Globalization Is Fueling Global Warming

As global warming negotiations move from Bali towards a worldwide treaty, it is important to address how global warming and global trade work hand-in-hand.

Globalization is to global warming what warm water in the Gulf of Mexico waters was to Hurricane Katrina. And, unless we wisely limit rapidly accelerating global trade, we will see equally disastrous and deadly results -- worsening global warming and a continued chemical poisoning of our world.

For nearly a generation, the mainstream pro-globalization forces have ignored climate change. Instead we've been bombarded with the virtues of liberalized trade: It drives down prices, increases efficiency, lifts nations out of poverty, and contributes to overall global prosperity. Those who questioned NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, and the like are derided as "protectionists," who force artificially high prices on the rest of us while making our economy less competitive. Manufacturing unions attempting to stop the destruction of millions of middle-income, U.S.-based factory jobs are vilified as elitists who are more concerned about the privileged few than about the poor who gain new jobs in developing nations.

The subtext of the messaging is clear: globalization is our fate, and there are no effective controls. Only a foolish Luddite would stand in its way, we are told.

Missing from this narrative, as Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security adviser to Jimmy Carter, has pointed out, is that globalization is a policy, not an act of God. He is right. Human policy-making shapes expanding world trade. And the policy of trade liberalization, among other things, is warming the planet.

Global free trade proponents skillfully argue for comparative advantage, opening up markets, and economies of scale. They point to the communications marvels that have flattened and shrunken the world, putting us all in contact and in competition with each other for the best ideas and products.

Global warming, however, puts a kink in this new global utopia because it demands that we also include the costs of externalities -- the carbon dioxide emitted from shipping and flying goods all over the globe -- goods that could easily be produced much closer to the point of consumption.

It may be marvelous to text message your colleague in Bangalore, but from a CO2 perspective, it's folly to fly fresh raspberries from Chile to California. And under current trade policies, we will import the next wave of high-efficiency light bulbs to save energy while wasting some of the gain on the carbon used to transport them here from around the globe.

But the elephant in the room is hyper-development. Expanded trade indeed has contributed to the enormous economic growth rates in China (and India). As a result, China's appetite for fuel and power has grown exponentially: As The New York Times reported (June 11, 2006), every week to 10 days, another coal-fired power plant comes online in China large enough to serve a major U.S. city.

Pollyannaish analysts argue this too will pass when global carbon cap and trading schemas are put in place, and a price, in effect, is placed on carbon emissions. This, we are told, will lead to a burst of new technologies and efficiencies that dramatically reduce global warming gases. Perhaps. But it seems this should have been thought through as part of trade liberalization, rather than left to the indefinite future. As a result, we are trapped in a race against the accelerating forces of rapid, carbon-fueled development unleashed by our very own trade policies.

And, it's apparent who the winners are in this race as onto our store shelves and into our homes come toxic toys, toxic pharmaceuticals, toxic toothpaste, and toxic dog food -- very predictable products of accelerated global trade. It is ironic to hear pundits and politicians rage against the poor regulatory and inspection protocols in "Communist" China -- the virtual hub of global capitalist production.