Globalisation, trade and the environmentenvironmental improvements (Clapp and Dauvergne 2005 : 26–7). Market lib-
erals are persuaded by the Kuznets curve thesis (see Chapter8)that as
societies become richer the process of industrialisation initially results in
greater pollution, but a point is eventually reached when there is a decou-
pling of economic activity and pollution. In the style of Lomborg (see Chapter
3)they emphasise the historical trends that show how the standard of living
for the majority of the world’s population is far higher than in the 1970s,
despite the rapidly rising population, and that the record of the developed
world demonstrates that the best form of population control is to bring edu-
cation and prosperity to the masses. Globalisation, by delivering the ‘devel-
opment’ side of the sustainable development equation, will solve the social
problems that contribute to ecological degradation; indeed, environmental-
ist opponents of globalisation are condemned for being ‘eco-imperialists’ for
trying to deny poor countries the right to develop (Bhagwati 2004 ). Market
liberals make the cornucopian claim that the planet is still replete with
unused natural resources and unfilled waste sinks, and the technocentric
argument that history shows that human ingenuity has consistently over-
come environmental problems.
By contrast, the dominant view in environmental politics, among both
academic commentators (e.g. Sachs 1999 :ch.8)and the ranks of anti-
globalisation political activists (see Chapter 6), is that globalisation is
unremittingly bad for the environment. By underpinning rapid economic
growth, globalisation is responsible for the over-consumption of natural
resources and the filling of waste sinks. It involves the movement of capital,
technology, goods and even labour to areas with high returns on investment,
without regard to the impact on the communities and people moved or
those left behind (Lipschutz 2004 :121). Globalisation stretches the chains of
production and consumption over great distances and across many locations,
which increases the temporal and spatial separation between the sources of
an environmental problem and their impact in specific places. For example,
thedivision of labour associated with economic globalisation results in the
increased transport of raw materials, commodities, semi-processed materi-
als, parts, finished goods and waste, greater energy consumption and more
pollution (including higher carbon emissions) – plus the risk of major envi-
ronmental accidents (Mol 2003 :71–2). As well as changing production pat-
terns inenvironmentally damaging ways, globalisation reinforces the sharp
inequalities between the North and South. For example, the ready avail-
ability throughout the year in the supermarkets of the developed world of
almost every vegetable or fruit is the result of a shift from subsistence farm-
ing to intensive cash cropping in developing countries. In addition to the
significant environmental externalities of flying these products to Northern
markets, cash cropping brings questionable benefits to developing countries.
Lipschutz notes that ‘Farming for export relies on chemicals for uniformity,
machinery for volume, and high quality land for productivity’ (p. 126). It is
a capital-intensive business concentrating wealth on a limited number of