Reader Response - "The Double Edge of Globalization"

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.