ENTRIES
PROFILE
ARCHIVES
TAGBOARD

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Article:

Corporate interests and actions can harm the environment

Economics and globalization affect the environment as the capital flowing into the developing nations are often funding projects that are potentially damaging to the world's environment. Yet, many of these are presented as either development projects or countered as actually being favourable (or at least not harming) the environment.

In the late 1990s attention was drawn to a United Nations (U.N.) project to get corporate collaboration/sponsorship in development projects, supporting human rights and the environment, and being generally more responsible and accountable. However it fell under a lot of criticism for involving corporations that are known to have contributed or caused some of the more severe human rights and environment problems, allowing these companies to attempt to repair their tarnished image, while not actually tackling the problems.

In May 2002, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) released an extensive report saying that, "there was a growing gap between the efforts to reduce the impact of business and industry on nature and the worsening state of the planet" and that "this gap is due to the fact that only a small number of companies in each industry are actively integrating social and environmental factors into business decisions." (The actual quote is from a U.N. News Centre article, 15 May 2002 that introduces the report.)

One sharp example of environmental problems caused by multinational corporations is the drive to extract oil from Nigeria. As the previous link, from this site's section on Africa shows, corporations have even backed the military to harass, even kill, local people who continue to protest at the environmental and other problems the activities of the various oil companies have caused.

The interests of the various big polluters, such as the auto, mining, oil and chemical corporations influenced the Kyoto Global Climate Change Conference outcome.

Corporate interest could be said to be behind biotechnology and genetically engineered food production, which may be counter to issues relating to feeding the world's hungry. The concerns on the environment are therefore magnified.

With increased consumerism, there has been a rise in the number of environmental groups campaigning on various issues such as environmentally friendly products. To varying extents then, environmental concerns are issues that sometimes make the mainstream news. However, a cover story, of Down To Earth magazine from Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment as an example, warns that the latest craze in green and ethical consumerism may just be another way for corporations to exploit people and make money by misrepresenting the facts. As another example of this, EarthDay Resources' annual Don't Be Fooled Awards highlight some of what they call the corporate "greenwashing" that goes on through advertising and lobbying campaigns.

There are countless examples where corporate involvement in various issues could contribute to environmental problems as a result. Corporations are major entities in the world and thus have an enormous impact (negative and positive) on all our lives. And concerns of overly corporate-led globalization contributing to environmental problems are increasing, as reported and documented by countless environmental and social justice groups around the world.

source: http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Corporations/Environment.asp#Corporateinterestsandactionscanharmtheenvironment

Reflection:

This article is on corporate interests and how its development can harm the environment. It is said that "the capital flowing into the developing nations are often funding projects that are potentially damaging to the world's environment".

It was also argued that these projects did not actually harm the environment. In the 1990s when attention was drawn to a U.N. project that for "collaboration and sponsorship in development projects, supporting human rights and the environment, and being generally more responsible and accountable", it fell under criticism for targeting corporations that caused the more severe human rights and environmental problems.

Just by this example, we can see that different countries and corporations are more interested in finding someone to blame for our problems than to really correct it.

There is no real cause to worry. For all we know, there may not even be an environmental problem. In the later part of the article, it says that "Down To Earth magazine from Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment warns that the latest craze in green and ethical consumerism may just be another way for corporations to exploit people and make money by misrepresenting the facts".

This is a screenshot of a scene in Runescape, which is a Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG). The avatars seen in the picture are all controlled by humans behind computer screens. The interesting point is that these avatars are controlled by humans all over the world; however in the game, they all exist in a common world. The game actually simulates an environment, where all the players must familiarize themselves with. In the game, there is no such thing as nationality as everyone is in a common world, a common environment.

MMORPGs allow people to meet and interact with one another in the comfort of their homes. People of different nationalities that have the same interest in the game can befriend each other and form clans. Clans usually comprises of many members and there is no restriction on nationality. As we can see, MMORPGs can virtually erase national barriers.

The bar graph above shows one aspect of economic globalisation - foreign direct investments. There have been a steady increase in FDIs over the years. Therefore, in my post this time round, I shall discuss on the facts and myths of Foreign Direct Investments and its increase in this globalised world.

Foreign direct investment has increased much over the last 20 years. It brings private overseas funds into a country for investments in manufacturing or services. However, although it can bring in impressive growth, it can also cause instability and economic distress, such as the Asian financial crisis. However, despite that, many governments of many poor countries continue to see foreign capital as a means of economic growth. Thus, they have put in much effort and take steps to attract it.

There are some myths to foreign investments. I shall now state 2 of them and show that actually these statements on FDIs are actually not true:

Myth #1 - Foreign Investment helps to create new enterprises, expands markets and stimulates new research and development of local 'know-how'.

This statement is not entirely true. This is because most foreign investments are more interested in buying profitable private firms and taking over existing markets, rather than developing one. Furthermore, instead of building on private capital, it FI undermines the emerging technological research centers.

Also, FI don't really expand the market much. In some sectors, the new foreign owners may have expanded the market. However, in some other sectors like transportation, the new foreign owners have reduced the market by raising charges, even beyond the means of most consumers.

Myth # 2: Most 3rd World countries depend on foreign investment to provide needed capital for development as local sources are not available or inadequate.

Actually, foreign investment is really a borrowing of national savings to buy local enterprises and finance investments. Foreign investors and MNCs directly receive loans from local pension funds and banks. The notion that 3rd World countries need FI because of they are short of capital do not really stand. In reality, the foreign investors actually compete for local savings from a privileged position in the credit market. This way, they are able to hold on to their assets and political influence to secure loans from local lending agencies.

Therefore in conclusion, I believe that FDI will continue to increase in the future. Despite these facts of FDI, most developing countries have accepted the fact that FDI offers a potentially significant source of financing. This is because although this does not really happen much, it does, a little, serve as a relatively stable source of capital. Also, it brings in up-to-date technology, organizational skills and distribution networks.

DONE BY: NUR ATIQAH ISMAIL

TA 2D'o6

ECONOMIC EXPERT(:

The line graph aboves shows the increase in US economic prosperity due to free trade. Free Trade's virtues have been praised for 300 hundred years. By allowing everyone equal access to all markets, as the theory goes, they gurantee the most efficient allocation of resources and the cheapest prices for consumers. So, the question comes - can such a theory work in practice? Western rhetoric says it can, and points to international instituitions such as the World Trade Organisation to promote free trade of goods, and the World Bank to provide credit for development projects. However, so long as the West continues to protect its own industries from the international market, its position is arguably hypocritical.

In my opinion, there are many advantages of free trade. I will now state some of the advantages.

1) Being interlocked though trading relationships decreases the likelihood of war. If one is engaged in a mutually beneficial relationship with other countries, then there is no incentive to jeopardise the relationship through aggression. Thus this promotes peace, which is to all of us, a universal good.

2) Maximum global efficiency, and the cheapest prices, can only be maintained by a tariff free international economy. The more efficiently allocated are the world's resources the less waste there is and the more affordable goods will become for consumers.

3) The growth of the developing world is a universal good, because the improvement in the quality of life of millions of people is clearly a moral imperative. Free trade helps countries by maximising their comparative advantage in free trade circumstances.

4) Lastly, another advantage of free trade is that not only free trade in goods that will benefit the developing world. Developing countries gain ready access to capital in liberalised international financial markets. This gives them the opportunity to finance projects for growth and development.

Therefore, in conclusion, I believe that free trade does have a lot of its advantages and helps to increase the world's economic prosperity. Thus I restate my stand that free trade serves as a universal good.

Thanks to the connectivity provided by the internet, distance learning or E-learning is made possible. In addition to being sarcastic, I think that the author of the top most cartoon is being sarcastic. Nevertheless, it gives readers a sense of the potential of E-learning that the internet possesses. E-learning, for us students in the Temasek Academy, is obviously not new.

We have been using the Knowledge Constructor for quite some time already. In my opinion, the knowledge constructor is good example of E-learning as it allows us exchange information and thus learn from one another at our own pace. The use of instant messaging programs like MSN messenger allows us to communicate in real time both with our teachers and classmates. In the event that we have a problem, help is only a few taps on the keyboard away.

In the bottom cartoon, we can see that a frog is being virtually dissected. With the use of interactive animation, computers have not only allowed us to utilize our creativity, but also learn more efficiently as well. Although we do not have to physically go through rather messy experiments, we can still visualize the process and result with the computer's help.

As you probably can see, the internet is the result of technology being applied in the process of globalization. Distance learning is made possible by the internet as it enables us to communicate and share data easily with one another. In my next post,we shall discuss on the negative effects of this ease of data sharing.

Done by: Technological Expert Jonathan Pung

Article:

Sustainable Forests or Sustainable Profits?

The overly corporate-led form of globalization that we see today also affects how natural resources are used and what priorities they are used for.

"It is true that cutting down forests or converting natural forests into monocultures of pine and eucalyptus for industrial raw material generates revenues and growth. But this growth is based on robbing the forest of its biodiversity and its capacity to conserve soil and water. This growth is based on robbing forest communities of their sources of food, fodder, fuel, fiber, medicine, and security form floods and drought."

— Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest, (South End Press, 2000), p.1

We hear more about sustainable forestry practices by the large logging multinationals. However, what does that really mean? Who is it sustainable for? Society and the environment, or for the logging companies? By replanting trees that will grow quickly and allow them to be felled for "sustained" logging sounds like a good strategy. However, the trees that are favored for this (eucalyptus) require a lot of water to grow so quickly. As John Madeley points out.

"[T]he [eucalyptus] trees achieve this rapid growth by tapping large quantities of groundwater, impoverishing surrounding vegetation and threatening to dry up local water courses."

— John Madeley, Big Business Poor Peoples; The Impact of Transnational Corporations on the World’s Poor, (Zed Books, 1999) p.76.

Madeley continues by describing the impact that the use of chemicals to treat woodpulp from the eucalyptus has on local fisheries and on food production. This has had terrible effects on indigenous people within such regions.

source: http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/Biodiversity/Loss.asp#SustainableForestsorSustainableProfits

Reflections:

Though it is not a main cause, globalization is one of the causes of loss of biodiversity. In order to generate revenue and growth in the industry, natural environments like forests have been cleared, causing plants and animals to lose their habitats and the loss of biodiversity.

After this, the article talks about sustainable forests as the way to solve deforestation. The Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) defines sustainable forest management as "the stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in a way, and at a rate, that maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and their potential to fulfill, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social funcions, at local, national, and global levels, and that does not cause damage to other ecoystems". In other words, trees that are cut down are replaced with trees that grow quickly so that they can be "felled down for sustainable logging". The trees that are chopped down are replaced and that does not cause a problem.

However in the specific case study, the trees replaced those that were chopped down were eucalyptus trees, and this kind of trees require a lot of water in order to grow fast. They tapped large quantities of groundwater, thus "impoverishing surrounding vegetation and threatening to dry up local water courses". The use of chemicals to treat wood pulp from the eucalyptus has also affected local fisheries and on food production, which in turn creates problems for the indigenous people within the regions.

Environmental expert
Jean Ng
2D'06

Monday, May 14, 2007

The World gets in touch with their inner American



"We are all Americans now, like it or not."
G. Pascal Zachary

"Globalization is in so many ways Americanization: globalization wears Mickey Mouse ears, it drinks Pepsi and Coke, eats Big Macs, does its computing on an IBM laptop with Windows 98. Many societies around the world can't get enough of it, but others see it as a fundamental threat."
Thomas L. Friedman

In the early 19th century, "Americanization" referred to the movement where immigrants were developed into Americans. Today, the term carries a different and yet almost similar meaning. Americanization is now popularly viewed as the globalization by the U.S. of the world. The American economy is an ever-present force in the world today. Pepsi advertisements clutter the streets of every big city in China, Big Macs are being ordered throughout the entire world, and the term "Always Coca-Cola" is being muttered by all of Europe. This is plain evidence that countries all over the world are being globalized. However, is the word globalisation better known as Americanisation?

'The American Way' has successfully managed to infiltrate every aspect of our lives, even in communist countries such as Russia and China. For example, in the aspect of entertainment, China's youth today can not only watch The O.C. or Desperate Housewives on television, but also the newest films direct from Hollywood. There is also an amusement park in Shanghai called the American Dream Park(which duplicates typical American attractions) to cater to them. Additionally, the Chinese can choose to eat at any of 130 McDonald's restaurants placed all over the country. Mainland billboards, store fronts and television commercials all sell the American dream. Nike's "Flyer Qiao Dan," also known as basketball star Michael Jordan actually outranked Mao in a recent mainland popularity survey.

People seek a good life, one that they feel can be found in the American way of life.
After a half century of isolation under the Communist Party, the Chinese are desperate to catch up. "Chinese, young and old, are tired of political movements," says a Western correspondent in Beijing. The American Dream may be frayed at the edges, he adds, but Chinese still want the amenities associated with it: a car, a house filled with appliances, in short, the good life. "America represents an ideal in China," says King Lai, CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi Advertising China. "For the Chinese, it's the lifestyle that they aspire to, the spirit of America."

However, some other countries do not agree. For example, the Israeli government announced in November that it may require its radio stations to devote half their airtime to songs sung in Hebrew in order to slow down Israel's cultural shift toward Americanization. A few countries like France and Germany are also making plans to slow Americanization. By raising taxes and tariffs on foreign companies and investors, these countries are making it harder for American companies to profit overseas. Thus while Americanization may be welcomed by some, it is often viewed as a threat to national culture.

Sometimes, misconceptions and wrong judgements are made about the American Way. In a recent French poll of images that come to mind when thinking of America, 67% of those polled said "violence" and 49% "inequality" as opposed to only 20% who said "freedom" and 4% "generosity" (3). In Europe, Americans are stereotyped by globalization as being shallow, spoiled, and shortsighted. Hence although Americanization is rapidly changing the world, it may create wrong stereotypes of America. But then again, is Americanization truly the answer to globalisation in the world today?

Attached is an interesting article of how cultural globalisation may not necessarily be purely Americanization.
http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i35/35b00701.htm


- Culturally yours,
Cultural Expert- Gwyneth Liew

The photo above shows the increase in the remittances over the years. As we can see clearly from the graph, it shows that the money sent home by immigrant workers has exceeded foreign aid and equals all foreign investments. Thus, in my post this time round, I will touch on the topic that is one of the most visible aspects of globalisation - international migration.

Increased migration is one of the most significant aspects of globalisation. There is a growing number of people moving within countries and across borders, in search for better lifestyles and employment opportunities. International migration can take place for economic and non-economic reasons. Ever since the end of World War II, most international migration has been motivated by economic reasons- by the prospect of earning higher wages and income abroad. The attitude of the countries of origins of migrants varies. Some see it as an issue of political and social control and seek to prevent, or at least severely restrict, any emigration. Others allow it, but have policies that, intentionally or otherwise, create disincentives for potential migrants. For example, they making it illegal for non-residents to own property, making it hard for migrants to return later. International migration has its advantages and disadvantages, and thus in this post, I shall discuss about the negative claims made about migration and debate it against my opinion to show that migration is afterall, a force for good.

Let us first look at one negative view of migration. Economic migrants leave their countries not because they cannot find jobs but mainly because they are seeking higher income. Thus, they are only widening the gaps in their home countries' labour markets, condemning them to further economic decline to the expense of under-developed countries. Thus, international labour migration further skews distribution of income in the world.

However, if we look in it at a different point of view, we realize that labour is a factor of production that is becoming more and more mobile in the age of globalization, especially with modern advances in transport facilities. It is only natural that labour is moving from areas where it cannot be used to the places where there is a big labour market. Furthermore, some analyses prove that although output in the country of emigration decreases, it increases in the host country in a larger-scale, thus counting for a net increase in the world output. Hence, I do not believe that immigration should not be blamed for further skewing the distribution of income around the world.

Let us look at another claim made about migration. Some say that often migrants move with their families, and thus there cannot be any income for a home country. Also, an unqualified illegal labour force lowers the real wages of local workers and makes the unemployment problem in thier host country worse. Thus some believe that they should instead attempt to improve the situation in poor countries rather than just allowing anyone with the drive to leave.

This viewpoint however, in my opinion, can be debated quite easily. In my opinion, the higher real wages that migrant workers earn abroad and transfer to their families at home can be compared to dividends from successful capital investments. Migrants' remittances to their families abroad and investments in their home country's economy are all gains for a migrant's native land. In some cases, private investments from emigrants is worth 50% of these countries' commodity export income. Thus I think that we should not make a sweeping generalisation and say that migration causes the home country to be at a further disadvantage.

Thirdly, let us now look at another negative point that has been made on international migration. Some say that the immigrants that come to the US and the west European countries are now mostly uneducated people who cannot contribute new technologies or special knowledge. However, in my opinion, international migration do bring new knowledge and technologies to some countries. For example the huge migration from Europe to America in the late 19th century did boost the growth rate in the US, and contributed to its economic take-off. This is not only evident in America - Australia and New Zealand also emerged out of immigration flow. The reverse is also true. Migrants also return back to their countries, bringing along new skills, knowledge and money - all that can invigorate the economy of their original country.

Thus, in conclusion, I would like restate my stand that I believe international migration is a force for good. It should be encouraged and countries should not restrict the flow of migrants. This is one form of globalisation today - and we should accept it with open arms.

(:

DONE BY: NUR ATIQAH ISMAIL

TA 2D'o6

Economic Expert

Sunday, May 13, 2007

The Sino-U.S. Relation and Its Structural Clash

Thursday, 28. September 2006, 09:24:11
By Ni LexiongProfessor,Research Institute of War and Culture,
Eastern China Science and Engineering University
The Global Time (Huanqiu Magazine)
Mar 29, 2004

http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2004/04_03_18relationstructuralclash.php

Reflection:

Globalization has given the wide spread of modern technology and increasing economics. Besides the developed countries, there are countries such as China taking the advantages of globalization for their development. And this article talks about the relationship between a potential strong power – China and an existing strong power – the US. Globalization has given a chance for China to bring in foreign technology and investment. And its economic power and political position seems to be rising. And the US has felt the pressure from China. This relationship between two nations then will definitely affect the order of the world.

There are several factors the author brought up to argue about the conflicts. These two countries are quite different in their “understanding of a series of cultural values such as freedom, human rights, equality and justice”. And as a nation with advanced democratic political system, the US wants other nations to enter the same systems. In fact, its power in the current system allows it to do this. It has brought insecurity to many nations, so as China. China, as a potential strong power will "eventually challenge the existing strong powers in all hutments of life including politics, economy and military". The author has also used a lot of case studies to argue that how one nation’s confrontation with its opponent will be doubly uncompromising, when a its ideology and national survival are not in conflict. The author also pointed out that thinking each other as a threat will then lead to a confrontation. When the conflict is exacerbated, it may lead to war.

However, besides this pessimistic point of view, the author also said that there are many factors which will contribute to the resolution of conflicts. Based on the Chinese culture and ideology of Confucius, China’s national character tend to avoid conflicts. Most dynasties in Chinese history have the idea of not invading small countries around it and using moral persuasion to influence peoples around boundaries. Many westerners claim that “ancient China seeking imperial suzerainty through moral force is the same as seeking hegemony through moral force”. However, the author believes that China’s behavior is not same as “imposition of one’s own will upon others”.

Also, there is one interesting point that the author pointed out. He said that the appearance of nuclear weapons might be a price for peace today. And with the power which is enough to eliminate its opponent, China and the US may remain a nice relationship.

In my opinion, the final achievement of globalization should be to bring the world a peaceful and democratic unified system. However, during the process, because of the different current cultural understanding and political system, all the nations need to face the conflicts and challenges. The current world has multipolarity, and the wills of powerful countries will then lead to either peace or conflicts. What do we want? I think it would be peace. So the problem once again comes back to the basic topic about mankind. Any mistrust will then lead to suspicion, misunderstanding and finally the political conflicts. So just as I mentioned long time ago, the main point here is still trust and cooperation. It is easy to say, but much harder to do. The future is still a myth.

[[your political expert Liu Sha]]

The Big Five :D

Cultural expert: Gwyneth
Technological expert: Jonathan
Environmental expert: Jean
Economic expert: Atiqah
Political expert: Liu Sha

Post of the week: 30th April - 5th May, Atiqah