In ‘The Environmental Benefits of Globalization’ John A. Charles writes “A claim that liberalizing trade and free markets would result in catastrophic environmental outcomes, is entirely wrong.” Having analyzed the statistics of the American economy of the previous century Charles states “Global capital formation should become a key strategy to obtain environmental sustainability”. From my perspective, the author makes relevant points on the topic looking at globalization from a different angle, offering a ‘a golden mean’ in the current situation.
It can be seen from the article that globalization does not exclude environmental benefits. Statistics of the U.S. economy demonstrate that due to an increase in the economic system, air, and water quality, wood supply, and the agricultural system have substantially improved by the end of the previous millennium (Charles, 2004). In fact, a report by the World Trade Organization states that the reason for poor environmental protection is poverty in many countries. And these strongly support the author’s argument as a possible and real solution under the circumstances, since purchasing technologies with appropriate regulations on polluters is a part of the answer. However, the statement in research by the World Bank carries the controversial idea that “economic growth has a negative influence on abiotic factors in the beginnings, but the gained wealth will be of service to reduce it with the help of control technologies”. As a matter of fact, this raises the following question: Why do we need to remediate the problems we caused, if we can prevent them beforehand (Kakabadse, 2002)? So, that is the weak point of the main argument as globalization cannot be the only right path to ensure environmental sustainability.
The article is insightful and informative since the sources on this topic are scarce and underdeveloped. It also provides an opportunity to view globalization from a different perspective as it is a positive statement in terms of a relationship between the natural world and internationalization. So, the belief in the ‘unsustainability’ of the American lifestyle and the opinion of Alan Thein Durning that “If people of third countries had the same lifestyles as the average American, we’d need seven more earths” are shattered by Charles’ line of reasoning (Charles, 2004). Accordingly, it leads to a certain shift in understanding the place of globalization in environmental issues. However, the work focuses only on the benefits that can be achieved by developing countries at some point in the future excluding the current negative effects of the global economy on flora and fauna. Thus, unaware of the drawbacks, the reader cannot see the whole picture and properly evaluate the situation.
The content of the paper is concise with supporting ideas and evidence where needed. The overall structure is well-organized and guides the reader easily throughout the paper. Each paragraph is logically connected and is clearly related to the main point. The tone and voice are appropriate for the purpose of this article. The language used throughout is neither too simplistic nor too complex to understand. Indeed, various phrases such as ‘Wealthier is Healthier’ are put into use to captivate readers’ attention. The article is appropriate for the target audience that is public and is focused on increasing the awareness of people on environmental benefits of globalization.
To conclude, the author has been successful in providing informative and thought-provoking insight on global development’s eco-friendly impact. At the present time, the term ‘globalization’ itself is closely associated with mostly negative aspects excluding benefits it may provide. Therefore, the role of this article is immense as it informs of real advantages internationalization provides. This is also proven by Ezra Finkle’s words that “Rather than contributing to global destruction and poverty, consumerism promotes technologies that serve to improve environmental and human well-being” (Knickerbocker, 2004).