In 1492, the transatlantic journey of Christopher Columbus marked a milestone in the increasing interconnectedness of people across the globe. This process was similarly repeated through the development of the airplane, the telegraph, etc., until today, when internet connections accelerate communication that used to take months into taking only fractions of a second. Though this phenomenon has largely been heralded as an achievement for humanity, its true impacts paint a much darker picture.
To begin, globalization leads to a devaluation of place. The concept of place refers to a strong sense of protection and love towards the spiritual, psychological, and environmental aspects of a specific geographical location [1]. Place is crucial for one to feel confident in and advocate for their unique position in the world. Globalization, however, transforms all locations into one; the glaring fast food signs in Tokyo create the same environment as in the United States, and the ubiquity of social media makes the lives of almost all people the same. One particularly insidious effect of globalization is how it decimates the potential for global efforts against climate change. Because people are less motivated to fight to save the land, as its importance to them has been continually diminished, they focus increasingly less on the conservation and preservation of the environment [2]. More specifically, this lack of true desire to save one’s land has led to our inability to stand against corporations’ exploitation of land, and in turn, climate change [3].
Globalization posits land as a thing of value in the world—a resource to be exploited by its victor. In other terms, land becomes a commodity of war. Therefore, it is the hidden fuel of historical and current-day imperial colonialism. Barry Lopez, America’s foremost nature writer, discusses how the colonization of the New World was in fact fueled by European thinking of land as a commodity. According to Lopez, the colonizers view colonization as a way to “amass wealth [from the land] and go home,” all the while destroying the lives of the indigenous who had a true love for the land [1]. Today, transnational corporations continue to use this very logic to crush native agency and place today. In the few places where globalization and colonization did not eliminate the original caring for the land, namely Native reserves, their justifications mobilize again to crush geographical responsibility. Indigenous people have protested for years against countless oil pipelines through their land but have failed to stop any of them [4, 5]. And, the futile nature of their protests exists in both Canada and the United States, demonstrating the irrelevance of domestic political orientations. This is precisely because of how deeply capitalism and imperialism have instilled their logics in the body politic and the modern system of capitalist governance. Corporations who fund the pipeline, and the vast majority of people, view land only as a disposable commodity that can (and should) be used to further connect economic markets. On the other hand, the Indigenous recognize the land as something more, as a record of “the ancient story of lives and deeds of the immortal beings from whom he himself is descended” [1]. At the end of the day, the free reign of large corporations accelerates climate change and global warming at disastrous rates [3].
While the “thingification” of our current globalized system of governance is clear (through the commodification of land and nature), the path forward is less obvious. The solution is not a one-time fix-all method, but rather a broader return to “knowledge of what is inviolate about the relationship between two people in the place they occupy” and to “comprehend [land’s beauty] all in clear inner vision” [1, 6]. This process can manifest in many different ways. For example, a rejection of transnational corporations in favor of local businesses as a sort of familial, rustic economic system would steal power away from global corporations [7]. Alternatively, a return to time zones directly in line with the natural sunset and sunrise instead of the nearest economic mega-hub would emphasize a oneness with nature. Furthermore, acknowledging Indigenous methods to conserve land and fight global warming has shown to be very effective [8]. Critics may characterize the solutions as too radical, but the fact is that any effort at all to challenge transnational exploitation of local land is net good—otherwise, they will continue to wield their power in ways that will devastate the human race forever.
Barry Lopez effectively sums up how status-quo globalization has created “the physical destruction of a local landscape to increase the wealth of people who don't live there” while simultaneously homogenizing landscapes across the world for corporations’ interest [1]. Instead, the ideal future should be a gradual return to historical ideals of simple and sedentary life. In the words of Daoist classic Tao Te Ching: “Let us have a small country with few inhabitants … Let their food be sweet, their clothing beautiful, their homes comfortable, their rustic tasks pleasurable. The neighboring state might be so near at hand that one could hear the cocks crowing and dogs barking in it. But the people would grow old and die without ever having [lusted after] there” [9].
[1] Lopez, Barry Holstun. The Rediscovery of North America. New York: Vintage Books, a division of Random House, Inc., 1992.
[2] Child, Matthew F. “The Thoreau Ideal as a Unifying Thread in the Conservation Movement.” Conservation Biology 23, no. 2 (2009): 241–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01184.x.
[3] Riley, Tess. “Just 100 Companies Responsible for 71% of Global Emissions, Study Says.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, July 10, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change.
[4] Friedler, Delilah. “Thanks to Trump, the Keystone XL Pipeline Is Back. The Anti-Pipeline Movement Is Ready.” Mother Jones, February 7, 2020. https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2020/02/trump-keystone-xl-pipeline-native-indigenous-activism/.
[5] “Stand With Standing Rock.” American Civil Liberties Union. American Civil Liberties Union, June 2, 2017. https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/stand-standing-rock.
[6] Muir, John. “Yellow Pine and Libocedrus.” In The Mountains of California. New York: The Century Co., 1894.
[7] Angus, Ian. “Can Capitalism Prevent Catastrophic Climate Change?” The International Socialist Review, no. 92 (2014).
[8] Jones, Nicola. “How Native Tribes Are Taking the Lead on Planning for Climate Change.” Yale Environment 360. Yale School of the Environment, February 11, 2020. https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-native-tribes-are-taking-the-lead-on-planning-for-climate-change.
[9] Tuan, Yi-Fu. “Attachment to Homeland.” Essay. In Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience, 149–60. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1977.
