Importing the Climate Crisis: Globalization and its Environmental Impacts

By: Noor Yassein

Globalization has increased the boundaries of our world, allowing us to go places we have never been and make connections that we would never have been able to make. However, for all the life-changing possibilities globalization has offered us, the ever-increasing interconnectedness has wrought some negatives for the world. This is especially the case in the fight against climate change - globalization has increased the production of carbon emissions from the rise in travel and imports/exports, worsening the impacts of global warming. Given the obvious failings to counter climate change in an increasingly globalized world, it is time for a more nationalist self sufficiency from states to mitigate the negative effects which have stemmed from these failed efforts.

Carbon emissions have risen over the last few decades in part from the increase in travel. Airplanes have become more accessible, cars have become more affordable, and roads and routes have been formed in order to make it easier to travel from place to place. According to the United Nations World Tourism Organization, world tourism rates were at about 25 million international arrivals annually in 1950. In 2018, however, this number was recorded to be about 1.4 billion. When you consider that international arrivals mean travel not only from one country to another, but also across continents, the increase in carbon emission production is inevitable, yet still significant. According to an OECD article, greenhouse gas emissions, which have been produced as a result of aviation, have increased 86% between 1990 and 2004. And in 2013, aviation caused 4-9% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Since the numbers for international travel have gone up since then, one can only assume that this number has also increased.

Carbon emissions have also increased due to the rise in imports and exports throughout the world. Globalization has made long distance trade more and more accessible, and the transportation necessary to facilitate such trade has been seriously harmful towards the environment. Shipping abilities and roads have been improved through this process, as well as reduced tariffs with trade agreements like the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). According to the New York Times, immigration and the increase of American incomes has brought on a demand for certain foods to be available year-round, even out of season – this includes food which cannot be grown in the United States. A lot of imported food also tends to be cheaper than local food, given the lower labour costs in varying countries. Since markets cater to the supply and demand of the populous, over half of the fresh fruit that Americans buy is now imported . This rise in imports results in a significant rise in the production of carbon emissions. For example, in 2014, it was found that between 2007-2012, the emissions from shipping added up to about 3.1% of the total global carbon emissions for the year. If this number keeps growing at the rate it is, it could wind up being about 10% by 2050. Consequently, the further a food has to travel to reach the table, the worse it is for the environment and as such, globalization and the wider range of available products, while useful and beneficial to a certain extent, has not helped fight the worsening effects of global warming.

Now, it is true that there have already been steps taken to address climate change on a global scale. The UN has sustainability goals which are designed to ensure that countries reach specific targets such as reducing carbon emissions by certain times. However, according to The Economist, none of the 20 aims adopted in one 2010 convention on biodiversity have actually been met. In fact, most similar international conventions often end with the same results: a failure on the part of states to meet the agreed upon aims. Thus, despite the multitudes of various global initiatives, no advances have actually been made. Yes, this is a worldwide issue, and so it seems logical that it should be tackled as a group. But addressing it together has thus far been unsuccessful, so it may be time for a new approach.

One possible solution to help this problem is to focus on making states more self-sufficient. Up until now, imports/exports and travel have been fundamental parts of many economies worldwide. But a strange upside to the current time period is in any other time, increasing the isolationist tendencies of individual countries would be practically unthinkable. However, this is not the case right now, and focusing inward on developing our own abilities to be self-sufficient could be a better tactic. We can see that it is possible - Taiwan is an example of a country that ranks highly on the global charts in its economy, and has been effective in battling the COVID-19 virus, and yet has little to no connections on the international stage. But in order to be successful, we need more than just empty promises from a government with no plan to deliver. Concrete solutions, like government led initiatives to buy and support local, would not only be better for the environment, but better for our economy. In addition to this, government-led initiatives (including research, plans, and subsidies when necessary) to help Canadian companies in any industry, but particularly the auto industry, invest in greener solutions, development, and processes, would help in developing products locally and more sustainably for consumer use. Campaigns to educate people on the importance of these initiatives is also key – people don’t know what they don’t know, and they aren’t always willing to find out. Government leadership is needed in this matter, but it needs to be a collaborative approach with the Canadian people – one can’t work without the other. If we can hold our politicians accountable, support our local businesses, and reduce our own carbon emissions through reducing travel, we will be better off for it. Doing this won’t solve the crisis, but not doing it could be detrimental – we need action, and there’s no time like the present.