In his article, The
Double Edge of Globalization, Nayan Chanda (2007) primarily considered the
negative impacts of globalization and its resolution. Chanda’s opinion was that
the sovereignty to reduce environmental damage caused by globalization relies
more on effective global governance rather than non-governmental organizations even
though no one is in fact accountable for it. His argument is valid since
the olden times have proven that political authority have the ability to influence
globalization. The idea portrayed is clear and well accounted for.
Chanda explains in the article that urbanization has led to
an increase in worldwide consumption which consequently speeds up the course of
environmental degradation, particularly by deforestation. Thus, the unease of
the protestors of globalization is reasonable. China is a living proof. The
rapid economic development of China’s industry comes together with an
accelerated process of environmental pollution caused by the usage of chemicals
and the burning of coal. However, the Montreal protocol demonstrated that
environmental calamity can be prevented so long as countries work in
partnership. New regulations can be generated to combat the detrimental effects
that trade expansion has on the environment. Not all may agree to Chanda’s
stand that effective global governance is the key to the solution, however, it is true
that the desire for a better environment does depend on the enforcement of
environmental laws.
The effective governance of South Korea towards
environmental improvement is a case in point. The leaders have set up
environmental organizations such as the Korea Environmental Corporation. Having
been to South Korea in the previous year, it has proven to me that the negative
impacts of urbanization may be alleviated with the leadership of the state
leaders. Thus, I agree with
Chanda that the government of each country should work together to address the global challenges.
