Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Globalization/Free Trade: Environment?

tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 12:18:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hillary Clinton is against most free trade because of lack of proper environmental regulations, and Clinton is the most environmentalist candidate for 2016. I was curious, what are the impacts of globalization and free trade on the environment? How can you properly regulate it?

Does protectionism and non-globalization aid the environment?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
lannan13
Posts: 23,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 1:18:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 12:18:49 PM, tejretics wrote:
Hillary Clinton is against most free trade because of lack of proper environmental regulations, and Clinton is the most environmentalist candidate for 2016. I was curious, what are the impacts of globalization and free trade on the environment? How can you properly regulate it?

Does protectionism and non-globalization aid the environment?

Well I completely support free trade (Milton Friedman fan). Usually Protectionism is very counter-productive for the nation practicing it.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
lannan13
Posts: 23,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 6:49:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 3:06:42 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Aid it for who?

The people who regulate are all paid alot, Why do you think that is?

It's that dang Earth Liberation Front movement. Those guys are pretty scary.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2015 11:12:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/29/2015 12:18:49 PM, tejretics wrote:
Hillary Clinton is against most free trade because of lack of proper environmental regulations, and Clinton is the most environmentalist candidate for 2016. I was curious, what are the impacts of globalization and free trade on the environment?
Waaaaaay too many to list, but primarily:
-Rise of transnational corporations leads to global spread of consumerism as well as dumping, which increased the consumption of raw materials and disposal of waste (cf. rubbish belt around the Pacific)
-Rubbish can be dumped to developing countries, e.g. Guiyu in Guangdong and parts of Africa which become e-waste recycling centres (with horrible working conditions and lots of heavy metal poisoning)
How can you properly regulate it?
Negative externalities are generally regulated through
-Quotas
-Taxation
-Mergers
-Compensation between affected parties

I can explain the concept to you if you wish. (JMK will probably hate it since it's microeconomics...)
Does protectionism and non-globalization aid the environment?
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 9:00:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 11:12:22 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/29/2015 12:18:49 PM, tejretics wrote:
Hillary Clinton is against most free trade because of lack of proper environmental regulations, and Clinton is the most environmentalist candidate for 2016. I was curious, what are the impacts of globalization and free trade on the environment?
Waaaaaay too many to list, but primarily:
-Rise of transnational corporations leads to global spread of consumerism as well as dumping, which increased the consumption of raw materials and disposal of waste (cf. rubbish belt around the Pacific)
-Rubbish can be dumped to developing countries, e.g. Guiyu in Guangdong and parts of Africa which become e-waste recycling centres (with horrible working conditions and lots of heavy metal poisoning)
How can you properly regulate it?
Negative externalities are generally regulated through
-Quotas
-Taxation
-Mergers
-Compensation between affected parties

I can explain the concept to you if you wish. (JMK will probably hate it since it's microeconomics...)
Does protectionism and non-globalization aid the environment?

You realize places like Africa have way more poisonous dumping, far more toxic groundwater, and relatively few corporations per capita. Why do you think that is?
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 9:08:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 9:00:45 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/31/2015 11:12:22 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/29/2015 12:18:49 PM, tejretics wrote:
Hillary Clinton is against most free trade because of lack of proper environmental regulations, and Clinton is the most environmentalist candidate for 2016. I was curious, what are the impacts of globalization and free trade on the environment?
Waaaaaay too many to list, but primarily:
-Rise of transnational corporations leads to global spread of consumerism as well as dumping, which increased the consumption of raw materials and disposal of waste (cf. rubbish belt around the Pacific)
-Rubbish can be dumped to developing countries, e.g. Guiyu in Guangdong and parts of Africa which become e-waste recycling centres (with horrible working conditions and lots of heavy metal poisoning)
How can you properly regulate it?
Negative externalities are generally regulated through
-Quotas
-Taxation
-Mergers
-Compensation between affected parties

I can explain the concept to you if you wish. (JMK will probably hate it since it's microeconomics...)
Does protectionism and non-globalization aid the environment?

You realize places like Africa have way more poisonous dumping, far more toxic groundwater, and relatively few corporations per capita. Why do you think that is?

Pollution haven hypothesis.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 9:27:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 9:08:01 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/1/2015 9:00:45 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/31/2015 11:12:22 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/29/2015 12:18:49 PM, tejretics wrote:
Hillary Clinton is against most free trade because of lack of proper environmental regulations, and Clinton is the most environmentalist candidate for 2016. I was curious, what are the impacts of globalization and free trade on the environment?
Waaaaaay too many to list, but primarily:
-Rise of transnational corporations leads to global spread of consumerism as well as dumping, which increased the consumption of raw materials and disposal of waste (cf. rubbish belt around the Pacific)
-Rubbish can be dumped to developing countries, e.g. Guiyu in Guangdong and parts of Africa which become e-waste recycling centres (with horrible working conditions and lots of heavy metal poisoning)
How can you properly regulate it?
Negative externalities are generally regulated through
-Quotas
-Taxation
-Mergers
-Compensation between affected parties

I can explain the concept to you if you wish. (JMK will probably hate it since it's microeconomics...)
Does protectionism and non-globalization aid the environment?

You realize places like Africa have way more poisonous dumping, far more toxic groundwater, and relatively few corporations per capita. Why do you think that is?

Pollution haven hypothesis.

Just admit the average Joe pollutes far more percentage wise than the industrial sector. (especially in 3rd world countries)
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 9:29:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 9:27:52 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/1/2015 9:08:01 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/1/2015 9:00:45 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/31/2015 11:12:22 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/29/2015 12:18:49 PM, tejretics wrote:
Hillary Clinton is against most free trade because of lack of proper environmental regulations, and Clinton is the most environmentalist candidate for 2016. I was curious, what are the impacts of globalization and free trade on the environment?
Waaaaaay too many to list, but primarily:
-Rise of transnational corporations leads to global spread of consumerism as well as dumping, which increased the consumption of raw materials and disposal of waste (cf. rubbish belt around the Pacific)
-Rubbish can be dumped to developing countries, e.g. Guiyu in Guangdong and parts of Africa which become e-waste recycling centres (with horrible working conditions and lots of heavy metal poisoning)
How can you properly regulate it?
Negative externalities are generally regulated through
-Quotas
-Taxation
-Mergers
-Compensation between affected parties

I can explain the concept to you if you wish. (JMK will probably hate it since it's microeconomics...)
Does protectionism and non-globalization aid the environment?

You realize places like Africa have way more poisonous dumping, far more toxic groundwater, and relatively few corporations per capita. Why do you think that is?

Pollution haven hypothesis.

Just admit the average Joe pollutes far more percentage wise than the industrial sector. (especially in 3rd world countries)

I never denied that domestic sources are significant. The point of the thread is the negative impacts of globalisation on the environment, and I was pointing that out. Surely you are not unaware of the e-waste problem in Africa...?
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 9:34:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2015 11:12:22 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/29/2015 12:18:49 PM, tejretics wrote:
Hillary Clinton is against most free trade because of lack of proper environmental regulations, and Clinton is the most environmentalist candidate for 2016. I was curious, what are the impacts of globalization and free trade on the environment?
Waaaaaay too many to list, but primarily:
-Rise of transnational corporations leads to global spread of consumerism as well as dumping, which increased the consumption of raw materials and disposal of waste (cf. rubbish belt around the Pacific)
-Rubbish can be dumped to developing countries, e.g. Guiyu in Guangdong and parts of Africa which become e-waste recycling centres (with horrible working conditions and lots of heavy metal poisoning)
I don't know why I forgot to list this obvious item but
-Loose environmental pollution laws are a strong pull factor adopted by developing nations to attract investment. Globalisation encourages the outsourcing of heavily polluting production processes to countries.
How can you properly regulate it?
Negative externalities are generally regulated through
-Quotas
-Taxation
-Mergers
-Compensation between affected parties

I can explain the concept to you if you wish. (JMK will probably hate it since it's microeconomics...)
Does protectionism and non-globalization aid the environment?
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 9:47:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 9:29:24 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:

Just admit the average Joe pollutes far more percentage wise than the industrial sector. (especially in 3rd world countries)

I never denied that domestic sources are significant. The point of the thread is the negative impacts of globalisation on the environment, and I was pointing that out. Surely you are not unaware of the e-waste problem in Africa...?

Yeah I am aware of it. That problem does suck, but there is a reason why things are political and why politicians use them as talking points.

The relevance of the pollution share of the wealthy in itself is not a political issue, but the political grab for government power over the wealthy through regulations and kickbacks and donations most certainly is, regardless of the actual share of pollution or the actual impact on the environment from the wealthy.

The same exact thing could also be said about anthropomorphic climate change. The share of the effect is irrelevant to a politician. The chance to grab power absolutely is relevant.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 10:11:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 9:47:21 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/1/2015 9:29:24 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:

Just admit the average Joe pollutes far more percentage wise than the industrial sector. (especially in 3rd world countries)

I never denied that domestic sources are significant. The point of the thread is the negative impacts of globalisation on the environment, and I was pointing that out. Surely you are not unaware of the e-waste problem in Africa...?

Yeah I am aware of it. That problem does suck, but there is a reason why things are political and why politicians use them as talking points.
Just to give some context, I come from a small economy where half of parliament and the leader are not democratically elected, so environmental issues of this scale are rarely (never) used for political bickering. (Incidentally, we also have exactly 0 trade barriers.)

Yet I - and many other non-politicians - are extremely passionate and concerned about such issues. I know someone who visited Guiyu many times for his degree.
The relevance of the pollution share of the wealthy in itself is not a political issue,
I'm not concerned about the financial status of the people who pollute. I'm not one of those 'corporations are evil and must be banned' people. What I am concerned about is the environment, and the extensive and far-reaching impacts of globalisation on it.
but the political grab for government power over the wealthy through regulations and kickbacks and donations most certainly is, regardless of the actual share of pollution or the actual impact on the environment from the wealthy.
Frankly, I fail to see how corrective mechanisms for negative externalities is 'political grab for government power'. I've never been convinced by arguments like 'we should limit government power' (and I've been told that argument, in various forms, quite a few times on DDO, on various issues, most significantly where censorship is involved, and by the guy known as chang).

In any case, none of that really refutes what I said about globalisation having deleterious effects on the environment...
The same exact thing could also be said about anthropomorphic climate change. The share of the effect is irrelevant to a politician. The chance to grab power absolutely is relevant.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2015 2:35:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2015 10:11:59 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/1/2015 9:47:21 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/1/2015 9:29:24 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:

Just admit the average Joe pollutes far more percentage wise than the industrial sector. (especially in 3rd world countries)

I never denied that domestic sources are significant. The point of the thread is the negative impacts of globalisation on the environment, and I was pointing that out. Surely you are not unaware of the e-waste problem in Africa...?

Yeah I am aware of it. That problem does suck, but there is a reason why things are political and why politicians use them as talking points.
Just to give some context, I come from a small economy where half of parliament and the leader are not democratically elected, so environmental issues of this scale are rarely (never) used for political bickering. (Incidentally, we also have exactly 0 trade barriers.)

Yet I - and many other non-politicians - are extremely passionate and concerned about such issues. I know someone who visited Guiyu many times for his degree.

And this is what I take issue with, how much passion is given for engineered pollution and how much less passionate support environmental re-engineering gets.

Let's provide some context here. 97% of Earth's water is toxic to humans because of the salinity content. You will get sick and eventually die from thirst if you drink ocean water. That makes table salt arguably the most dangerous toxic contaminant to humans in the environment. That is the natural state of the planet, a largely toxic environment with a select few optimal places for human life. Human industry has done far more to engineer fresh water from a toxic planet than it has done to further pollute the same toxic planet.

So when you call for the stifling of free trade, globalization, and industry, you are calling for a return to a more naturally toxic planet and less industrial engineering of resources people need to live comfortably. Less fresh water, less medicine, less electricity, less manipulation of the land to benefit humans. Yes, a fresh water plant may not be sensational or make the headline news, but globalization helps put these things in places like Africa and everywhere else.

The benefits far outweigh the further pollution of an already toxic planet.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 8:31:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Sorry for the late reply. I had other things to do on the site, one of them being the last round of Skep's music battle, which drained most of my energy. After finishing it up, I went to bed...

At 6/1/2015 2:35:41 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/1/2015 10:11:59 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/1/2015 9:47:21 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Yeah I am aware of it. That problem does suck, but there is a reason why things are political and why politicians use them as talking points.
Just to give some context, I come from a small economy where half of parliament and the leader are not democratically elected, so environmental issues of this scale are rarely (never) used for political bickering. (Incidentally, we also have exactly 0 trade barriers.)

Yet I - and many other non-politicians - are extremely passionate and concerned about such issues. I know someone who visited Guiyu many times for his degree.

And this is what I take issue with, how much passion is given for engineered pollution and how much less passionate support environmental re-engineering gets.

Let's provide some context here. 97% of Earth's water is toxic to humans because of the salinity content. You will get sick and eventually die from thirst if you drink ocean water. That makes table salt arguably the most dangerous toxic contaminant to humans in the environment. That is the natural state of the planet, a largely toxic environment with a select few optimal places for human life. Human industry has done far more to engineer fresh water from a toxic planet than it has done to further pollute the same toxic planet.
Don't forget that before modernisation, we rarely had the need for desalinsation in the first place. With a smaller population, tapping the ground water storage and other fresh water sources, such as rivers, provided drinking water and it wasn't half bad.

The reason we need new technology is because a) people want new technology and b) population growth.

Yet to call the ecosystem before industrialisation and urbanisation 'toxic' seems to imply - and I apologise if I'm reading into your writing too much - that humans are improving the environment. We aren't though - not at the moment anyway. Industrialisation and urbanisation have a net negative effect on the environment. One doesn't even have to go into AGW... think of just the water pollution from factories and nitrate fertilisers, which are trashing aquatic ecosystems (and polluting our sources of drinking and irrigation water). Much arable land has been rendered infertile because of pollution by heavy metals (and this leads to food shortage).

So when you call for the stifling of free trade, globalization, and industry, you are calling for a return to a more naturally toxic planet and less industrial engineering of resources people need to live comfortably. Less fresh water, less medicine, less electricity, less manipulation of the land to benefit humans. Yes, a fresh water plant may not be sensational or make the headline news, but globalization helps put these things in places like Africa and everywhere else.
Once again, you are assuming things about me. Believe it or not, I'm not one of those anti-globalisation people, nor am I asking for protectionism (which I think I've implied in my last post, but wasn't too clear about). In fact, if you look at my userpage, you'll notice that although I put a Con for globalisation, I stated that we should be alleviating the negative impacts of globalisation rather than resisting it. I even have Earth as my avatar, and my username means 'villager of the global village'. I certainly believe in providing electricity to countries like Cote d'Ivoire and DR Congo, where cutting trees for fuelwood is an increasingly important cause of deforestation.

The point I made in the post is that globalisation has huge negative impacts on the environment, often unneeded. I'm not arguing against providing fresh water or anything; those are obviously positive impacts, the existence of which I have never denied. Yet there are overwhelmingly negative impacts as well. Globalisation has led to increased dumping, as well as consumerism, as encouraged by transnational corporations. Say, if Apple and similar companies don't introduce a new iPhone model every now and then and if people aren't so crazy about the latest gadgets, we wouldn't have such a huge e-waste problem.

The benefits far outweigh the further pollution of an already toxic planet.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 8:35:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 8:31:46 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:

The point I made in the post is that globalisation has huge negative impacts on the environment, often unneeded. I'm not arguing against providing fresh water or anything; those are obviously positive impacts, the existence of which I have never denied. Yet there are overwhelmingly negative impacts as well. Globalisation has led to increased dumping, as well as consumerism, as encouraged by transnational corporations. Say, if Apple and similar companies don't introduce a new iPhone model every now and then and if people aren't so crazy about the latest gadgets, we wouldn't have such a huge e-waste problem.

The benefits far outweigh the further pollution of an already toxic planet.

I like the way you clearly express what your opinion is. I can see our disagreement is on whether global industrialization is a net positive or a net negative for a less toxic environment for humans with the current rate of population growth.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2015 9:05:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/2/2015 8:35:18 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/2/2015 8:31:46 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:

The point I made in the post is that globalisation has huge negative impacts on the environment, often unneeded. I'm not arguing against providing fresh water or anything; those are obviously positive impacts, the existence of which I have never denied. Yet there are overwhelmingly negative impacts as well. Globalisation has led to increased dumping, as well as consumerism, as encouraged by transnational corporations. Say, if Apple and similar companies don't introduce a new iPhone model every now and then and if people aren't so crazy about the latest gadgets, we wouldn't have such a huge e-waste problem.

The benefits far outweigh the further pollution of an already toxic planet.

I like the way you clearly express what your opinion is. I can see our disagreement is on whether global industrialization is a net positive or a net negative for a less toxic environment for humans with the current rate of population growth.

Yep, I think that's where we differ.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...