With the advent of technology, the cost of distance between nations has steadily decreased, a phenomenon aptly referred to as globalization.
With the corresponding changes in institutions and enterprises, the nations that formed and enforced their moral codes have all but vanished. Globalization has turned us into strangers sharing a common habitat. Because of the size and density of our evolving world, we have become more reliant on one another and more vulnerable to abnormal behavior (Lomborg, 2009, p.89).
There are instances of shared beliefs and values among transnational actors in this diversity, as well as problems. Although this heterogeneity may be intellectually desirable, it has crippled our ability to agree on the actions required to maintain the social framework necessary for our continued survival. In fact, the single most preeminent global debate is whether it is possible for us to develop a collective cooperation that would match these growing problems or not. By this, a critical question that has remained inadequately explored is whether there is a need for an organization and centralization of transnational regulations – global governance, to negotiate the shortcomings of globalization or not.
Manifestation of global problems
There is need to understand global problems; social as in transnational crime, political as in democracy and human rights, and economic as in global economic crisis that comes with globalization, and global governance, in a broader perspective. Accordingly, there has been an increase in the number of populist with selfish national interest infiltrating the global world in pursuit of their agenda. From the theory of social contract, individuals give their rights to particular people for a return benefit of protection against the excesses of their collegues (Darian-Smith, 2013, p.105). These particular individuals have the mandate to create institutions of governance that would see the achievement of that objective. In the global context, there exist international systems like the United Nation, International Criminal Court, et al., that are charged with these responsibilities. Matter-of-fact, these institutions have limited powers to enforce compliance, thus rendering them incompetent to the core, unfair and unreliable. Global problems are accelerating to uncontrollable levels, in particular, the problem of climate change.
Globalization has its smiling sides when it comes to the expansion of economic space.
The global supply chain has positive, and far-reaching benefits from increasing domestic productivity of individual nations to expanding markets. On the contrary, these global economic benefits have also been the cause of our demise, with regards to sustainability (Robbins, 2013, p.132). The entry global corporations and other non-state players in the global corporate space have not sought to dictate prices only, but also by the fact of their capitalistic nature, brought with them their capitalistic excesses. Nations seek to compete against each other, to the exclusion of others in global governance in the economic and environmental sector.
On the question of environmental terrorism as a global problem, there is a need for change in discourse through global governance.
Nations with national interests have defined this phenomenon to suit their interests, thereby accelerating the problem. Terrorism now simply translates killing to put fear into others for which “terrorists” have been blamed. What about those who drop bombs on urban neighborhoods in the name of being the world’s supreme keeper of the law? There is a religious undertone to other nations’ presidents to claim a national duty to stand above and protect the rest of the world as the United States does. It kills women and children and affects the environment adversely. Russians do it too.
Critically speaking, it’s safe to say terrorism is a way of justifying one’s violence by labeling others for what hostility almost always does–hurt innocent people, “collateral damage,” spoiling the environment.
Name calling worsens brutality, not abates it. The only purpose for using the term is to point to ourselves as no different from “terrorist” in respect of the damage we do, a cause for self-reflection and restraint about our self-justifications and rationalizations for retaliation. By contrast, a form of global governance informed by responsive initiatives like inclusive identities, a fair representation of all the world’s cultures, believes and religions would help abate the global terror menace. When nations inspired by achieving national goals and who have only been radically dominant in the absence of global governance are made to replace their national interest with a more inclusive global goals and common good, opportunities and benefits will, in an extraordinary measures, reduce the exclusivist populism – terrorism, as it would practically involve respect for others, even those who have been labeled “terrorist”, rights and dignity.
Addressing Climate Change through Global Governance
In exploring the problems of climatic change as a global crisis, there are some issues worth considering. At the onset, it is essential to mention that we are living in a constantly warming ozone, which begs the question, what will we eat? The globe has perilously and foolhardily remained ignorant of global warming. The resulting consequences of our global industrial complex include ozone depletion, air pollution, toxic and radioactive wastes, acid rain, and soil erosion. The study (Claussen et al., 2001, p.150), discerned evidence, pointing to the long-term effects of these climatic change effects on a global scale: increasing temperatures; modified rain patterns; increase in the level of water at sea; petering out of glaciers permafrost and sea ice; fluxing bushfire subtleties and extraordinary weather events witnessed across the globe. These changes are affecting the ecosystem slowly and endangering our lives as human beings. In fact, scientific projections point out that leaving them unchecked can be catastrophic shortly. These problems are felt mostly by developing countries, thus resulting in increased poverty levels and more global problems, ranging from crime to economic crisis.
Nature does not care. It transcends national boarders and takes no consideration of the political might of a particular country. It renders useless domestic efforts initiated by an individual country, or some section of it, ipso facto. If we want to survive the catastrophic effects of climatic change, we have to prove that we deserve it by collectively deliberating on the way forward as global citizens. There is no room for fence-sitting as it will favor the status quo while risking to affect the already tenuous international relation. Coming up collectively as a globe to deliberate and understand climatic change, the impacts, the causes and possible solution in the guise of global governance will save us the risks of its catastrophe.
While global warming is a global problem, there is a general complacency from nations to avoid reversing this global menace. Apparently, the level of emission that is due to the collective emission from the global industrial complex needs to reduce to a considerable level. According to the report on the European delegation to Australia and New Zealand, there is a need to reduce that level to “less than two degrees above pre-industrial levels (Nicholls, 2007, p.67). There is no point that the problem of climatic change only takes place in a few countries. Even if it was the case, there is a need for every country to participate in finding a long-lasting solution to it. Tropical deforestation occurring in the tropical regions, a test of nuclear weapons, dumping of toxic substances into the sea, industrial emissions and wildlife endangering happen in most global countries, if not all, result from many issues, ranging from exponential population growth to capitalistic hazards of non-state individuals in their endeavor to exploit natural resources of the globe run by multinational corporations.
One of the notable global problems stemming from climatic change is a crime. As globalization seeks to be inclusive as accommodating people from all nations, tribes and every walk of life, we are witnessing a breakdown of social mechanisms that once kept crime in check and gave direction and support to policing activities. The question of crime has not only been brought about by that very fact, but rather, there is a question of non-state entities gaining a foothold into global affairs for their good and deteriorating climate, which brings about poverty and other social strains (Nagtzaam, 2017, p.21). Ranging from terrorism, human trafficking, cybercrimes, corporate bribing and drug trafficking, these problems have now hit the global scale and require solutions through international governance. At a national level, crime is defined as an act of omission or commission that contravenes the penal code. Laws vary from one jurisdiction to another, just as norms and cultural practices do. For example, drug trafficking is wrecking the global habitat, but drug is not a universal crime. Multinational corporations that get involved in transnational corporate bribery pose global crime problems whose ripples are most felt in developing countries. For example, the United Kingdom Serious Fraud Office implicated BAE systems for commissioning and granting hospitality payments to Saudi Arabian officials who were dealing with the procurement of major arms (Obidairo, 2013, p.89). Activities of such people go beyond creating wars to affecting the global climate change through constant nuclear weapon test. The adverse effects of these activities lead to air pollution and tamper with the biodiversity. Consequently, they may lead to unfavorable human conditions such as manipulation of genes and other related diseases. As a result, it not only raised the question to the definition of corruption in a global context, but also made an inquiry about the causes transnational corporate corruption. A solution to this would be a global legal framework to the definition of corruption that can only be achieved through global governance. Once the world cartels are curtailed, we can be able to concentrate on other causes of climatic change.
The world needs to go beyond the 1977 Kyoto protocols and establish a precise energy and environmental security blueprint that would help us check on the excesses of globalization, with regards to climatic change (Meyer, 2000, p.68). Industrial revolution came with the advancement of technology and with that came the system of coal as a source of energy, and later on, oil was discovered. Exploitations of these energy sources across the world have not only led to the degradation of the surrounding environments, but rather, activities surrounding the exploitation also lead to adverse climatic change. Different regions have different natural resources. In light to this, cooperation through global governance will bring about deliberations on how other sustainable energy sources that are less detrimental can be extracted and distributed across the globe. An international initiative that would be binding to all global nations will help us keep the menace at bay. However, it does not stop there. The international systems we now have are not reliable at all because they are like enforcement mechanisms and rely on members’ goodwill only. Further, they are not confounding as membership is voluntary and usually open to manipulation by superpowers, who at the behest of their national interests, have not understood, or so it seems, the sense of these compelling global initiatives. There is a wide array of global solutions to the climatic change that can be done on a domestic level, except that no effect will be felt on the global parameters. The Kyoto protocols of 1997, gave one of the most confounding proposals to the nations whose level of greenhouse gas emission were devastating. Although it was watered down by global politics on the basis that it was not binding to countries who were not party to the protocol and the nations that felt they had no high levels of greenhouse gases to warrant compliance.
Financing is another important matter when talking about climate change in the context of global governance. One of the reasons international systems representing global governance have failed is due to lack of commitment and the exclusive nature of global politics (Scott, 2008, p.71). Financing will help create a more serious membership as all countries that contribute to the climate basket will feel obliged not to let their money go to waste (Hardy, 2003, p.172). Conversely, the funds, like is done by all governments, will be used to help disenfranchised nations to improve measures for combating climate change. More advanced nations like the United States, when we go by the emission trade scheme, can pay once they exhaust their limit of the total emission of greenhouse gas allowed for them and in turn may not be serious in issues of preserving the environment. Putting others at the same level as them will enhance that commitment.
Conclusion
It is worth to note that for the past decade, there have been an increased number of agreements being made by multinationals, concerning environmental fidelity. Implementation of these accords is what has remained a difficult task due to underlying factors that are obvious to a predatory world. The emission trading scheme that was proposed in the Kyoto Protocols cannot work, unless nations make cutbacks on their emissions, something that has suffered a setback, having been boycotted by nations that purport to be the global world guards, like the United States. As countries pursue their national interests, they forget the essence of humanity that is based on a safer planet. In ensuring that the issue of climatic change is left to global governance, accountability can be achieved, as the national interests become engulfed by the global interests.
References
Claussen, E., Cochran, V.A., Davis, D.P., 2001. Climate Change: Science, Strategies, & Solutions. BRILL.
Darian-Smith, E., 2013. Laws and Societies in Global Contexts: Contemporary Approaches. Cambridge University Press.
Hardy, J.T., 2003. Climate Change: Causes, Effects, and Solutions. John Wiley & Sons.
Lomborg, B., 2009. Global Crises, Global Solutions: Costs and Benefits. Cambridge University Press.
Meyer, A., 2000. Contraction & Convergence: The Global Solution to Climate Change. Green Books for the Schumacher Society.
Nagtzaam, G., 2017. From Environmental Action to Ecoterrorism?: Towards a Process Theory of Environmental and Animal Rights Oriented Political Violence. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Nicholls, P., 2007. Climate change, a global problem, is a global solution possible?.
Obidairo, D.S., 2013. Transnational Corruption and Corporations: Regulating Bribery through Corporate Liability. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
Robbins, R.H., 2013. Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism. Pearson Education.
Scott, L., 2008. Christians, the Care of Creation, and Global Climate Change. Wipf and Stock Publishers.
