Critical Reflection (edited)

I was disappointed when I failed my QET as I did not want to read an additional module, ES1102, as it would add weight to my already intense workload. However, I know it would benefit me, furthermore, my main objective was to acquire the skills in order to improve my language. I was comfortable with the structure of this module as it prioritizes process writing. I enjoyed group discussions as I could get my peers and my lecturer to read and evaluate my work. I have gained a lot from the group discussions as I had the opportunity to learn from each other as well as learning from my own mistakes.  I was especially pleased that I was provided personal consultation sessions. I feel that the feedbacks I received for my essay has greatly guided me in my learning process by helping me to find my strengths and weaknesses in writing essays. This has encouraged me and facilitated me to focus on specific areas that require improvement. Most importantly, this module has equipped me with the skills to write proper academic essays. I have improved in my essay organizational skills and also in my grammar. Furthermore, these skills are very useful in my field of study, as I have to write many scientific reports in future. In conclusion, I am grateful to be given the opportunity to read this module as it has boosted my confidence in writing essays and my interest in upgrading my command of the English language.

Globalization Essay Draft 2

Globalisation can be defined as the increasing cross-border interaction and integration of various aspects of human activity. Based on this view of globalisation, identify one problematic area of the phenomenon and discuss its influence on contemporary society. What actual or possible means are there to ameliorate the issue you have highlighted?

Globalization has provided opportunities for the expansion of global trade through international interconnectedness. The significant increase in the support for free markets over the last few decades has led to strong economic growth in many developing countries. As a result, more diverse and cheaper goods are available to consumers in the modern world (Kohut & Wike, 2008). Due to the high demand for international goods, the importance of industrialization has risen sharply. Therefore, industrial activities such as extensive agriculture and infrastructure expansion continue to proliferate. Notably, they drive deforestation, a root cause of other environmental problems such as global warming and a loss of biodiversity. These problems are ineradicable especially when deforestation is constantly fueled by the rise in industrialization (Laurance, 2013). These severe effects of deforestation have raised global awareness and exigency in forest protection. A solution that has been implemented to control the problem of global warming is REDD+. It is an acronym for a set of policies aimed at reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD) and restoring forests and increasing carbon storage in existing forests (the “plus”)(Fearnside, 2006). Besides REDD+, they also practice land sparing and wildlife-friendly farming (Green & Balmford, 2013); two effective farming methods that have proven to reduce the loss of diversity, one of the several environmental threats caused by deforestation.

Deforestation is the prime source of global greenhouse gases (GHG). As a result of its accumulation, the excessive heat trapped in the atmosphere leads to global warming. It brings detrimental effects to the global forests and the governments have been spending huge amounts of money to control this problem. The tropical forests have been reduced by half in the last centuries, worse, over the last decade, 10 million hectares of native forest are being cleared yearly; equivalent to forty football fields per minute (DeFries, Rudel, Uriarte, & Hansen, 2010). Predominantly in developing nations, the emissions are projected to continue in the absence of strict regulations (Lubowski & Rose, 2013). To counter this problem, these countries have implemented REDD+ policies that are aimed at substantial lowering of GHG emissions by controlling deforestation, executing reforestation and other activities to enhance forest carbon stocks. The approach is that countries receive monetary compensation if their GHG emissions reductions are certified. Brazil, an emergent nation has achieved more than 75 percent reduction since 2004 (Lubowski & Rose, 2013). Reducing GHG below a reference level makes a country entitled to receiving REDD+ incentives. However, this implementation should be fair in a way that countries should be penalized if they fail to maintain emissions below that reference level. The policy has to strategize ways to ensure that countries stay committed and do not opt out of this program especially when incentives for reductions get too low. Overall, it is an attractive political-economic strategy, especially to target prospective governments in Latin America and Southeast Asia, where emissions reductions are greatest as deforestation rates are high and the carbon densities of forests are large(Lubowski & Rose, 2013).

Reducing deforestation also addresses a concern that extends beyond global warming such as biodiversity conservation in the region. Tropical forests are homes to numerous living species, hence, controlling deforestation could prevent the extinction of species. However, as the global population grows and food consumption rises, people demand more food. This has caused intensified industrialization and the need to clear forests. This trade-off between food production and the loss of biodiversity through deforestation can be reconciled with land use strategies such as land sparing and wildlife-friendly farming (Grau, Kuemmerle, & Macchi, 2013). Land-sparing approaches spatially segregate intensive agriculture and natural areas, which set aside lands for preservation. Therefore, the agricultural yields are maximised from a relatively small area of land permitting nearby areas to be spared. Wildlife-friendly farming favours the approaches for combining agricultural production and enhancement of biodiversity(Rey Benayas & Bullock, 2012). Although, the agriculture yields are lower per unit area, the lands are more wildlife friendly which allow permanent conservation and an increase in wild populations on farmland. The effectiveness of land sparing strategy in European countries is justified when farmers are compensated with over $2.7 billion annually by the government when they minimize the usage of farmland. Furthermore, Costa Rica, nearly half of native forest species of birds, mammals, butterflies, and moths also occur in agricultural areas. This proves that wildlife-friendly farming has improved biodiversity (Green, Cornell, Scharlemann, & Balmford, 2005). There is no pristine strategic design that can cater to all ecosystems and there are many environmental heterogeneous factors to consider when deciding on a strategy to effectively balance the usage of lands. Heterogeneity is problematic as well as the agricultural yields and biodiversity complex relationship, which is not well understood in current farming models (Fischer et al., 2008). Hence, improved empirical studies in terms of the design of strategies should be carried out to produce rigorous data quality. Comparative advantages of the strategies in different environmental and societal settings should also be assessed. This would contribute to a better management of land use trade-offs.

As globalization intensifies, the increases in industrial activities due to the high demand in food production and commodities have negatively impacted the environment by massive clearing of forests. Reducing deforestation by implementing REDD+ policies and land use strategies would reduce the effects of the environmental problems of global warming and loss of biodiversity. These solutions represent the range of actions that should be combined to best ameliorate the root of all problems, deforestation.

References:

DeFries, R. S., Rudel, T., Uriarte, M., & Hansen, M. (2010). Deforestation driven by urban population growth and agricultural trade in the twenty-first century. Nature Geoscience, 3, 178–181. doi:10.1038/ngeo756

Fearnside, P. M. (2006). Tropical deforestation and global warming. Science (New York, N.Y.), 312(5777), 1137. doi:10.1126/science.312.5777.1137c

Fischer, J., Brosi, B., Daily, G. C., Ehrlich, P. R., Goldman, R., Goldstein, J., … Tallis, H. (2008). Should agricultural policies encourage land sparing or wildlife-friendly farming? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6, 380–385. doi:10.1890/070019

Grau, R., Kuemmerle, T., & Macchi, L. (2013). Beyond “land sparing versus land sharing”: environmental heterogeneity, globalization and the balance between agricultural production and nature conservation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(5), 477–483. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.06.001

Green, R. E., & Balmford, A. (2013). Farming and the Fate of Wild Nature, 550(2005). doi:10.1126/science.1106049

Green, R. E., Cornell, S. J., Scharlemann, J. P. W., & Balmford, A. (2005). Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science (New York, N.Y.), 307(5709), 550–5. doi:10.1126/science.1106049

Kohut, A., & Wike, R. (2008). Assessing Globalization, 70–75.

Laurance, W. F. (2013). Treetops at Risk. (M. Lowman, S. Devy, & T. Ganesh, Eds.), 71–79. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-7161-5

Lubowski, R. N., & Rose, S. K. (2013). The Potential for REDD+: Key Economic Modeling Insights and Issues. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 7(1), 67–90. doi:10.1093/reep/res024

Rey Benayas, J. M., & Bullock, J. M. (2012). Restoration of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on Agricultural Land. Ecosystems, 15(6), 883–899. doi:10.1007/s10021-012-9552-0

Reader's Response (Final Draft)

The article titled “The Double edged on Globalization” has presented some of the negtive impacts of globalization that have largely affected the environment in this modern world. Consumerism has driven the destructive forces of globalization towards the environment and caused a ripple effect to the society. Conversely, the author has emphasized on how globalization has positively led to economic growth. In addition, the advancement of technology has also provided opportunity for environmentalists to spread the message about environmental damage effectively that are much contributed by globalization itself.

The global consumerism habits have driven environmental destruction. Consumerism implies the efforts to cater to consumers’ interest. So, how is this bad towards individuals and worst; responsible for causing harm to the environment? It is easier to acquire a greater understanding of the effects of consumerism that have loomed when globalization gets into the picture.

Globalization has expanded trade worldwide. The tremendous expansion of crop cultivation for export has led to further deforestation globally (Nayan Chandra, 2007) and the burgeoning industries of many developing nations have been the culprits for the large emissions of pollutants. To meet the world’s interests and growing demands, the developing nations are providing a variety of less expensive goods to consumers in the developed world ( Kohuk and Wike, 2008) in the expense of deforestation that has contributed to one-fifth of the world’s carbon release. One should never underestimate and limit the impacts of destruction of forests within a region as they could pose detrimental threats worldwide. Prior to the heavy production of low cost product by China, deforestation was undertaken to accommodate more factories. This intensified industrialization has generated pollutants that have traversed and affected other nations too (Wall Street Journal, 2004).

As this article is focused on “double edged” globalization, it has addressed a positive role of globalization in the advancement of technology today. Globalization has strengthened the world’s interconnection and certainly has provided an unmatched platform for advocates to spread environmental awareness worldwide in comparison to the past. Information is rapidly broadcasted and publicized such that consequences are felt quicker than before. Many have expressed high levels of concern towards the environment than before. It is evident in a recent study conducted by (Kohuk and Wike, 2008) that most wealthy and poor nations are well informed about the damage done to the environment owing to the growth in economy. Consumers are more apprehensive of the threats posed by globalization and many may have come to a consensus that damaging the environment is too high a price to pay for economic expansion.

Globalization has also posed problems to the society. There is a widespread concern in immigration policies where many workers in poor nations have shifted to cities in search of new jobs, while some in richer countries have lost jobs that have moved overseas. Regular flooding due to global warming has caused millions of migrants to become homeless. Ironically, this world being well equipped with technologies has been unable to counteract the problem.

Global warming threats can be avoided only when nations commit to act on them together. A collaborative success of the Montreal protocol has reduced the depletion of the ozone layer. However, many countries throughout the world still continue to have broad support for economic growth featured by globalization. In particular, superpowers like USA may highly influences other nations in their dedication and strive towards tackling environmental issues. USA’s refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol, being the world's top emitter of greenhouse gases may have caused a backlash to other countries that have signed. It has been observed that these nations have been inconsistent with its implementation, making only obligatory attempts to tackle the challenges of global warming (Nayan Chanda, 2007).

Globalization might have led to economic growth, which has not created a unanimous advantage to everyone with regards to the widespread concern of huge income gap between the wealthy and poor. While there is a great concern in the wide income gap and majorities agreeing that the government has a great role to support the poorest in society, there is a greater worry about the alarming damage globalization has done to the environment. In this interconnected world, no one-country should stand alone to grapple with environmental and social issues. Nations should support and depend on each other to deal with major challenges. The international governance of the United Nations inefficiency at solving some of the major catastrophes may be due to the lack of support from the superpowers. Some superpowers may express reluctance in providing support and facilitation to combat certain challenges faced in the world, as it might not be in the best of their economic interest. Although, several independent institutions have dealt with the interconnected problems of the world, the leadership of governments is still the cornerstone to effectively combat international problems. The political powers have an influence in globalization in its growth and the direction it takes.

Summary: The Double Edge of Globalization (Final Draft)

Many companies are being blamed for climate change and forests destruction, globalization, however, is the main contributor of the harm done to the environment. In his book on Globalization, (Nayan Chandra, 2007) mentioned that global consumerism habits have caused more damage to the environment than globalized companies. However, the progress in technology influenced by globalization has provided an unmatched platform for advocates to spread environmental awareness worldwide. The effects of intensified crop production for export due to globalization have led to further deforestation globally. World Bank reported that deforestation has contributed to one-fifth of the world’s carbon release. In addition, Wall Street Journal (2004) mentioned that the heavy production of low cost goods in China have generated pollutants which have traversed and affected other nations too. Globalization has strengthened the world’s interconnection such that information is broadcasted and consequences are felt quicker than before. Consumers are more apprehensive of the dangers of global warming. Global warming would cause a reduction in the world’s economy by one-fifth as the world has to recompense for the damages made. It has also led to social problems other than economical problems. For example, flooding has caused millions of people to become homeless. Ironically, this world being well equipped with technologies has been unable to counteract the problem. Global warming threats can be avoided only when nations commit to act on them together. A collaborative success of the Montreal protocol has reduced the depletion of the ozone layer. Furthermore, the upturns in economy, industrialization and environmental guidelines have declined the tendency towards deforestation. Living in this interconnected world, nations depend on each other to deal with major disasters. The international governance of the United Nations has been inefficient at solving some of the major catastrophes. However, these disasters are mainly due to the superpowers’ failure to support the UN’s services and roles in attaining higher achievements for the world. Although, several independent institutions have dealt with the interconnected problems of the world, the leadership of governments is still the cornerstone to effectively combat international problems. The political powers have an influence in globalization in its growth and the direction it takes.

(356 words)