ENVIRONMENT AND GLOBAL TRADE LIBERALIZATION
RECONCILING THE 'UNPEACEABLE' AN INTERNATIONAL
POLITICAL ANALYSIS
Introduction
In real terms, there is an understanding that the business of commerce and the
environment are two conditions that cannot exist simultaneously. In practice, one must be
sacrificed for the existence of the other. Currently, globalization with the stretching of
capitalistic-motivated trade liberalization is increasingly showing its existence. This
condition means a big threat to the existence of the environment, which in fact is a big threat
to the survival of human life on earth.
Today's pro-market world economy (industrialization) is often seen as a trigger for
environmental destruction. Hillary French says more than a quarter of the world's trade in
goods involves goods directly derived from the natural resource base that underpins the
global economy.1 And developing countries largely dominate the export of these goods
when compared to industrialized countries. This condition is not only favorable because
While developing countries are vulnerable to the destruction of natural resources caused by
resource-based trade.
Since the globalization of environmental issues, there has been a debate between
economic interests (GNP, development, industrialization) and environmental interests that
aim to protect the quality of the environment so that it remains within the limits of its ability
to support life on it. If environmentalists worry that free trade will destroy natural resources,
free trade advocates worry that environmental policies will bring huge losses in trade.
It is fully realized that reconciling the two may be a mission impossible, but no
matter how small the possibility, there is always a gap to see the two contradictory things,
including how to reconcile the two. In this paper, the author tries to utilize the loopholes of
compromise through the discourse of "communicative action" as an effort towards ecology,
so that our earth, which is only one, can still meet the needs on it now and in the future.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
Trade Liberalization Vs Ecology
The issue of world trade liberalization has emerged especially since the signing of
the Uruguay Round and after the WTO (World Trade Organizations) replaced the position
of GATT (General Agreement on tariffs and Trade). With the ratification of the World
Trade Organization, international trade today has an institution and is no longer just a mere
agreement like the GATT. Meanwhile, the issue of the environment began to emerge,
especially since the Earth Summit in Rio De Jeneiro in 1992, which produced Agenda 21,
which includes programs that must be implemented (action programs) in the field of
environment and development.
Since the 70s environmental problems have been perceived by mankind as a
common problem that demands joint management by both developed and developing
countries. Even since several centuries earlier the Qur'an through surah Ar-Rum (30:41) has
warned of environmental damage that appears on the face of the earth (land and sea) due to
human actions. Various phenomena such as global warming, holes in the ozone, rising seas,
acid rain are now the source of human fear. Until it is realized that this one earth where
human activities and their impacts are neatly compartmentalized into nation-states, into
sectors (energy, agriculture trade) and into areas of interest (environment, economy, social).
These compartmentalizations are finally beginning to melt away, as we face a common
enemy called the "global crisis" including environmental, development and energy crises.
In the same place, the commitment of countries, both developed and developing
countries to preserve the global environment is not in doubt, as evidenced by the issue of
environment and development being an important agenda of the international community in
regional and multilateral forums since 1972, starting with the international conference on
"Human Environment" in Stockholm, Sweden, until its peak at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro 1992, by carrying agenda 21, a blueprint for sustainability and the basis of a
sustainable development strategy.
Agenda 21 contains steps that must be implemented by all people (countries) so that
development is sustainable, including the close relationship between development and
environmental protection, the commitment of developed countries to increase international
cooperation through development improvement programs in developing countries. Since
then, the international community has considered that environmental protection is a shared
responsibility and environmental protection is inseparable from aspects of economic and
social development.
However, what is expected is still far from reality, global environmental conditions
have not improved but tend to deteriorate and the economic and social conditions of the
nations have also decreased. On the other hand, these commitments are always colored by
conflicts of interest that mainly involve developed countries on the one hand and developing
countries on the other. This has even happened since Stockholm. For developed countries,
environmental problems are mainly caused by over exploitation of natural resources in the
context of development in developing countries. As for developing countries, the source of
the problem is mainly in developed countries with their industrial revolution, with lifestyles
of overexploitation. Luxury and extravagance have depleted energy supplies and caused
environmental pollution. Compared to developing countries that are still struggling to fulfill
the basic needs of their people.
The presence of globalization is characterized by trade liberalization, which requires
the free flow of goods, services and investment between countries. Following the emergence
of policies to reduce and even eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, there is a big doubt
whether the era of free trade can be paralleled with environmental commitments, especially
in developing countries, which are very unequal to developed countries.
There are at least two things that developing countries are very concerned about.2
First, environmental factors are considered a barrier to international trade by developed
countries with the existence of ecolabelling for example, as well as the application of ISO
14000, and many more environmentally friendly products under the pretext of consumer
pressure (consumer's drivern). Following the WTO mechanism, the principle of "national
treatment" applies.3 With this principle, strict requirements in the importing country can be
used as an excuse to reject other countries' products. Secondly, there is concern about the
relocation of industries and the influx of investment flows from developed countries to
developing countries in order to avoid relatively stricter environmental requirements in
developed countries. In this case, it is feared that they will become "pollution havens". Thus,
trade liberalization will actually interfere with efforts to protect global environmental
quality.
Green Camouflage and the Dilemma of Developing Countries
As an example of the mode described by Jed Greer and Kenny Bruno4 , a large
agrochemical producer trades in a pesticide that is so hazardous that the trade is banned, but
the producer says it is helping to feed hungry families. Not to mention a timber company
cutting down trees from natural tropical forests, replacing them with artificial forests
consisting of a single alien species and calling the project a "sustainable forest development"
effort. The above conditions led Greer and Bruno to shout "welcome to the world of green
camouflage".
In 1992, Larry Summers, head of the World Bank, led the creation of an intellectual
and idiological framework for the environmental issues to be discussed at the Rio
conference. Through the World Development Report, an annual publication he led, the
theme of "Development and the Environment" was adopted ahead of the Earth Summit in
Rio de Jeneiro. The report was distributed worldwide a few weeks before the Earth Summit.
The report contained the efforts of World Bank economists to convince the world that
economic production could increase three and a half times in less than 40 years without
environmental damage.)
Unfortunately, Summers' sharpness of thought was suddenly lost in the bureaucratic
writing of documents such as The World Development Report. However, we can see a
"rigorous" and "honest" instrumental analysis of markets and the environment dated
December 12, 1991 in Summers' memorandum. The memorandum contained a series of
editorial comments on other draft reports written by World Bank economists including one
entitled "Global Economic Prospects". Midway through the memo, in a section entitled
"Dirty Industries", Summers stated that it was ironic that World Bank economists were not
proposing serious policy recommendations. With that statement, Summers was trying to get
some of the Bank's staff to look for a wiser economic policy. "This is just between you and
me," he wrote in the memo, "doesn't the Bank no longer need to support efforts to relocate
polluting industries to less developed countries?".6 Summers cited two reasons for this
First, the conventional economic measure of the costs of pollution to public health is
calculated based on the income lost due to deaths and illnesses of wage earners. Clearly, lost
income and GNP the deaths of Mexicans and Ethiopians are very low compared to the death
of an American or Swiss worker. So, "the economic logic behind dumping toxic waste into
low-wage countries is reprehensible and we must bear the risk."
Second, Summers continues the same logic: environmentally unpolluted countries
are logical places to dump pollution and waste because the side and additional costs of
disposing of waste in already highly polluted areas are very high. On the African continent,
for example, in sparsely populated countries classified as highly unpolluted, the air quality
may be better than Los Angeles or Mexico City. But alas, the trade in air pollution and
garbage, even if it increases "world prosperity" i.e., moving waste from Los Angeles to
Zaire in a market transaction, there is a very classic "prosperity-enhancing" motive of
course.
Finally, the demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and healthy reasons seems
to affect the income elasticity to a great extent, i.e., the poor will live in a dirty and toxic
environment that may hasten their death.
There are other arguments that justify dumping waste in poor countries. Implicitly,
Summers argues, clean air is a luxury or an "aesthetic" issue, which the poor do not yet need
"most of the concern about industrial waste revolves around its future effects and its
immediate impact on health is probably very little".7 In fact, one only needs to look at
statistics on strep throat disease, asthma and pneumonia in children in poor, heavily polluted
countries like Mexico City and Sao Paulo to prove the impact of sewage. While to some
travelers, atmospheric waste may seem "aesthetic"; to the vast majority of people prone to
disease, it is a threat to their own lives.
It seems that the historical legacy, in the form of the victory of European countries in
World War II is an asset for these countries to control international issues, including the
environment which was popularized in Stockholm 1972.8 It continued at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Jeneiro which recommended environmental issues on the international trade
agenda.
The globalization of environmental issues has put developing countries in a dilemma
between prioritizing their economic interests or their environmental interests. On the one
hand, economic interests are urgent to increase national income. Since 1970 most
developing countries that are not oil exporters have experienced rising import costs without
being followed by rising export costs, the export ambitions of developing countries are
increasingly often bumping into the limits outlined by industrialized countries. While some
developing countries were desperate for foreign exchange inflows from international trade.9
And when they think for the benefit of the environment, for example, efforts to adopt the
recycling of factory waste certainly require a technology, meaning an increase in the cost of
production. The abundance of costs will have an impact on the high cost of products / goods
and reduce competitiveness in the market. Meanwhile, if the cost is charged to the producer,
it will certainly reduce the profit earned.
The same thing is actually also experienced by several large companies in
industrialized countries, their concern for the environment is manifested by implementing
environmental standards that are quite strict among fellow industrialized countries, and will
also experience an increase in costs in the production process due to environmental interests,
especially for types of industries based on natural resources and those that have the potential
to emit pollution, such as chemical industries. However, to reduce the cost burden, some
companies in industrialized countries actually "fly" to developing countries whose
environmental standard policies are quite loose. In developing countries, the arrival of the
industry is welcomed "warmly" by some circles of course. We take for example in Indonesia
the presence of PT Indo Rayon which is a relocation of foreign industries with a motive that
is allegedly the transfer of "dirty industries" or "dirty industries". Dirty industries are those
that normally emit relatively more pollutants than clean industries.
Conditions are getting worse when the globalization paradigm is getting louder. The
Earth Summit was held at a time of globalization where economic liberalization was also
growing rapidly. This can be seen when the jargon of sustainable development initiated in
Rio to Johannesburg must compete strongly with the globalization paradigm, summit to
summit was only impressed as a symbolic statement that is thick with political nuances, in
addition to its operationalization remains in "teasing" in special agencies based on the
problem, it also appears that the dominance of developed countries seems to impose its will
for its interests and "tarnish" sustainable development.
What does this competition of sustainable development versus economic globalization
mean for the environment and people's welfare? The reality is that the North-South gap is
widening while the spirit of Rio never gets a chance to be translated into real action. Only
five northern countries met the target of 0.7% of GNP as help to implement agenda 21,
technology transfer never happened.10 Commitments to improve the environment were
never implemented. Even the United States (US) rejected the Kyoto Protocol agreement as
an implementation for the climate change convention, because it contained clear time targets
and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the UN on biodiversity, the US did
not want to sign the convention. It is thought that the convention poses a great risk to the
development of the US economy, which relies on the biotechnology industry.
Meanwhile, the UN, the organization mandated to regulate the implementation of
sustainable development through the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
established at the Earth Summit, is experiencing a weakening process as northern countries
refuse to pay their full dues.12 The UN does not get political support from developed
countries. In contrast, financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, or the
trade institution WTO, are increasingly important to developed countries as organizations
that can regulate the implementation of sustainable development international development.
The UN is increasingly experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, and developed countries always
have a strong bargaining position and developing countries will remain in a vicious circle.
Reconciling Efforts
The debates in the trade and environment discourse are principally based on different
ideals. Trade groups, especially free trade, depart from the idealism of achieving the highest
possible economic growth. Such interests justify all means including over-exploiting natural
resources. For this reason, ecological barriers are considered very detrimental to their
interests. Meanwhile, environmentalists depart from the idealism to protect the environment,
so that it remains harmonious with human life and other creatures. They reject methods such
as the massive exploitation of nature due to the demands of industrialization.
Further conflicts between developed and developing countries result from the
application of different standards, with developed countries using very strict environmental
standards while developing countries generally use more lenient standards. For example,
citrus growers in Mexico had to swallow their disappointment when the US issued a
requirement for the oranges to undergo a "citrus cancer" inspection even though the disease
had long been eradicated.13 They considered this a disguised trade barrier. Suspicions are
also often aroused among fellow industrialized countries, with governments suspecting
protectionism disguised under an environmental mantle. For example, the US argues that
Europe's ban on meat produced with livestock growth hormones is actually an attempt to
protect European livestock producers against US competition and Ontario's tax on all
alcoholic beverages sold in non-refillable containers was created not for environmental
reasons but to displace US beer.
The conflicts that occur between developed countries, regarding the issue of
competition, make developing countries as victims, due to the application of the strict
standards between them. Developed countries then "throw" their industries to developing
countries, as mentioned earlier, to increase state income is warmly welcomed by developing
countries, without realizing the ecological losses it causes. Not to mention the problems in
developed countries due to overlapping natural resource utilization due to capitalist greed
through industrialization.
Environmentalists emphasize the need to occasionally use trade-restrictive tools to
achieve important environmental goals. In other words, how to move towards greener trade.
Communicative actions
Jurgen Habermas through his theory states that interactions between actors are not
always driven by material interests, but from an intellectual process, namely communicative
action.15 The argument issued is not oriented to the result of "success or failure" but to a
general understanding. Where the interests and preferences of a country change not because
of material conditions (realist) or society actors (liberal), but because of mutual
understanding and awareness through "intersubjective meaning".16 With communicative
action, there is a willingness of actors (countries) to accept certain assumptions so that they
want to change their interests in the sense of "really changing", through patterns that can
construct their identity which is then integrated in relations between countries, then this
identity will be affiliated with the identity of other countries in the international structure
which ultimately influences the state to do something (there is a "possibility" of changing
identity), so that there is a change in action and gives birth to a state policy.
The conditions of International Relations formatted in the "Common Life World"
(CLW) are present in regional, geographic, and issue areas. Through high-level
institutionalization mechanisms, such as the regional EU, AFTA or issue areas such as trade
or the environment. Efforts to continuously revive the CLW will emerge if there are some
actors (countries) who continue to talk about a particular issue, in the world of HI known as
"norm entrepreneur" mechanism that continuously voices a particular issue until it finally
becomes a norm adhered to by countries. The emergence of norms comes from people
(individuals, countries, NGOs) which then enter into a state debate which is then fought for.
If the norm has been accepted, then there will be implementation of the norms throughout
the country.
It should always be implemented by economists and environmentalists in general that
one of the keys to environmentally sustainable trade is for production to fully reflect
environmental costs. If these costs are taken into account by all countries, then trade is an
efficient means of distributing resources around the world.
A common understanding among actors would be one way of bridging this gap, e.g.
the inclusion of costs through environmental taxes or taxes on energy would help limit
environmental trade costs by encouraging the use of the most energy-efficient transportation
or taxes on timber from primary forests would encourage the use of cultivated timber,
thereby reducing the influence of the "voracious" log trade on deforestation. Although it is
not as easy to implement as it first appears, industrialized countries are usually more
successful than developing countries in pricing their export products to reflect the costs of
environmental damage and damage control. For example, in the case of exports from
industrialized countries, the costs are paid by consumers in importing countries, including
developing countries. However, the costs of developing country exports are paid
domestically, mostly in the form of health, property and ecosystem costs.
The other path to greener trade is actually the setting of environmental standards/labels
such as the blue angel program in Germany or the green stamp in the US, the reality is that
countries prefer very different levels of protection and differ in their enforcement. There are
concerns that losses will be greater in producers are forced to meet stricter regulations from
their competitors. For example, the European Community's plans to impose a carbon tax are
being hampered by the fear of competitive disadvantage if Japan and the US do not take
similar action.18
The points of compromise as an operational design will be more and more, when
referring to hyperglobalism and borderless global conditions, where in trade the "bargaining
body" is no longer absolutely in the state but lies in the relationship between consumers and
producers. Assuming the cost of handling the environment, pollution for example, is borne
by consumers. By utilizing instruments such as norms, arguments and visions as the basic
mainstream of each individual (consumer) in determining their trust in the products they will
consume.
The phenomenon of green consumerism is another loophole, as well as the need for
cleaner production, presenting competition for producers in attracting sympathy from
consumers with the jargon of "morality" in other words, still having a capitalist posture but
how to keep it in a "green" tone. However, trade will continue to be one of the
environmental problems that are still being questioned, while regulations are increasing and
will only be a tool for the increasingly powerful to play their role.
In its development, the WTO has explicitly included environmental regulations in
Article XX paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT to enforce environmental laws so that
environmental functions remain sustainable. However, these provisions in reality do not
make the environment better and even cause more global environmental problems. In
addition, the establishment of environmental standards in free trade makes developing
countries unable to compete in the free market because they cannot meet the environmental
standards required for transactions in free trade.
Although the points of compromise are generally still dominated by conventional
circles given the "image" of trade (Bretton woods) and the environment (Stocholm) which
since its inception has always been "driven" and boils down to developed countries. But one
thing that It remains and must always be that, whenever, wherever, and however the
ecological discourse must be constantly constructed at least to minimize the damage to the
environment which is "entrusted to our children and grandchildren". There is still a gap
without having to think cynically or perhaps 'recklessly' saying that the poor in developing
countries can be better off if they never again come into contact with all the 'help' of the rich
in developed countries.
Conclusion
Globalization has led the world economic system to be more pro-market and
marginalize the existence of the environment. Through the Communicatve Actions
mechanism, several efforts are offered as a "way out" for problems that are loaded with the
context of exploitation for developed countries against developing countries and then
herding them into green trade, environmental pricing, standardization of ecolabelling, and
removal of trade barriers for developing countries, as well as financial and technological
assistance.
The awareness of the actors is expected to bring and develop clean technology for
themselves and for their environment, and reduce a little ego on patterns of desire
(consumerism) that tend to damage the environment. In this case, developing countries at
least have a bargaining position with the world's biodiversity and forests.
Start thinking about how to change the way to achieve economic growth, or increase
income, not necessarily through economic or business channels alone, but also through the
utilization of social and environmental channels. This means that environmental and social
costs must be included in production costs, because so far environmental and social costs are
often given to the people. This is a new form of economic development called a sustainable
economy. And once again never stop talking about it.
