.. bal mobility. The problem is does not lie on government passing legislation for policies have been made. The problem lies within the amount of enforcement that is dedicated on ensuring that the policies are practised to the full extent. Not every country has the same view when enforcement of policy is the issue.
Some nations are better off than others so it is easier for them to proceed with strict enforcement but Third World countries, in order to compete in the world market, are more lenient because of the need to better establish a prosperous economy. This is a main concern among many because the problem is never fully solved but simply reallocated. This is when international policy becomes a suggested solution. Governments need to strike a common chord with each other when it comes to environmental sustainability. It needs to be seen that if restrictions are present and enforced equally throughout all nations then the concept of conservation will be spread throughout globally. In order for this to succeed a new flow of financing and technology for environmental conservation needs to be achieved.14 Third World nations would also not feel the pressure to exploit for maximum profit if debts were alleviated and industrial countries initiated programs to provide access to technical assistance, training technology transfer, and planning grants to increase their capacity to manage environmental and energy challenges.15 Through this method it would allow nations to stand on equal ground and be able to maintain a harmony between nature and industry.
This is a fantasy to be achieved for the motive of wealth is always the motivation that leads to the neglecting of policies. The proposal of a world government is an idea that could ensure that a universal policy be followed by all countries and ensure that enforcement be weighted equally among all nations. A world government generates both relief and fear when it boils down to policy making. The relief comes that all nations are treated equally and must follow all laws that have been passed by this supreme institution. Yet, not all nations are equal even though the idea of it sounds appealing. Some nations are better off than others are so it is difficult for everyone to participate fully when some nations can achieve goals easier than others can. The main fear springs from the idea of losing identity and power.
A single government representing the world of many different cultures and beliefs is very hard to imagine. Minorities might feel threatened in that they have no legitimate say in the outcomes of producing legislation. This in turn leads to the representation of governments in countries. They would feel threatened in the sense that they truly have no power since the world government would be the one in control of matters of all countries globally. So, what needs to be done is not the production of a world government but an alliance between world organisations and existing governments.
Globalisation through this method does not infringe on the power of government but allows for compromise to occur and for then to understand the need for a unified co-operation to maintain the environment and resources for future enjoyment and use. In Australia for instance, the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Australian Conservation Foundation, along side with a number of state governments, agreed to endorse the National Conservation Strategy for Australia in 1986.16 This promoted the need to save the environment and ecological beauty of Australia for there was a realisation that damage to the environment would lead to damage to the economy. The concern was in tourism. The natural environment is a critically important part of tourism and is increasingly being recognised as such through the term “Ecotourism”.17 Through globalisation and government assistance it is possible to see the importance of conservation which in turn would set precedence for other countries to follow. This was the main intention by the Australian Tourism Industry Association who argued that tourism can and does (i) enhance environmental appreciation by changing peoples attitudes; (ii) act as a justification for environmental conservation; (iii) enhance environmental management for conservation; and (iv) enrich the social and cultural environment of the Australian community.18 A global government may have a unilateral authority and may think broadly but it can not possibly reach out to everyones interests in the decision making.19 Mutual adjustment is the best method to solving the environmental problem by the use of global co-ordination.
When this occurs it produces policies and plans that take account many positions that exist. A countrys own government needs to be aware of the essential needs of its people and must respond to the concerns of various authorities of energy, roads and highways, land use, city planning, air and rail transport, and industrial policy.20 These needs then need to co-relate with those needs presented by organisations that stand for the protection of the planets resources and environment. Governments have not lost power but need to re-learn how to distribute their influence. Both the federal and provincial governments, at least in Canada, hold the distribution of authority over environmental policy. The municipal governments still participate even though they have been given no authority over the matter.21 But the majority of the work is achieved by organisations that press governments for swifter actions towards policy making.
In Canada, the Greenpeace group, located in Vancouver and Toronto, had a revenue of 7.4 million dollars without government or corporal aid from 1987 to 1990.22 The source of revenue came from concerned individuals within the country who see the needed value of conserving the planet. In response, political parties must address these issues to ensure that the public receives the results that they desire. When the creation of the National Conservation Strategy in Australia took place both the Fraser Liberal government and the Hawke Labour government played an important role in the structure that the policy was comprised of.23 Through globalisation the world can look upon itself and see that there are better methods of approaching problems. Profit can not constantly exist if there is no planet to work from. The governments see this and pressure each other to abide by a universal understanding that there is a great need for sustainability.
Powers are not decreased or removed but simply placed into a different context where instead of the individual gain the overall gain should have more precedence. Both Canada and Australia have set example that industry and environment can exist together and it is the governments duty to ensure that guidelines are set to allow enforcement take place. Globalisation can help environmental policy only if other countries have full understanding of the benefits and participate with means of improvement. The poorer nations need to be guided by the wealthy to prevent any further destruction on the remaining resources that the planet contains. Global understanding and consensus will allow for countries to maintain their distinctiveness but allow for one common trait to exist, a total appreciation of the shared home we call earth. Bibliography 1. Melody Hessing and Michael Howlett, Canadian Natural Resource and Environmental Policy: Political Economy and Public Policy (University of British Columbia Press, 1997), 243.
2. Robert Paehlke, “Green Politics and the Rise of the Environmental Movement,” edited. Thomas Fleming, The Environment and Canadian Society (International Thomas Publishing, 1997), 270. 3. Doug Macdonald, The Politics of Pollution (McClelland & Stewart Inc., 1991), 56. 4.
D. McEachern, “Environmental Policy in Australia 1981-91: A Form of Corporatism?,” Australian Journal of Public Administration Vol. 52 No. 2, June 1993, 175. 5. Robert Paehlke, 270.
6. James Meadowcraft, “Planning for Sustainable Development: What can be Learned From the Critics,” edited. Michael Kenning and James Meadowcraft, Planning Sustainability (Routledge, 1999), 25. 7. Ibid., 35.
8. Ibid. 9. Robert Paehlke, 271. 10.
Ibid. 11. Melody Hessing, 243. 12. Robert Paehlke, 270. 13.
Ibid. 14. James Gustave Speth, “International Policies Will Conserve Global Resources,” edited. Matthew Polesetsky, Global Resources: Opposing Viewpoints (Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1991), 239. 15.
Ibid., 240. 16. D. McEachern, 175. 17.
Richard Bramley, “The Management of Natural Tourism Resources,” edited. Richard Cordew, Australian Planner Vol. 31-32 1993-95 (Royal Australian Planning Institute, 1995), 40. 18. Ibid. 19.
Charles E. Lindblom, “A Century of Planning,” edited. Michael Kenny and James Meadowcraft, Planning Sustainability (Routledge, 1999), 62. 20. Ibid., 63. 21.
Doug Macdonald, 51. 22. Ibid., 44. 23. D. McEachern, 181.
Bibliography Bramley, Richard. “The Management of Natural Tourism Resources.” Edited by Richard Cordew. Australian Planner Vol. 31-32 1993-95: (40-44). Royal Australian Planning Institute, 1995. Hessing, Melody and Michael Howlett. Canadian Natural Resource and Environmental Policy: Political Economy and Public Policy.
University of British Columbia Press, 1997. Lindblom, Charles E. “A Century of Planning.” Edited by Michael Kenny and James Meadowcraft. Planning Sustainability. Routledge, 1999.
Macdonald, Doug. The Politics of Pollution. McClelland & Stewart Inc., 1991. McEachern, D. “Environmental Policy in Australia 1981-91: A Form of Corporatism?,” Australian Journal of Public Administration Vol. 52 No. 2: (173-185).
1993. Meadowcraft, James. “Planning for Sustainable Development: What can be Learned From the Critics.” Edited by Michael Kenning and James Meadowcraft. Planning Sustainability. Routledge, 1999. Paehlke, Robert.
“Green Politics and the Rise of the Environmental Movement.” Edited by Thomas Fleming. The Environment and Canadian Society.