In 2018 Greenpeace Canada ran an advertising campaign called “Don’t suck the life out of our oceans”. With specific reference to the concepts covered in our course, describe the interplay between the dimensions of globalization as represented in these advertisements, the discourse that they represent, and their commentary on globalization.

Posted: December 22nd, 2022

Final Exam  

Student’s Name:

Institutional Affiliation:

Final Exam

Question 1

In 2018 Greenpeace Canada ran an advertising campaign called “Don’t suck the life out of our oceans”. With specific reference to the concepts covered in our course, describe the interplay between the dimensions of globalization as represented in these advertisements, the discourse that they represent, and their commentary on globalization.

The Greenpeace Canada campaign depicts a bird, a fish and a turtle being chocked by a drinking straw as a way of calling attention to the global plastic pollution in the world’s oceans. The message in this advertisement is that when we drink from straws, we suck life out of the oceans of the world because we throw away the straws carelessly and pollute the oceans. This campaign brings to the fore the problem of plastic waste in the oceans and the dangers it poses to marine life and other lives that are connected to oceans. This campaign is indicative of the apathy and ineffectiveness of national policies and disengagement of the polluters from the harm they cause the environment; therefore the campaign is a call to action to all those that produce, use and carelessly discard plastics. While straws can be looked at as a small aspect of the plastic pollution problem, the problem can be addressed from a globalization perspective because the economic, political, cultural and environmental dimensions of globalization are implicated.

From an economic perspective, the plastic pollution problem is generated by transnational corporations (TNC) that produce, export and popularize the use of plastic products around the globe. In addition, transnational corporations dominate international trade and are drivers of national economies on the international stage, which makes their activities such as production of plastics, have a global effect (Steger, 2017). However, while the profits of the transnational corporations may soar and national economies of the home countries thrive from the plastic business other industries that participate in international trade such as the fishing and tourism industries may deteriorate.   

The plastic pollution problem has attracted political attention as governments realize its ramifications and therefore seek for international consensus towards controlling the menace. Globalization enables governments to collaborate in global efforts that advance the global good such as regulating the use of plastics to reduce their adverse effects in the world (Steger, 2017). This is indicative of the tendency towards political agreement between states as an outcome of globalization.   

Plastic have transcended cultural barriers, as they are acceptable by culturally diverse people from all over the world. Some plastic products such as straws, bottles, containers and tanks among others are commonly used worldwide. However, most of these popular plastics comprise of many one-use items, which are carelessly discarded by many people globally irrespective of their cultural orientation (Ogunola, Onada & Falaye, 2018).    

Environmental degradation is the hallmark of plastic pollution. Environments all over the world are endangered by plastic pollution because of the widespread use of plastics and careless disposal (Ogunola, Onada & Falaye, 2018). Besides, the commonly and widely used disposal methods of plastic waste across the world such as incinerating and burying in landfills have ecological ramifications.  

The interplay between the economic, political, cultural and environmental dimensions of globalization is well evidenced in the advertisement as it calls for action against plastic pollution. The globalization dimensions are interlinked by the complexity of the global plastic pollution problem, which has reached crisis levels. A lifecycle perspective of plastics and the issues surrounding its pervasiveness globally can be explained economically, politically, culturally and environmentally as globalization outcomes (Week 5a, slide 37). Notably, plastics is a product of innovativeness in polymer science that came with the age of industrialization. Its versatility has seen the growth of an enormous global plastic industry and its multipurpose applications has seen plastics become used is numerous items all over the world. Plastics are used by the food industry to containerize, preserve and made food portable, by consumer products industry to make utensils and electronics, by the clothing industry to make fabrics, by the medical industry to make syringes, gloves and disposable coats, and by many other industries in the world (Ogunola, Onada & Falaye, 2018). In fact, virtually all industries in the world use one sort of plastic or another. Transnational corporations such as Dow Chemicals, BASF, SABIC and Lyonndell Basell manufacture plastics and rely on multinational gas and oil companies such as Exxon Mobil for the supply of the raw materials such as polymers and resins (Ogunola, Onada & Falaye, 2018). In the era of liberalized economies, these companies have globally dispersed operations and control the plastic industry globally and therefore influence the international plastic trade and plastic policy. These transnational companies have transmitted their knowledge about plastics to foreign countries away from their home countries as they open overseas operations as part of foreign direct investments into these countries.  

Although many of these plastic manufacturing multinational companies have their headquarters in western countries, their major operations are in countries in Asia, the Middle East and Africa where oil and petrochemicals are abundant raw materials, labor is plentiful and cheap, and regulation on pollution is lax. Moreover, their profits are declared in countries with favorable taxation regimes, enabling the companies to retain most of their profits (Week 2b, slide 6). In this regard, the Greenpeace Canada campaign is indirectly rebelling against the huge profits that plastic manufacturers accrue at the cost of the environment, because they usually lobby against restrictive control of plastic use and do not invest in seeking for alternatives to plastics as they do in creating different types that are thought to be safer. Governments that host these transnational corporations are cognizant of their economic significance and power, and therefore tend to accommodate them in their pollution policies and enforcements. This may explain why even with the recognition of the ramifications of plastic pollution by the United Nations in 2005 and the commitment of member countries to reduce it by 2025, government have continued to be lax in implementing and enforcing restrictive policies and regulation. In fact, the United Nations Environmental Assembly, which is a global environmental caucus, continues to meet and pass resolutions while plastic pollution continues unabated and only few countries have legislative restrictions (Ogunola, Onada & Falaye, 2018). In this regard, globalization is such that the United Nations as an organization that is expected to enhance collaboration among governments to address global issues has failed to reign in on plastic pollution. This is because of the massive influence of the transnational corporations, which are in countries that have veto power at the United Nations assembly such as China and the United States (Week 1b, slide 14). This may explain why the Basel and Stockholm Conventions, while providing the best opportunities to reduce the impact of plastic pollution globally, do not address plastic pollution directly, and in some cases, do not consider plastics used domestically as hazardous wastes (Raubenheimer & McIlgorm, 2018).

Perhaps the reason behind the difficulty in discarding the plastic culture across the world is the connection of plastics to large and popular brands that drive consumption globally. Beverage and fast food companies display the use of straws, plastic bottles and other plastic items in their advertisements. Likewise, large consumer electronics companies that manufacture household and personal items that have plastic components consume large amounts of finances in advertisements as well. These multinational companies are responsible for the culture of consumerism that has permeate the entire world and contributed significantly to the plastic pollution menace. As such, a pervasive plastic culture has emerged in the world and transcended national, regional, ethnic and social barriers, making plastics one of the most universally accepted product in the world. Besides, the media has helped popularize this culture when it depicts various activities such as providing water bottles to refugees and disaster survivors and transmit advertisements of plastic items from popular brands (Week 3a, slide 16). As a globalization agent, the media, assisted by information and communication technologies, has contributed significantly to the dispersion an acceptance of the plastic culture across the world without highlighting the plastic pollution menace with the same intensity.

The environmental problems caused by plastic pollution are perhaps the biggest testament and evidence against the proliferation of plastic in the world. Increasingly, studies are investigating the connection between plastic pollution and the economies, politics and cultures of the world. These studies are increasingly evidencing the economic, political and cultural influences and ramifications of plastics as an environmental menace. For instance, Gross (2017) addressed the plastic pollution issue extensively and contextualized it when he notes that plastic production has skyrocketed from 2 megatons in 1950 to 380 megatons in 2015 and that plastic items were chocking the Henderson Island in the south pacific ocean, despite its isolation from the rest of the world. Vance and McGregor (2019) reported that the Henderson Island was being choked by 18,000 kilograms of plastic waste despite being a protected world heritage site. The paradox is that while the island is supposed to enjoy global protection under the United Nations, the wildlife and marine life around it continues to be endangered by the plastic waste menace with plastics being found inside the carcasses of dead fish, turtles and other animals that reside in the island (Vance & McGregor, 2019). In fact, such outcomes are the environmental eventualities of plastic pollution that the Greenpeace Canada campaign hoped to address and highlight.                     

Question 2

Are the processes of globalization since 1944 fundamentally different from those in the early part of the 20th century? Why or why not?

The globalization processes since 1944 and those in the early 20^th century are not different because they share several similarities. The processes of globalization include advancements in technology, improvement of transportation and enhancement of international cooperation. However, the Second World War demarcates two globalization eras, whose difference is found not in the globalization processes but in the globalization pace and expansiveness.

In both periods, technological advancements have advanced globalization, as technological innovations have been the main drivers of globalization at all times. Prior to 1944, technological innovations occurred in the areas of manufacturing processes, communication and transportation. The mechanization of production processes before the First World War saw the advent of the industrial revolution and an upsurge in the amounts of good that were produced. The same occurred after the Second World War, with technological innovations occurring albeit at a faster pace. Notably, factories were born as manufacturing processes cemented standardized mass production processes, which saw the growth of multinational companies. However, in both cases, the increase in the volumes of manufactured goods create the pressure of expanding domestic markets and venturing further into foreign markets among the multinationals with the aim of increasing profits. 

Transportation also experienced immense advancements before and after the Second World War. Specifically, prior to World War 2, transportation advancements in shipping and rail transport saw the volumes of goods transported across large distances increase, while the haulage times reduced. Notably, while railways helped transport goods across land, ships helped convey goods across oceans to very far destinations. In the same vein, the era after the Second World War saw innovations is trucking and air transportation debut. While trucking increased the speed of land transportation of goods, it complemented rather than replaced the rail transportation system. Similarly, air transport quickened the movement of people and goods but did not replace the shipping system, which remains the main mode of conveyance of goods globally to date. Notably, containerization is a post-world war 2 innovation that saw the advancement of global transportation of good and increase in trade volumes as more good were conveyed easily all over the world (Week 2a, slide 6).

From a communication perspective, both eras were marked innovations that stretched the reach and speed of communication. The telephone, radio and television were innovations that emerged prior to the Second World War and persisted thereafter. These technologies are particularly responsible for globalizing information and culture, with the television in particular playing a big role in the perpetuation of the cold war. In addition, communication technologies made a huge leap in the post-World War 2 era with the advent of the internet. The internet technologies has shrunk time and space around the world by enabling instantaneous communication using video, audio and text modes at a very low cost. In fact, the internet is claimed to have turned the world to a global village by making communication transcend economic, political, social, geographical and cultural barriers (Week 3a, slide 16).    

Moreover, international cooperation was sought before and after the Second World War. The pre and post world war two eras are marked by the formation of the League of Nations and the United Nations prior and after this war respectively (Week 1b, slide 12 &13). In both cases, European nations dominated these bodies because they were the most industrialized and wealthy, which enabled them to control the global economy and exert their political muscles as well. Prior to the World War 2, Britain dominated the world affairs with France, Germany and Italy being significant players (Week 1b, slide 9 & 10). However, after the Second World War, the dominant nations were the United States and the Soviet Union, whose political ideologies differed and saw the precipitation of the cold war (Week 1b, slide 13). As such, the globalizing agents have been dominated by political, military and economic hegemonies in both occasions.

From these precepts, the globalization trajectory that is followed before and after 1944 exhibits many similarities. Notably, the globalization process in the two periods has been marked by initial acceleration an expansion of the process followed by a decline or disintegration of globalization, which often precipitates into a financial crisis and even war (Week 1b, slide 17).  

Efforts to liberalize markets across the world were pursued earnestly in both occasions, particularly by the economic giants of the time (Week 6a, slide 18). In both cases, transnational corporations spearheaded the liberalization efforts as multinational companies sought to expand their markets beyond their domestic domination and seek growth in size and profitability. In this regard, while expanding into global operations enabled the corporations to seek and obtained regulatory regimes they found most favorable growing in size and profitability assured these companies of influence at the regulatory and trading platforms (Week 2a, slide 13). These are qualities shared by the multinationals before the Second World War such as the British East India Company and those after the war such as Exxon Mobil (Week 2b, slide 7). Notably, while small indigenous firms grow into large multinationals with time, transnational companies were characterized by multinational ownership and shareholding, which enabled them to gain favorable operating conditions in more than two countries and influence international relations (Vercic, 2003). This is particularly evident in transnational corporations such as the Anglo-Iranian oil company that had British and Iranian shareholding. The economic and cultural influence of the transnational corporations from the two eras is similar in that the trading practices of companies influence the commerce and popular culture in the countries of operations. For instance, while the British East India Company was responsible for the transmission of British goods and culture across its market and the world, companies such as Amazon, McDonalds and IBM are responsible for the popularization and globalization of American goods and culture (Steger, 2017; Week 3a, slide 12). From these examples, it is evident that the globalization efforts in both cases were spearheaded by the countries with superpower status such as Britain and the United States of America, prior and after 1944 respectively because the transnational corporations were based in these countries. In both cases Britain and the United States engaged in intensive foreign direct investments (FDIs), amassed much wealth, formed massive and powerful militaries and enjoyed thriving economies (Lane, 2013).

However, in the two periods, globalization experiences a fragmentation or decline and anti-globalization sentiments gain a foothold. For instance, prior to the Second World War, the dominance of Britain in international trade invited animosity from other European countries that wished to exert their influence on the global stage. The same is observed after 1944, where the dominance of the United States is being challenged by counties such as China. In addition, ideological differences drive the conflicts in both eras. For instance, the protectionist tendencies of Britain invited fascism from Italy and Germany, although all of these approaches glorify the nation state. Similarly, after the Second World War, the neoliberal and capitalistic approaches of the United States are being challenged by the social market ideologies from China (Jones, 2006). In addition, the Washington consensus is clashing with the Beijing consensus as the economic model of the United States that is based on neoliberal ideology is challenged by that from China, which is based on communalism (Huang, 2010; Week 1b, slide 25). Therefore, although Britain and the United States have spurred the globalization processes in both cases, alternative networks have been sought by nations that oppose the domination, which leads to the fragmentation of the global networks and in turn, the decline of globalization. Notably, just like the opposition against Britain caused the financial depression of the 1930, so did the United States financial practices cause the financial crisis in 2008. In both cases, huge foreign investments accompanied by the economic disparities are highlighted by the large divide in wealth and the huge gap between the rich and the poor are highlighted (Jones, 2006; Lane, 2013). As a remedy, the global economies restructured their financial institutions and policies to guard against the dominance of one nation. Similarly, international conflict has characterized the rebellion against the dominant power, which in turn has halted the advancement of globalization in both cases. For instance, countries went into the Second World War due to the conflicts in Europe, which were largely against the dominance of Britain in global affairs. Similarly, the conflicts being experienced in the Middle East countries such as Iraq, Yemen and Syria are largely in protest against the interference and domination of the United States and much of the transnational terrorism is directed against the United States. In both periods, ideological differences among nations that clash cause the faltering of the globalization process.                      

References

Gross, M. (2017). Our planet wrapped in plastic. Current Biology 27, 785-795.

Huang, Y. (2010). Debating China’s economic growth: The Beijing consensus or the Washington consensus. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(2), 31-47.

Jones, G. (2006). Nationality and multinationals in historical perspective (pp. 06-052). Division of Research, Harvard Business School.

Lane, P. R. (2013). Financial globalization and the crisis. Open Economies Review, 24(3), 555-580.

Ogunola, O. S., Onada, O. A., & Falaye, A. E. (2018). Mitigation measures to avert the impacts of plastics and micro-plastics in the marine environment (a review). Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(10), 9293-9310.

Raubenheimer, K., & McIlgorm, A. (2018). Can the Basel and Stockholm Conventions provide a global framework to reduce the impact of marine plastic litter? Marine Policy, 96, 285-290.

Steger, M. B. (2017). Globalization: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Vance, A. & McGregor, I. (2019), Henderson Island: The Pacific paradise groaning under 18 tonnes of plastic waste. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/30/henderson-island-the-pacific-paradise-groaning-under-18-tonnes-of-plastic-waste.

Vercic, D. (2003). Public relations of movers and shakers: Transnational corporations. The Global Public Relations Handbook. Theory, Research and Practice (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London), 478-489.

Wall, J. (2019). Geography/Environmental Studies 1020A: People, Places and Environments, Geography 2200 Global Connections, week 1-6 [PowerPoint slides].