Reader Response #1 - Double Edge of Globalisation

Chanda (2007) mentions in the "Double Edge of Globalisation" that there are two polar sides to the globalisation. One being the fact that with it comes negative connotations, such as pollution, climate change and deforestation. On the other hand, globalisation advocates for a good cause, mainly bringing the news of such destruction of the environment to the eyes of global citizens. It spurs them on, with the help of activist, to put an end to such demolition of our planet. But this problem, as Chanda insists, can only be curbed with the aid of powerful government bodies.

In the text, Chanda proposes the fact that "The other charge, that multinational companies wreak havoc on the global environment by moving operations to countries where environmental regulations are weak or nonexistent, is a little more difficult to prove." and "little evidence that companies chose to invest in such countries to shirk pollution-abatement costs in rich countries."

What Chanda is trying to put across to readers is that the reason transnational corporations outsource their production to less developed areas is not to reduce pollution levels in their home countries. Instead, he states that it is to cater to the local market and the needs of the people there. He points out that such accusations can be difficult to prove. What drives global corporations is the need for trade expansion, to claim a more global market for their goods and services.  With trade rapidly expanding throughout the globe, it's consequences would be that of environmental degradation and pollution due to these growing industries.

However, I feel that although Chanda questions if such proof of companies relocating to countries where environmental controls are more lax to reduce pollution in their home environment is legitimate, I believe that it is true in certain cases. Shell for example, has been polluting Nigeria for years due to gas flaring and its emission of carcinogenic gases. Their excessive pollution is a danger to the lives of Nigerians living there, and destroys also their livelihood as oil spills have flooded rivers in which is for these people, a source of food and income. What they have done would definitely have not been allowed in their own countries.

Hence, I feel that even though Chanda brings up a good point on how expansion of trade is what motivates such corporations to shift their location of production units, an added benefit may also be the fact that low environmental costs are a given when doing so. So, government bodies need to be aware of these company motives and do the moral thing which is to stop such situations from occurring even if it means having less economic growth in their country. Maybe, they could even find a more environmentally sustaining way of production so they can compete on a more eco-friendly level.

Factsheet: Shell's Environmental Devastation in Nigeria: http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/shell%2526%2523039%3Bs-environmental-devastation-nigeria

Thesis Statement

While it is important to recognise the destruction being brought on to our environment as a result of globalization, we should also understand how to use globalization to our advantage to curb these pressing environmental issues, together with the help of our world's leading government bodies.

Summary of The Double Edge of Globalization

According to Chandra (2007), there are two aspects to globalization, the positive and negative. The negative side to globalization is the vast increase in destruction of the global environment by many global corporations. This is a result of the expansion of trade across international borders, made possible by globalization. It has its adverse effects on the surroundings such as deforestation, inappropriate waste disposal and air pollution.

However, with globalisation also comes positive influences such as the media and activist who are prominent in raising awareness of such environmental degradation. With the latest advanced technology and resources, the message of such harmful acts of corporations can be heard by many global citizens instantly and spark them to start making a change within their own capabilities.

But, environmental activists and help from people all over the world are just not enough to combat this situation. The help from governments are crucial in playing a deciding factor as to whether the target and goals of the UN can be achieved. This can only be acquired if they decide to slow down their economic growth in order to pursue environmental restoration, which is an opportunity cost to them.

Summary of Martin's post

Martin was born and raised into a Chinese family in China. In school, he was required to take up an English course. However, he found it quite a challenge to communicate with people in English. Despite those challenges in primary school, he advanced to secondary school and found confidence in his grammar, although he realized it wasn't much help when he came to Singapore to further his education. He aims to improve his English speaking skills as well as gain a larger vocabulary.

Double Edge of Globalisation - Questions and Answers

The World Trade Organization is a driver of trade expansion in the world today. How has it indirectly contributed to the destruction of the global environment?

By trading on a more globalised level, there has been an increase in fishing, deforestation and pollution by large corporations throughout the developing world. Also, encouraging trade ultimately means an increased in consumption, which has increase logging in a number of areas worldwide.

It is mentioned that instantaneous transmissions of news and photos has turned many of us global citizens into receivers of many such ideas and facts. How does this affect us as readers and observers of these current affairs on globalisation and its impacts?

An impact of globalisation is global warming, which is a constant headliner in front-page news reports across the world. This allows readers to be more aware and wary of the situation outside of their own country. They now have a concern for the future and how the world's climate would be affected by it.

What is the link between 'carbon-emitting economic growth' and 'increasing trade and industrialization brought by globalisation'?

The connection between these two points are that with a booming trade industry, factories in the global market join the supply chain. 'Mines are exploited and timber is felled' to meet such demands.  Thus increasing carbon dioxide in the air. Also, factories openly pollute the land through waste disposal and contaminating the ground and water sources. These are absorbed into the air which eventually would affect the world through forms of acid rain.

With the help of joint action and commitment, some countries are able to avoid certain trends of heavy carbon emittance and deforestation. How did they manage to do it?

By the creation of certain protocols that are reinforced and monitored, like the Montreal Protocol, the ozone hole has become smaller around the countries who have agreed to the arrangement. Hence reduced the impact on the global environment. 

Not all consequences of globalisation negatively impact the environment, what are some positive results of globalisation?

With globalisation, there is economic growth and urbanisation. However, the benefit of this is actually improved public policies due to global awareness. Also nations have made a decision to go against their long term stand towards the destruction of their nation's forests. 

Draft 2 of Assignment 1 "My Experiences with English"

Being born and raised into an English speaking family, I found myself wondering why I ended up in this position, having to take this English module as part of my first semester in NUS. Franky speaking, when I found out about the results of my Qualifying English Test (QET) I wasn't pleased about it to say the least. So I dragged myself to class, expecting the worst. Turns out, it wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. And to be honest, I think i'll probably benefit from it more than I actually thought I would.

Well, here's my story. Growing up, I excelled in English. I loved to write narrative stories because I always felt proud when I could read the finished piece and call it my own. I loved injecting my own spin on a good topic and coming up with a story that was fresh and creative. I received distinctions for both my PSLE and 'O' Level results in English language. I guess the fact that I could craft my own story as part of the examination helped me do well in that aspect.

However, when I went on to junior college, I was introduced to something more critical and less creative: General Paper. I dreaded every single class from then on. It was all argumentative, factual and boring, and I hated it. The worst part was that I wasn't a strong writer when it came to these papers. I failed to come up with strong points for my essays. As a result, I failed to convince the examiner that my arguments were valid or relevant. So I scraped through exams with just average grades. I thought that if I memorised enough good points and good essay structure that it would get me through my 'A' Levels. Turns out it didn't.

Nothing is worse than getting back your results and seeing the huge D right on top of that slip of paper. I convinced myself that I just wrote out of point for my paper and that was it. That was until I took my QET, and realised that maybe it was a consistent mistake I was making, and I just didn't know how to go about improving my skills in terms of writing argumentative essays.

So, all in all, I hope this class can help me to see the errors i've been making. This would allow me to work on them so that next time I can become a better writer and ace all my future exams. Also, I hope that next time I will not just resort to blindly photocopying model answers but to actually start thinking as an individual again.