Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Activity:
• Form groups of 3
• Answer the questions (15 minutes):• What are the reasons to explain the environmental
degradation?• What are the measure we should take?• Many DCs consider that it is unfair to oblige them to
respect international commitments on this issue. What do you think?
•Make your presentation
Current Globalization is based on the myth that: economic growth creates social progress and material accumulation leads to
happiness
=> GDP and consumption is the priority for all actors
GDP per capita is growing exponentially everywhere
This trend leads to an increasing need for energy consumption and intensive use of natural resources causing a worrying
degradation of the environment
Actors participating directly/inderectly to the degradation of the environment:
• Global industry
• Intensive and export-oriented agriculture
• Bank financing these activities
• Governments and IOs (WTO)
• Individuals are the main responsible because all these actors are a product of our daily behavior
• MNFs know how to escape national legislations, to take advantage of weak States or how to use the lack of global governance
• Ex.: Many create companies in Tax havens for maritime activities => it allows fleeing from justice due to the total secrecy (convenience pavilions)
Example: Prestige (Super-tanker) which caused an oil spill in 2002; it was impossible to determine the responsibility in this case
• It had Bahamas pavilion• Ship: Property of a Liberian company• Merchandise registered in Switzerland but belonging to a
Russian holding registered in Liechtenstein=> nobody was guilty and paid for the pollution caused and economic damaged
• Unique goal for the WTO : proper functioning and growth of the international trade => to eliminate all the obstacles affecting the tradeDoes not consider environmental impacts (as well as social
impacts): it is a major defectMany countries and important global players (MNFs and
Banks) are opposed to the inclusion of environmental rules because it will increase costs/prices => it will affect the competitiveness, growth and profitability
Problem is that without any global rules, the liberalization of commerce (globalization) allows the relocation of polluting activities to countries with weak environmental, labor and taxation legislation
=> There is a race to the bottom between DCs to attract FDI (they are willing to sacrifice normative legislation)
=> For many analysts, it creates an environmental dumping (or Eco-dumping)*
Environmental dumping (or Eco-dumping)
MNFs (global value chains) seek to establish subsidiaries in countries that have less strict environmental laws or environmental laws that are not strictly enforced
It allows:
1. To reduce the costs of production ÞThey do not assume certain costs they will have to take into account in their own country or any other IC
ÞMNFs locate polluting activities in DCs
2. To transfer waste (household waste, industrial/nuclear waste, electronic waste etc.) from one country to another (has been referred to “transfrontier shipment” of waste) => Governments as well are using this mechanism
• This practice allows cheap disposal or recycling of waste without the economic regulations of the original country Þ It improves the competitiveness and it reduces
the costs of goods and services for the final consumer
Þ Economic benefit for MNF and global consumer
• Many waste are hazardous wastes => they can
(1) cause potential health risks to humans
(2) affect the environment (Digplanet 2015)
2 examples of “transfrontier shipment” of waste (Digplanet 2015)
• In 2005, 60 containers were seized by Dutch authorities on their way from UK to China. The containers were supposed to be for paper but actually contained household wastes
• In 2005, French warship, the Clemenceau, was sold to India to be scrapped. The Indian Supreme Court ruled that it could not enter Indian waters due to the high level of toxic waste (asbestos found on the ship) =>French Govt was forced the to take it back
• In 1992 the Basel Convention was enforced to regulate “transfrontier shipment” of waste (there is at least 8 million tons of hazardous waste imported and exported every year) (Basel Convention 2009)
• Problem is that Contamination does not generate costs (or very limited costs)
=> Consequence: costs are transferred to populations in DCs or to future generations
• Immediate benefits continue to control decisions and are much more important than future costs
• Some governments of DCs are specializing in very polluting activities (to meet the global demand): Advantage: they can generate very high profits but negative consequences in terms of environmental and social impacts (ex.: mining industry or export-oriented agro-business)
Ex.: UNEP [United Nations Environment Program] and UNESCO published a report (2011) over the dangers of
international specialization highlighting the case of Indonesia and the production of oil palm
Following the current trend: 98% of the tropical jungles might disappear by 2022There is a massive disappearance of primary trees that represents a “worldwide catastrophe” for human beings as well as for local species Purpose of palm oil: production of biodiesel in Europe => EU fulfill the international commitments about global warming they have made but at the expense of the deterioration of the situation in other regions
Governments:• Lack of commitment; it is a dilemma for them: Govt which decides
to commit itself will affect/reduce competiveness of its economy:• National firms and FDI will have to assume costs to respect
environmental rules that firms in other countries will not have to respect Þ probability of relocation of productive activities will be high
followed by the problem of unemployment
• Many DCs do not want to comply with international rules (Kyoto protocol) (BRICS)• Reason: they consider themselves as DCs => they do not want to
affect their economic development• Many emerging countries consider that the environmental
commitment represents a setback for development• DCs (specially BRICS) consider environmental policies of the ICs
are similar to protectionist measures
• Lack of international organization with sanctioning power (there is in EU however European actors can easily escape exporting waste or setting up polluting activities outside Europe)
• Gvts are also guilty because they promote consumption to support the national industrialization and GDP (promote the acquisition of certain assets such as house, car, consumer electronics, etc.)ÞThey favor consuming society and therefore energy consumption increase
• Gvts transfer wastes to DCs (household wastes, toxic wastes, nuclear wastes…) (Gvts from DCs are equally responsible; frequently it is the decision of an official => it feeds corruption)
Individuals
• Our lifestyle and daily decisions allow MNFs to maintain their polluting activities• We are clients of the MNFs and we seek the lowest price
=> MNFs will seek to reduce costs at all costs• The worst part is that we do not feel guilty and we
accuse/blame MNFs (we forget that supply meet demand)• May be we are alert however there is a feeling of
powerlessness: “my behavior does not change anything” we do not make the link between our behavior and environmental degradation
• What is guiding our decisions for consumption? • Idea that environment is at the service of our individual project• Need of accumulation is internalized (it is an invisible hand that
guide us unconsciously) (we do not know the limits)
• Individualism leads to consumerism => we exist through the consumption (“I consume therefore I exist”; we do not exist anymore through the relation with others, with the environment or with the divine). It is like a refuge
• Change of lifestyle is not accepted (everyone agrees about environmental protection but nobody wants to change lifestyle; moreover, it could lead to a social/economic exclusion or higher costs) (Balaam and Veseth)
• In many societies there is an absence of social sanctions in relation to the bad behavior
• The root of the problem comes from actors’ behaviors (governmental agencies, productive actors, banks, individuals) which are a product of the institutionalized paradigm created after the 2nd WW and maintained/consolidated by individuals/consumers:
• A Paradigm of behavior based on a concept of “development” (interpreted as material growth) has been institutionalized/crystalized (do not forget that “the true” is a social construction)
• This paradigm is guiding our daily decisions leading to the externalities of the globalization: environmental degradation but also migration, violence and criminal networks, poverty and exclusion, unemployment, disappearance of local identities…. (see “Darwin´s Nightmare)
• Everyone is responsible and therefore we have to be part of the global solution which will require probably a complete change of behavior/paradigm
• Problem: nobody wants to leave its comfort area and to be excluded from the social/economic dynamics that are very materialistic
Harlem Brundtland was in charge of the “Brundtland report” on Sustainable development: it highlights the
need to incorporate the environmental degradation in the development model (published in 1987 by the World
Fund for the Environment, WB)
Some actors seeking to achieve comprehensive change of paradigm
United Nations for Environment Program (UNEP; 1975)
• “Environmental voice” in the UN• HQ in Nairobi• Created after the Stockholm Conference (1972): international
community realized the need to integrate development and environment
• Goals:• To Coordinate environmental policies• To promote consensus over environmental objectives• To Organize summits (Rio 1992: Johannesburg 2002; Copenhagen 2009;
Paris 2015): reduce emissions of polluting gases which have greenhouse effects
• To facilitate commitments (treaties, conventions, protocols, agreements)
Environmental NGOs are emerging/consolidating with increasing analytical and critical capacities
• They have more and more possibilities to participate into the global policy networks (G20, UN system, WB, Davos, etc. ); it means that:• They have more visibility => They have to assume a lower cost to
disseminate their ideas • Their ideas have more political weight• The context is much more proactive and collaborative with formal global
policy networks => many NGO go from anti-globalization to alter-globalization offering alternative solutions to those from the market
Scholars try to raise public awareness
• Publications and statements• Consultant for Governmental/international agencies/NGO
• Universities create Academic programs
Sensibility and conviction of some leaders
Communication, movies, documentaries
We observe notable changes:
• National/international mood is changing: consumers and citizens are much more vigilant and they also ask for effective mechanisms to ensure a company's and Gvt’s accountability for its environmental and also social impact
ÞGvts and Firms have to take more and more into account the environment: they have to do so to avoid a political or economic cost (=> competitiveness of the firms include more and more environment)
ÞThis change will dependent upon the level of social awareness
• International agreements (even the FTA) increasingly consider
the environment
• Environment is now perceived as a national security matter in all the ICs and any DCs; it is part of the development model
Historical agreement between Xi Jinping and Obama (2014)
• It was concluded one year before the Paris Summit
• Both reached an agreement to reduce greenhouse gases emissions
• It is a good news due to the (1) growing competition between the 2 powers (agreement will establish environmental limits/rules to their competition) and (2) because they are the most important CO2 emitters
• China and the USA = 42% of the world’s CO2 emissions
China• Established a peak objective for emissions by 2030 (with
“intention of achieving it as soon as possible”)
• First time China makes a commitment to a specific date
• China is the country that produces the most important quantity of polluting gas since 2006
• China is responsible for 50% of worldwide coal consumption
• Traditionally it did not want to be considered as an ICs to avoid any commitment => big step forward
USA
• They make the commitment to reduce between 26-28% of its CO2 emissions before 2025 (reference year = 2005)
• Traditionally (since 1990s) USA did not want to make any commitment without the involvement of all the big competitors (including China). This is the main reason why they did not ratified the Kyoto Protocol
• There was a strong opposition in Congress; according to Mitch McConnell (Republican leader in the Senate): • This is non realistic agreement• It will affect competitiveness and employment• It will increase prices for consumers…
Consumption of energy in USA
In 2006 China overtook USA as the biggest CO2 emiter
Biggest CO2 emitters: slowing down in USA/EU but increasing in China (which is meeting US demand and Chinese demand) and many are concerned about India
CO2 emissions (2012)
CO2 emissions during the period 1900-2004
The industrial development of USA and Europe is due to fossil energy consumption (cheap energy)
We are still depending on fossil energies (oil, gas, coal)
• Global economy depends on these polluting resources
• Economic, social and political structures depend on the access of these resources (as well as competitiveness)
• Current global hierarchy depends on oil access (since the XX century). Countries are still fighting to have access to oil
• Energy demand moves to DCs (South Asia); it is due to:• Relocation of productive activities from ICs to DCs• Growing consumption in DCs following the development model of
the ICs
• The question now is: How to say to DCs that they will not be able to base their own development on green energy (expensive energy)
Coal production in the world: increasing demand from China
Renewable energy development: More and more public projects developed by ICs and DCs => there is governmental voluntarism (this decision does not follow the logic of the market): it meets a urgent necessity to change the model and it also
meets growing pressures from the international mood
END
Kyoto Protocol: Absence of USA, Canada, BRICS, MINT
• Orange: (USA) no commitment • Red (Canada) left the protocol (Back down in 2011 pretext of no inclusion of
India and China)• Purple (ex USSR): does not fulfill requirements to join• Deep green (EU, Australia, Turkey) accepted commitment
