G20 Summit: Why was it protested?
Every time a G20 Summit is held, tens of thousands of protesters, each seemingly fighting for a different cause, show up to voice their contempt for this global meeting. But for all the reasons globalization is protested, including the spread of capitalism, the exploitation of cheap labor, protectionism, etc., perhaps the most asserted is environmentalism. So, before we go into these protest issues, we need to delve into some history…
What is the G20 Summit?
The G20 Summit is a meeting of representatives from the world’s top 20 economies that come together to discuss how to promote a globalized economy, though recently the Big 20 have been focused on the global financial crisis.1 Though it began as the G6, or Group of Six in 1975 post-1973 oil crisis, that six soon turned to seven, seven soon became eight, and after complaints from the developing world that it was omitted from these talks, that eight, as of 2009 became twenty. The most recent summit was held in September of 2009 in Pittsburg, which followed a summit England held just a few months earlier. Though economy is a main talking point amongst these nations, the group has discussed everything from pedophiles to terrorism.2 Since the ailing economy has affected all corners of the globe summit, meetings have become more frequent in order to hasten the global economy’s revival.
Anti-Globalization and Environmentalism
One of the main ideals rooted in globalization is the equalization of trade, which is ideally established through tariff reduction,3 abolishing protectionism, and promoting a cross-continental labor force. But what about environmental regulations? Let’s say that Industry A is an American company that wants to open a new factory but has found that the environmental regulations against ground water and air pollution in the U.S. are very stringent and will cost the company, notorious for being a dirty industry, billions of dollars annually in clean up costs. So instead, Industry A decides to open its new factory in Country B, a developing nation, not only because labor is cheaper but also because industry is not strictly regulated, allowing Industry A to dump its toxic waste wherever it wants and release green house gases into the atmosphere with no carbon cap or limit.4 As a result, Country B suffers horrible ecological degradation, its labor force works in an unhealthy environment that will probably lead to irreversible health conditions, and the country’s water becomes unhealthy to drink and its air becomes unsafe to breath. And who is responsible? The industry was permitted by the nation to pollute as it saw necessary, and Industry A claims that expanding abroad was all in the name of an economic global community.
In September of 2009, the New York Times published an eye-opening article highlighting just how serious environmental exploitation has become. Various Dutch companies were caught trying to smuggle boatloads of electronic waste to China where it was to be disposed.5 The companies were attempting to minimize environmental and business costs by “properly disposing” of their waste, in other words, since it would no longer be the company’s burden they would not be responsible for any pollution or ground water contamination that came from this mound of garbage. It would also mean that the Netherlands would still be reducing its green house gases and appear to be a pollution-conscious nation.
Unfortunately, these scenarios have become more commonplace, thus globalization and the G20 will continue to be protested.
Treaties and Regulations
Various international treaties and committees have been formed in order to prevent situations, such as the one discussed above, from occurring. The majority stem from United Nations committees, which hold conventions to promote some kind of pollution prevention or chemical usage. For example, in 1981 the UN held a convention called The Law of the Sea to discourage ocean dumping in international waters, and then about a decade later the UN hosted a Framework Convention on Climate Change. The latter later became the framework for the Kyoto Protocol. Though the majority of these environmental treaties and regulations are formed through governments, some—like the International Organization for Standardization—exist as non-governmental bodies to promote smart environmental management in industries.
However, the problem with international treaties is the lack of enforcement. An international police force does not exist and if one nation does not reduce its green house gas emissions as promised, the only punishment they may receive may be trade sanctions or bad publicity. Others argue that because of negative press and an increasingly global community, globalization may actually increase environment awareness.6 The theory is that the ethics that promote pollution caps, conservation, and environmental respect will be traded across borders along with the technologies that can help alleviate environmental degradation. Although not all agree with this sentiment, it is something to be considered.
Why not just comply?
In all fairness, most countries that enter these agreements do so genuinely because they really are concerned about either pollution or a growing lack of resources. Often times developing nations cannot comply with environmental demands simply because they do not have the infrastructure, technology, or funding to do so. There is a good chance that eliminating poverty or decreasing the unemployment rate is higher on their to-do lists than environmental protection.
The other good news is that as a consumer you can choose whether or not to buy products from nations that share your environmental ethics. Instead of simply protesting globalization, find a way to get involved to help promote environmentally sound globalization. A world economy has already begun to form and will continue to do so. Let’s just find a way to make it environmentally fair and equal.
