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