feed their populations, and maintain healthy, educated societies- this is seen to occur through globalization, but not in a sustainable or equitable way. Even with these benefits of globalization, why would we continue a system that definitionally cannot sustain? Because of the subjugated state of non-Western countries due to globalism, it is Western countries responsibility (as the drivers of globalism) to end these neo-colonial policies and make their systems sustainable and equitable.