The health of the global environment is of concern to every living being on the universe. Some factors pose a direct threat to the global climate. However, the weight of the dangers posed by each of the elements varies because the intensity of the harm is not the same. This is the reason why globalization and civil war are less priority to the health of the global environment.
Globalization is the increased openness of economies of the world such that every country can easily interact with others, thus making the world a global village (Falkner, 2016). The interaction is in terms of trade, cultural, and technological transfer. It does affect the global environment negatively; despite significant positives impacts it has. Globalization is meant to bring about positive changes to the worldwide space. However, sometimes, adverse effects cannot be avoided. Nonetheless, they are not as much as the benefits. This is the reason why globalization is said to be less harmful than other factors in the influence of the global environment.
Globalization brings about an adverse effect of the culture to conservative communities (Kirton, & Trebilcock, 2017). Elders of many societies have often blamed globalization for the harmful impact it has had on their young generation. For instance, this has happened through erosion of moral standards that have always been set and guarded by elders. For example, the spread of pornography has come about glorifying sex out of the marital circle. Nevertheless, such issues only affect those who have decided to change their ideas and let themselves be influenced by globalization. It is a fact that everyone has had a chance to visit the Internet or interact with other people from diverse societies. Changing one’s outlook has always been at his/her wish, no matter the level of influence despite the positive impacts of globalization that have improved services of various organizations. There are disadvantages as well; however, they are not strong enough to warrant an exceptional level of attention.
Globalization has led to the deterioration of the natural climate because of increased industrialization activities. Over time, many firms have developed to become multinationals companies, hence spreading pollution to other regions other than their mother countries. For instance, firms from Germany, such as car manufacturers, have extended their products to different countries in Africa and South America. Besides, a significant number of companies that manufacture chemicals are currently spread widely. As a result, pollution is now evidenced in various parts of the world where such firms are situated. Nonetheless, this has led to far many positive effects such as reducing cases of unemployment and encouraging wealth creation (Garmendia et al., 2016). This, therefore, means that globalization is less of a problem to the world.
Civil war is described as the strife or fighting that takes place amid people of the same nation or a sovereign territory (Butler, 2016). When they rise against each other, people destroy properties as they kill others. More so, peace and stability are deprived of such nations. As such, citizens create a state of instability such that the government is weakened, and, thus, destabilizing the political state of the country. However, this does not warrant to be named as one of the most influential factors that pose a threat to the health of the global environment. This is because such an issue does not affect many countries, but only one. As time goes by, such a problem is likely to be resolved by other nations through peace negotiations to the affected sovereign territory.
Each country has its sovereign power, and, thus, has the rights to resolve its problems. The presence of sovereignty means that other nations should keep off the internal affairs of any particular country. Although the presence of civil war in a particular country does affect international trade, it is not sufficient enough to grant this problem to be seen as strong enough.
People or communities that start civil wars within a particular country usually have some specific interests in politics, economics, or social control (Attfield, 2015). Additionally, such people who rebel against their very countrymen do so with the aim of gaining whatever they are striving for. In this case, if such individuals are given what they need, the problem of civil war is ended. This means that proof of civil war cannot be said to be a substantial threat to the health of the global environment. The global climate is not limited to only a part of a particular region. If the case is of the people in the Middle East, it does not involve those who are in Africa. As such, many people do not feel the effect of such a war. The problem could only be brought to an end by leaders of such a nation (Uitto, 2016). When this is done, everything cools down. In a nutshell, there are more pressing problems facing the health of the global environment that need to be addressed.
Attfield, R. (2015). Ethics of the global environment. Edinburgh University Press.
Butler, C. (Ed.). (2016). Climate change and global health. CABI.
Garmendia, E., Urkidi, L., Arto, I., Barcena, I., Bermejo, R., Hoyos, D., & Lago, R. (2016). Tracing the impacts of a northern open economy on the global environment. Ecological Economics, 126, 169-181.
Falkner, R. (Ed.). (2016). The handbook of global climate and environment policy. John Wiley & Sons.
Kirton, J. J., & Trebilcock, M. J. (2017). Hard choices, soft law: Voluntary standards in global trade, environment, and social governance. Routledge.
Uitto, J. I. (2016). Evaluating the environment as a global public good. Evaluation, 22(1), 108-115.