POLS 405.01

Before taking this course I had a fairly good grasp on what globalization involved, and its effects at a global level.  I knew it was fueled by the degradation of national borders and the free movement of labor, capital, and production.  It was the spread of the free market worldwide.  Supposedly it favored competition, efficiency, and development.  Products could now be produced in the cheapest way and this would somehow help everyone.  People in India were supposedly benefiting from the jobs that we outsourced, and people in the U.S. were benefiting from cheaper products.  I had heard stories of the detrimental effects globalization was having on workers, but I had not heard many details.  It seemed to me that we were now not only competing with workers in our community, or even our own country, but workers around the world.  This didn’t seem like such a bad thing to me, but after taking this class and seeing firsthand what this competition has done my opinion is a little different.

I think one of the main ideas I took away from this class is the detrimental effects that globalization is having on local culture, tradition, and prosperity as a whole.  Seeing what is happening in the community right around me has opened my eyes to the other side of globalization.  Sure it may increase efficiency and what not, but at what cost.  Local industries that can not compete at the global level are left in the dust.  I thought Charleston was a thriving place, but seeing these negative effects in our own backyard means that hundreds or thousands of other communities worldwide must be feeling the same effects.

South Carolina is a place of strong traditions and an established culture, but this class has showed me that this is in jeopardy.  Most of the people we spoke with are involved in an industry that has historical and cultural significance for this region.  The International Longshoremen Association is an extremely important entity in my opinion, but its power is being degraded by the quest for efficiency and cheaper production.  Unions are important not only for their members, but also for their communities and the global workforce.  The degradation of the ILA’s strength means the degradation of the strength of unions worldwide, and it means the degradation of the community that the union workers live in.  The fact that South Carolina shrimpers are now being run out of business by imported shrimp will also negatively affect not only the communities that are built up around the industry, but perhaps South Carolina’s sense of self.  The importation of migrant workers does not so much affect South Carolina culture and tradition, but it certainly affects the communities in Latin America where these workers are coming from.  Latin America is a place of strong tradition, like South Carolina, where they believe in community and family.  Pulling people away from their communities to come work here certainly is not a positive development.

It was quite informative for me to see firsthand how globalization reaches even into the smallest communities.  It truly is a worldwide movement that has encompassed more people than I expected.  As a student I was kind of sheltered from its effects because I was not working in any of the industries that are being harmed.  I never realized how many people in our local community work in these industries, or service jobs that are so intertwined in global processes.

-Charles Murchison

Two weeks ago I thought I had a good grasp of what the process of globalization was but after taking this course I realized that I barely knew anything about globalization at the beginning of this course. In the last two weeks I have learned so much about how globalization has affected the southeast region of the United States and in particular, South Carolina.  Those that favor globalization say that it sparks progress and creates new markets, connects people all over the world and allows for maximum growth and productivity. However, looking at the local impact of globalization, I have seen first hand, that it can severely devastate the local community.

Some of the specific sectors of our community that we have seen directly affected through the class were the longshoremen, unions, the fishing/shrimping industry, the agriculture labor force, the tourism industry, and the energy industry. However, each of us being consumers, have been indirectly affected by globalization. The quality of products being imported consistently are being introduced at a lower price, but with that lower price also comes a lower quality. The domestic markets are then forced to lower their standards and prices to be able to compete with the foreign producers.

Many times the domestic industry, such as shrimp farming, can’t compete because governmental regulations we have prevent them from further cutting production costs to a level where they could still make a profit. These same EPA standards aren’t required in many foreign countries yet we accept their products such as shrimp and allow the foreign lower quality product, to dominate the global market.  The process of globalization allows for some corporations to be successful, prosperous and to gain power while leaving the individuals powerless, devastated and many times unable to recover in their local market. I also have seen the presence of what I believe to be the exploitation of people in the examination of globalization

Regarding exploitation, one example of an industry in South Carolina that has felt a global impact, is the hospitality and tourism industry. When Beverly Wall of Kiawah Island Resort visited our class she elaborated on the ways in which they recruit foreign workers from Jamaica, Romania and other countries.  The workers at Kiawah were “seasonal” workers even though they worked there for 8 months out of the years and annually return for employment year after year. By keeping them as “seasonal” they keep them as part time employees therefore Kiawah doesn’t have to provide benefits such as pensions, paid vacations etc.  She told us that their staff was treasured as if they held them close to their hearts. But that’s the difference between a person and a business; a person can be moral and held accountable but a business cannot. A business is an entity that has one main goal of profit. The main realization that I have realized in the last two weeks is that people not businesses, should be the ones to make the decisions in the global market because people should have other motivations than merely profit. In conclusion, if businesses continue to gain control and deregulation of industry standards continues, it will erode away at the quality of products being consumed and therefore negatively affect the consumer and their well being.

- Meredith MacDougall

Deregulation of Industry Standards

The issue of deregulation is a key issue in the discussion of globalization.  Deregulation is defined as, “to remove government regulatory controls from (an industry, a commodity, etc.).”  Regulations and controls are removed to allow for a more efficient flow of trade.  However the deregulation of standards can also lead to the deterioration of the quality of the product being consumed in the market.  With a lower quality product being consumed, the individual consumer can be negatively affected by the product they consume. For example, if food that contains antibiotics and hormones is consumed, the individuals health could suffer. Specifically we are going to examine how deregulation impacts the shrimp industry and the consumer.

In the reading by Amber Von Harten it states how shrimp has transition from a luxury product to a commodity.  In the 70’s the public demand outweighed the domestic production capability and then foreign shrimp arrived on the scene. When cost of insurance and fuel prices rose, domestic shrimpers began to really struggle to survive in the market. Then in 2001 the market was flooded with imported shrimp and the majority of the domestic production collapsed. In the Greenville News Newspaper, Eddie George explains that there used to be 850 commercial shrimpers and less than 150 exist today. The U.S. shrimper’s way of life has been destroyed and they can no longer compete with foreign competition. In the article in the Post and Courier, “The degradation of Work: The True Cost of Shrimp”, Bo Petersen described the working conditions of a shrimp factory in Asia where there are 16 feet barbed wire fences and little girls forced into child labor that resembles conditions of cruel slavery. To read more on “The True Cost of Shrimp” click here or to see a story from CNN on the working conditions in a shrimp farm in Asia click here . The conditions of the workers aren’t the only thing that are suffering, the production of the shrimp will also make your stomach turn.

When visiting  Swimming Rick Farm, stakeholder,  Rick Eager explained the nauseating process of how the foreign shrimp is produced. The shrimp in many countries in Asia are fed feces and produced in highly unsanitary conditions. Not only does this effect the product, it also impacts the environment. The ecological sustainability of the environment is corrupted in areas where they exploit environment in the process of maximizing profit. The consumer is also greatly affected by these lower quality shrimp.

While globalization has allowed for us to get more shrimp as well as cheaper shrimp, but at what cost? As Rick Eager explained, the imported shrimp contain large amounts of antibiotics, fillers, chemicals and of course, pig shit.  The amount of this shrimp being consumed has continued to increase as shrimp further becomes a commodity.  Therefore the amount of antibiotics, chemicals and pig poop entering our bodies is also increasing. This affects our immune system and health negatively in the long run but the good news is we do get lots of cheap shrimp. As discussed in class,  even when people are informed about these health hazards they tend to prefer the cheaper product because of the price and the convenience.  For example, people know that Walmart runs out local business but they still shop there because its a lower price and a one-stop shop.

Arguments about the detrimental effects of deregulation have certainly predominated most discussions of globalization, particularly in the United States, but there is another side to the issue.  Looking specifically at the shrimping/fishing industry one can see that deregulation does not produce completely negative consequences.  As Richard Coleman argues, cheap foreign seafood has benefited both U.S. consumers and the countries in which the seafood is produced.

In the United States demand for seafood has been on a steady rise, and the demand surpassed local production in the 1970s.  When the newly emerging market could not be filled by domestic production it opened the door for foreign imports.  Coleman argues that this has been a positive development, as we now have access to a wider array of cheaper seafood than every before.  Who is to say that U.S. consumers should not have the choice of eating what they want?  The ability of these developing countries to produce seafood in a cheap -and deregulated- manner has turned foods like shrimp into commodities when they were once considered delicacies.  More food for lower prices can not be that bad.

Another argument provided by Coleman in support of the deregulated production of cheap foreign seafood is that it helps fuel the development of LDCs.  These countries have been told by the U.S. that they should choose one industry, develop it, and then focus on cheap exports from that industry to provide them with their main source of income.  Some countries have chosen the seafood industry as their key to development, and it is unfair to place barriers on those industries now that they are able to flood our markets with their products.  Just because they have more lax regulations on their production does not mean that we should have a bias against their products.  Consumers in the U.S. should be given the ultimate choice.

Grimes and Yow highlight a different path that countries like the U.S. can take when attempting to counter the effects deregulation of foreign industries can have on local production.  Instead of putting up barriers, which most would argue equates protectionism and goes against the ideal of global free markets, people must instead attempt to promote their product over the foreign one.  Running ads about the cleanliness and ‘pureness’ of local seafood will help foster domestic consumption in a way that does not go against fair competition.  Deregulation may produce a lower quality product, but some would argue that ultimately it is the consumers choice as to what they want.

In Conclusion while deregulation provides more products, more effectively to the consumer at a lower cost, the price at which it does so is unacceptable on various levels.  Specifically within the shrimping industry the third world production creates a degradation of work place, lower quality product, impacts the health of the consumer, negatively impacts the ecological sustainability and destroys the domestic production. Governmental regulations are not unfair barriers put in place to hurt the market, they are standards that should be upheld to prevent the erosion of the well-being of our community from a local level all the way to the global level.

       The theme our group chose to investigate is the displacement of labor.  This theme can be seen through many different industries and on many different levels.  Although David Bacon asserts that, “the word displacement is unmentionable in Washington discourse,” arguing that it carries a negative connotation, we would argue that it is not inherently negative.

            In regard to migrant labor, displacement of labor could be caused by two different situations.  First migrants could be displacing American workers in jobs where the migrants will work for less.  This situation may seem to be exacerbated when specifically talking about illegal migrants, although Michael Lalich somewhat dispelled this myth.  In theory these illegal migrants may be forced to work for smaller wages because they do not have the same legal recourses afforded to the legal migrants in fighting unfair labor practices.  Second, labor displacement could be caused by the displacement of Latin American workers from their home countries, when they come to the United States in search of higher paying jobs. 

     In the first case, we seem to have agreed that most of the migrant labor coming into the U.S. to work in low skill, generally manual labor sectors are not displacing American workers.  While certainly not always the case, it seems that many (if not most) out-of-work Americans feel this labor is beneath them.  In fact, according to the testimonies offered by Michael Lalich and Mrs. Walls; both of whom are migrant labor recruiters-there are certain policies set in place that require them to give U.S. citizens priority in filling open job-positions.  However people just are filling up the spots!  Because of this, for the farming sector and other industries such as the hotel and resort industry-migrant labor can be a much-needed, cheap workforce.  On the other hand, because the government seems unable to enforce the United States’ labor laws, these workers can be vulnerable to mistreatment.  Back to the Latin American side, these workers leaving for the United States has the potential to leave their domestic jobs unfilled, which obviously creates a whole new set of problems.  By the same token, we see that many migrants working in the U.S. send remittances home, which has the potential to boost the family’s economic security as well as boost the local economy.  They are also being displaced at home through the privatization of once publicly owned industry as foreign companies are implementing more cost-effective business strategies.

     Another example that really hits home is the displacement of labor in the fishing industry.  According to Eddie Gordon-a representative from the Wild American Shrimp Organization, the United States imports a drastic 90% of its seafood supply from foreign suppliers.  This obviously has many effects and implications on the local level-both at home and abroad.  In regards to our domestic commercial fishermen-they are finding themselves predominantly unable to compete in the global market, as cheaper foreign seafood prices undermine domestic prices-literally pushing the demand for domestic seafood supply out of the market.  Our fishermen are not the only ones being displaced however; through the advent of fish farms, technology, and tourism, fishermen all over the world are finding themselves out of work and out of money.  In addition, a wide array of environmental effects from these advents also contributes to the decreased demand for wild caught seafood.  Due to the gross mismanagement of the emission of waste products in foreign fish farms, wild marine resources are contaminated and are unable to be harvested.  Furthermore, the lack of environmental regulation and a fish farm’s ability to produce mass quantities of seafood stock gives them an unfair advantage in price competition.  This affects all commercial fishermen around the world at the local level.  

     While this process does have the real potential to displace workers in the commercial fishing industry, this is somewhat of a necessary evil.  There are steps that can be taken such as showing consumers the added value they receive out of buying higher priced higher quality goods, such as local shrimp.  Another step that can be taken by those working in the seafood producing industry is to retool to appeal to new markets.  This is what Rick Eager has successfully done.  While these solutions certainly reflect a level of social Darwinism, certain casualties are acceptable in order to perpetuate the flow of capital in our global economic community.  

            As with all of these examples, the process of globalization undoubtedly can bring with it the loss of job security and can lead to the displacement of workers.  We cannot expect this fact to change anytime in the foreseeable future; however, hopefully we can guide the process so that it takes place in a responsible way.  The hope would be that as labor is displaced, generally by lower-skilled workers, everybody gets to move one more step up the ladder.  Clearly, this is not always the case, but it seems to be the ideal to shoot for.  

 

http://www.usmsfp.org/farm-websites/farms/swimmingrockfish.htm

http://www.doh.state.fl.us/environment/community/migrant-labor/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/perks/197977826/

http://www.summit-americas.org/Migrant%20Workers/Migrant-workers.htm

 

Individual Blog Post

David Crump:

 

            Coming into this class, I did not really know what to expect.  Reading over the topic of the course, I realized that we were learning about and discussing things that had real implications for each of us.  I already had a strong interest in the local shrimping industry, having grown up on the water, and was interested to learn more.  Moreover, working in the seafood catering business, this is a issue that could have direct implications to me.  Also, while not doing justice to the scope of the discussion, I had an interest in biodiesel and had experimented with making my own. 

 

            After doing all of the readings and having listened to the stakeholders and class discussions, I have come to believe that all of these issues do not have a hard-and-fast solution.  For each case we have considered, no matter on what side of the issue a person falls, there will be bad and good implications and consequences that affect the different groups.  We have also seen that in some cases people can be in favor of the same thing for different reasons. This is the situation with people who support the production of biodiesel.  One side supports this biofuel because it is better for the environment.  Another side (of which I am a part) likes the idea of lessening the United States’ dependence on foreign oil.  In my case, if it is cleaner for the environment in the process, all the better.

 

            In general, I feel that I have a pretty firm understanding of my political beliefs and in regard to policy choice.  This class did, however, bring up issues that challenged some of my beliefs.  On such case is the shrimping industry.  On one hand, I believe that people who have been shrimping in South Carolina for decades have a way of life that should be protected.  In my experience, these are hardworking men and women who just want to provide for themselves and their families doing what they love.  They don’t have delusions of becoming rich off of their trade; they just want to be able to survive, which is becoming harder and harder.  On the other hand, if an industry cannot survive economically, I do not believe it should be subsidized by others just to prolong a lifestyle that is no longer viable.  This puts me in the middle of a contradiction.  I come to terms with this by trying to hold myself to the same standard that I would hold to anyone else.  I cannot just pick and choose when and where industry should be propped up by government.

 

            This understanding and enlightenment—which are considerable—are what I personally took out of the class. None of these questions have hard and fast answers.  There are certainly parts to these issues that most people can agree on, such as that we need to ensure migrant labors are treated humanly.  Even though I do not support all issues related to the labor union movement, I can also say that there is no doubt that certain labor unions have achieved some great things for the workers they represent, as is in the case of the ILA whose workers make great wages.  There are also political views I have that might not be cut and dry one size fits all, such is the case with deregulated markets.  When expecting domestic businesses to always live or die on their own, keeping the government out, we miss the fact that they rarely are playing on a level playing field to begin with.  In some cases, such as the seafood industry, American companies may be competing with overseas farmers who are completely subsidized.  It can be impossible to compete when the foreign company is not playing in the same for-profit system as the American one.

 

  On most of these issues, we could talk until we were blue in the face about why one side is correct or incorrect,, but at some point it boils down to a personal opinion.  This opinion however, cannot really be valid until you immerse yourself in the topic, which I feel we did with each of the topics we covered.

 

Mark Landis:

 

Throughout the course of this rather short, but intensified two and a half week capstone—my eyes have been repeatedly re-opened.  Not that I was totally unexposed to the conception of globalization theory, but my perception of how it impacted us here in the United States differed significantly from the way it was portrayed by the case studies we read, and the stories that were shared with us in class.  Before taking this class, I always assumed that the U.S. and its industries stood the most to gain from globalization—being able to operate with low-wage labor and lax socio-economic regulations in other countries—corporations would be able to cut costs and increase profits.  I never thought that other countries could do the same to us; I guess I was naïve.

 

What I soon found out is that globalization affects everyone from the clothes on your back to your ability to find employment.  The first example that really opened my eyes to the effects of globalization on our home front is the BMW factory located in Clemson, SC.  In order to improve the economic situation in South Carolina, Governor Hollings recruited various industries to quickly stimulate an increase in productivity—one of these companies was the German automobile manufacturer—BMW.  This was an attempt to boost employment opportunities for South Carolina citizens.  However, during an informative visit from Dr. Hopkins; a former economics professor at the College of Charleston, he asserted that BMW jumped on the opportunity to expand to South Carolina because it could then pay the S.C. laborers one third of what the wages were for automotive laborers in Germany.  At first I had trouble wrapping my head around the concept of foreigners using U.S. citizens as cheap labor.  Then after reading Ford and Stone Economics and S.C. Higher Education I noticed that the need for knowledge-based industry in South Carolina, which is responsible for the majority of the rest of the country’s prosperity, is grossly underemphasized in state politics and economics.  The state does not adequately educate its citizens, and the ones that are fortunate enough to receive a proper education typically leave to pursue knowledge-based, rather than labor intensive jobs.  There just isn’t a market here for high-tech knowledge-based industry, and the current policies encourage the perpetuation of a labor-intensive, minimally adequately educated work force—there’s no long term planning.  South Carolina’s development pattern is more reflective of an underdeveloped and still developing nation, rather than a typical North American state. 

 

Other experiences that re-opened my eyes and really brought the concept of globalization home for me were the testimonies and case-studies regarding migration and the seafood industry.  In regards to migration, I have learned a new word by which to refer to this class of worker—displaced.  From the privatization of public industry through globalization and the impact of cost-efficient practices—more and more workers, especially in Latin America have become displaced.  This is a sad but necessary side-effect in the perpetuation of our global capitalistic system.  In regards to the local seafood industry, commercial fishermen are finding themselves “displaced” as well.  It is interesting to how the introduction of a foreign, more cheaply-produced supply, can really alter the prices of domestic, wild caught or even farmed seafood.  

 

After taking this class I have gained a new outlook of the global community’s level of interconnectedness.  Whether our social or cultural practices differ, we are all connected under the pretenses of capitalism in a world market economy.  Displacement is one of the many affects of globalization; it brings technology, education, wealth, and better general standards for health care.  Of course there are some negative side-effects, but in order to facilitate a successful capitalist system, certain mechanisms ensure that only the strongest survive.  It’s a dog-eat-dog world, but that’s how we like it!

Individual statement: Ryan Brennan

Before we began this class I did not even have a basic understanding of globalization. When I heard the term, I thought it meant the world becoming more technologically advanced, thus allowing more people in the world to rise out of poverty and live better lives (you know, more globalized). Well, I guess globalization could have this effect, but knowing what I know now; I would not go as far as even including my thoughts in any definition of the term. It is true that globalization can have a positive effect on the world, but it appears that the negative connotation is more recognized.

The first day of class we accumulated a working definition of globalization. We defined it as capitalistic expansion on a global scale, where the market is the central organizing system or principal. We discussed that globalization can be considered a neo-liberalistic practice (defined as promoting a free market economy through liberalization, privatization, and deregulation) which in itself sounds positive, but in terms of our course of study, we definitely saw that this practice had some very negative and dramatic effects on a global scale. I do not think that we can have globalization without a liberal, free market economy, but like many things in life, the most important positive aspect of something, can also easily be its downfall, which seems to be the case with globalization. If we look at the seafood industry as an example of globalization, it is very clear that the positive aspect for one nation/culture can be the downfall for another.

It is great that we (we being the United States or more developed cultures) encourage countries to promote free trade amongst each other; however, we have seen that globalized free trade can have a very negative effect on a local scale. In examining the seafood industry specifically, through the readings and interviews with the stakeholders, we were able to see that the free market is making the local (not only in terms of SC, but also in terms of the nation) sustainability of the seafood industry near impossible. The privatization of the seafood industry, mainly in terms of foreign governments like China subsidizing the entire seafood industry in its country, makes exporting the seafood to other countries cheaper. Also the deregulation of practices involved (including the practices such as employing immigrant workers in sweatshop like conditions and unsafe food practices, mentioned in the Post and Courier article, ‘The True Cost of Shrimp’) in growing and exporting the seafood products make the consumer purchase of these seafood products much cheaper than they have historically been which has led to the commoditization of items that were seen as luxuries in the not so distant past. In this case, globalization has a very negative impact on importing countries, but a positive impact on the exporting countries, at least economically. This brings up a whole different issue of sustainability.

In my group discussion, we defined sustainability as the long-term economic and ecologic viability, for the purposes of this discussion, we will say of the seafood industry. If there was no aquaculture, the oceans would not be big enough to sustain the consumption of seafood (the natural production could not compete with the demand). Therefore, aquaculture has been introduced, but aquaculture is only able to compete with the global demand now, but I do not think that aquaculture will even be sustainable forever (especially in places where there are unsafe practices, i.e. using antibiotics and carcinogens and exploitation of workers). If any of these countries lose their ability to import their seafood products to other countries, their global economy probably would not be sustainable.

So, I have learned that globalization can be both positive and negative (although in our terms of study it has been more negative) and that sustainability is probably the most important aspect of globalization. I think that we can have a globalized and sustainable world, but it is going to take a lot of education for everyone, and we may have to cut back on some of the neo-liberal practices in order to make this feasible. The main thing that I have come away with from this class is that globalization is not just a global issue, it definitely is a local issue as well. The impact of globalization is definitely seen on both the global and local economies, ecologies, and everything in between.

Individual statement: Dan Taber

Overall, I think that the most useful and interesting aspect of this class has been that it puts a face on many globalization issues that are far too easy to abstract. More specifically, the class has prompted me to think more carefully about guest work programs, alternative energy, and food production.

Though I support open borders in general, I had not given much thought to the dynamics of guest worker programs that have been used as a sort of intermediate option. Seeing the conditions of migrant agricultural workers in particular indicates to me that guest worker programs can in some ways be worse than either fully open or fully closed borders. These programs keep “guests” in such a precarious legal position that they are far too vulnerable to exploitation and are cut off from most of the safety net (such as it is in this country) that is enjoyed by most citizens. In my view, current policies are untenable and ought to be replaced, if not by fully open borders, then at least by policies that grant international workers legal status more similar to that of citizens.

Speaking with biofuel producers was interesting both because I was previously not especially familiar with the varieties of biofuel in production and because fuel production is an industry that is generally seen as the exclusively the realm of behemoth multinationals. Smaller companies like those we dealt with represent, of course, only a small fraction of the energy market, but they serve as an interesting counterpoint to the stereotypical energy company with no regard for anything but the bottom line. I am still not convinced of the long-term utility of most biofuels, but I am curious to see how the fuel and energy industry changes in the coming years.

The topic that has most influenced me personally, however, is food production, especially aquaculture. Though I am a biology student and am aware of the potential pitfalls of large-scale animal production, I must confess that I had not taken the time to investigate the details of seafood production, domestic or international. Now that I’ve learned more about the sustainability issues surrounding the aquaculture practices that are common abroad, I have become much more inclined to check labels. I have been convinced that this is one industry where “buy local” is more than a marketing strategy.

While I haven’t necessarily changed my stance on particular issues, I now have more data to consider. I still think that market-based strategies in most circumstances have the greatest potential for improving quality of life here and abroad, but our excursions and interviews have reinforced my view that it is also crucial to mitigate the negative side-effects of market-based economics and to intervene when markets don’t work.

As the human population continues to grow, increasing attention must be paid to sustainability. Sustainability, in brief, can be defined as consuming a resource within the limits of our ability to replenish that resorce and in an economically feasible manner. Though this guideline is applicable to essentially every human activity, we will focus on three specific areas where sustainability has become a particularly pronounced issue: food, fuel, and labor.

The sustainability of food production is by far the oldest of these issues. This problem was explicitly identified at least as early as 1798 by Thomas Malthus. Though Malthus misidentified the factors that affect the growth rate and wasn’t concerned with the ecological consequences of intensive farming, he correctly concluded that it is impossible to indefinitely feed a constantly growing population.

An additional complication to feeding a large population is that food consumption at a faster rate than crop and animal reproduction is unsustainable. Thus, as population increases, there are fewer ways of sustainably feeding the population. Martinez-Alier, for instance, contrasts the local, low-intensity seafood harvesting of villages in Latin America with the intensive shrimp farming that displaced the villages. Both practices are unsustainable. On one hand, the traditional methods are incapable of feeding large populations without depleting shrimp and fish populations. On the other hand, intensive aquaculture as it is practiced in Latin America is incredibly damaging to local ecosystems (mangrove ecosystems are particularly at risk) and endangers human health through irresponsible use of antibiotics.

Food supply problems are further exacerbated by changes in preferences in both the developing and the developed world. In countries like India and China, Martin notes, increases in income have resulted in increased demand for meat. As a rule of thumb, about 90% of energy is lost between every trophic level (every link on the “food chain”). Thus, producing grain-fed cattle yields only one tenth of the energy that would be available for human consumption if the grain were eaten directly—and this is before taking into account the infrastructure necessary for large-scale livestock production and the potential health risks of improper production methods.

Meanwhile in the developed world, in addition to the aforementioned problems caused by high demand for meat, the drop in seafood prices brought about by cheap imports have changed the perception of foods like shrimp. To paraphrase Rick Eager, what was previously considered a rare treat is now a staple in many Americans’ diet. This increased demand, combined with a blindness to the consequences of intensive, irresponsible aquaculture, has created additional economic incentives to engage in ecologically unsustainable production.

Another industry for which sustainability has become an increasing concern is fuel production. As with food, increases in population and increases in affluence have contributed to rapid growth in the demand for fuel and energy. This constant growth in consumption creates a problem that will not become readily apparent until we are, as president Benson put it, on the precipice. Chris Martenson explains the problem:

Applied to fuel consumption, this lesson demonstrates the folly of continuing to rely almost exclusively on fossil fuels; by the time serious shortages become apparent, there may not be enough time for economies to adjust without significant upheaval.

Furthermore, even if there were a limitless supply of fossil fuels, and even if there were 0% increase in consumption rates, continued use of fossil fuels at the current rate would still be unsustainable. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is consumed by plants and is normally released again when plants die and decompose. Occasionally, however, conditions are such that that carbon is essentially locked away, producing fossil fuels. By burning those fuels, that carbon is reintroduced into the atmosphere. If that emission occurs at a faster rate than the rate at which living plants consume atmospheric CO₂, the result is a net increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which poses the risk of significant climate change.

Biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel are appealing because they require little retooling of machines built with petrofuels in mind. This short-term convenience is accompanied by a number of drawbacks, however.

Biofuels are incapable of replacing petrofuels, given current consumption rates. Even the most optimistic estimates indicate that biofuels would only be able to replace one fifth of petrofuel consumed, and that’s assuming that all arable land is repurposed for the task.

The problem is compounded by biofuel’s high cost and low energy density compared to petrofuels. Not only does biofuel cost more per unit of energy, it also yields less energy by mass, increasing transportation costs (and environmental costs, as more fuel must be consumed during shipping).

Because of these limitations, biofuels are suitable only as a temporary stopgap to reduce fossil fuel consumption while other, more productive alternatives are explored. Whether the emissions decrease afforded by biofuels is enough to stave off environmental catastrophe remains to be seen.

When considering the sustainability of food and fuel production, it is also necessary to look at the sustainability of labor. The United States could probably be self-sustaining in terms of the unskilled labor force, however, suffice it to say that American are unwilling to work many of the “back breaking” jobs, and employers are not willing to pay the cost of hiring (and training) American workers. The Ford and Stone reading, “Economic Development and Globalization in South Carolina,” states that “South Carolina has traditionally been reluctant to pay for skill acquisition unless jobs were at hand, but, in fairness, far too many workers expect to land a job first and receive training and skill development once the job was at, if not in hand” (Ford and Stone 44). Because of this crazy anomaly, we rely on migrant workers for much of the unskilled (and in some cases skilled) workforce.

Many of the readings (as well as the stakeholders) discussed the export of labor. Many of the “exported,” migrant, workers are unskilled because there is a demand for them and they are willing to work more for less. This obviously leads to the exploitation of workers, which can be minimal (which was somewhat illustrated in the interview human resources person from Kiawah) or it can be an extremely horrid situation (illustrated in John Bowe’s chapters, Florida and Tulsa). However “bad” situations can prove to be for migrant workers, one could easily make the argument that the migrant workforce will continually be sustainable. This is because there will always be people who are at the very bottom of the economic and social ladder (especially in countries such as India) who are will to work hard for next to nothing. If a person does not have anything to begin with, it appears that they will be willing to do migrant work in any condition because it will be better than the conditions they face at home. Also, often times migrant workers are unskilled and uneducated. It is easily arguable that this fact alone makes the migrant workforce sustainable because there will be a self-perpetuating cycle of lack of skill and education, which leads to more migrant workers.

However, we can make the argument that although migrant workers themselves may be sustainable, the practices that lead to migrant workers are not sustainable. Population growth is not steady which itself can make the migrant workforce unsustainable; if the population growth declines, it is likely that there will be a decline in the number of migrant workers in the future. If the population increases, there may be more migrant workers, but the practices often surrounding the migrant populations may lead to health issues (disease, injury, etc.) which can lead to the decline in the migrant workforce, as workers may be sent home because they cannot work. We can also look at the sustainability of the migrant workforce in terms of food; as we already discussed as the population increases, so does the demand and consumption of food and adding migrant workers to an area that cannot sustain the basic needs of the “natives,” definitely cannot sustain the needs of the migrant workforce population. We also can assume that there will be increased negative environmental costs from relying on foreign workers because the “exporting” alone cause more emissions and pollution which in turn causes fuel sustainability to be an issue.

There are so many aspects of sustainability that can be discussed in terms of globalization. But, through the readings and the interviews with stakeholders, to us it seems that food, fuel, and labor force sustainability are among the most important!

 

Group: Quinn and Felicia

 

Environmental sustainability comprises a prominent part in defining sustainability across the United States and Europe, despite the complaints of industry at large.  This western classification is a new adaptation and has yet to affect the majority of the world.  The environment is generally not considered unless the repercussions to profit are grave.  The result is an uneven field of competition in the fishing, shrimping, and farming industries.  In this context, those who have not complied with the new understanding of sustainability have a competitive edge in the current capitalistic system.  Industries are willing to degrade the environment for the short term profit of their company.  Capital controls in the financial sector are aimed at controlling individual greed for the sustainability of the entire financial banking system.  Similarly, environmental mandates by the government are aimed at a securing the environmental stability.  Globalization has not been able to evenly spread this concept of sustainability.  Less environmentally regulated nations have contributed to the instability of the environment as a whole, but have improved their comparative advantage by maintaining low costs at the expense of the natural environment. 

Unfortunately, the effect of this unbalanced globalized concept has detrimental local economic consequences.  For example, Mr. Rick Eager of the Swimming Rock Fish Farm has the toughest restrictions on his fish farm of any other in the United States.  This is contributed by South Carolina’s increasing environmental concern; the ability to cultivate seafood products is arguably not cost effective for the majority of aqua-culture farmers.  Eager explains that these regulations have, coupled with foreign imports, driven all aqua-culture farmers out of business in South Carolina. 

The effects of environmental controls on local fishermen are felt more on their ability to cultivate and profit opposed to their foreign counterparts.  Local fishermen face the challenges of when, where, and how they can harvest.  The local fishing industry is overpoweringly at a disadvantage because they have to compete with imported shrimp and fish that have little to no regulations.  These differences are reflected in price, quality, and quantity available. 

On the other hand, the effects of environmental degradation in the name of profit are being felt by the native communities of countries who emphasize industry over environment.  Unfortunately, human suffering is coupled with poor environmental conditions in many underdeveloped countries.  A prime example of this can be seen in the destruction of the mangroves in South East Asian countries.  This devastation of the mangroves is done in the name of industry; which has not included the environmental aspects in their classification of sustainability.  Another example is emphasized in Barbara Garson’s book; Money Makes the World Go Around, in which Garson illustrates the toll that has been taken on the agriculture industry and aqua-marine environment.  The damage that was created was for the construction of an oil refinery which contaminated not only the water but the soil for local farmers.

Globalization does not uniformly affect all cultures, nations, and regions of the world.  This can be seen in the struggle for a safe environment with the need to maintain a competitive industry.  This overarching theme has affected both the quality of life in terms of health and income as well as free-market trade.   

 

 

 

Felicia Corsaro:

 

Prior to taking this course I was well aware of the overarching theme that globalization is not uniformed.  It is apparent that different cultures and areas of the world are all impacted on various levels depending on the scale of industry.  Capitalism is driven purely for cost-benefit, while local industries suffer the consequences of a market-driven economy.  It is obvious that resources are not infinite, even though affluent industries seem to act in the scheme of their economic sustainability.  These disparities between the environment and the will of industries will persist to be at odds.  I believe this is driven by the growing ambiguity and explicit agendas of the global community, the individual governments, and affluent industries who continue to ignore the intricate conflicts. 

Our trip to the labor camps on John’s Island really struck a cord.  I was disgusted to see the housing for migrant workers.  It was unclear if these workers were illegal or here on working visas, but those who are here on working visas should not subject to the living environment we visited.  I am unaware if legislation has been made that requires specific living arrangements for those here legally, but it was a real unjust image to see.  It is unfortunate that their living conditions here in the United States are a grave improvement to what these workers used to endure.  I realize it is almost impossible to create regulations and/or policies for these workers because it is such an ambiguous area for members of Congress.  As numbers increase in illegal immigrants, its negative impact on our economy will also rise to an unprecedented figure. 

On a lighter note (not really), we visited the Swimming Rock Fish Farm and were also visited by shareholders that were knowledgeable on the fishing and shrimping industry here in Charleston.  I was not aware of how drastically the importing industry has affected our local economy and businesses.  Unfortunately, due to the cheap cost of production and cultivation in Asian countries, it is less expensive to outsource, opposed to utilizing the local seafood environment.  Americans are so used to having what they want at the drop of a dime so for most Americans to realize the detriment of over-fishing and fishing regulations, it is kind of a lost cause.  What was really interesting is that Ms. Westmeyer touched on how SC lacks infrastructure, mainly driven by the lack of education and research of the issue.  Additionally, self-sufficiency and proximity is why we should utilize local seafood.  And we should make this apparent to the public, but Americans are lazy and hard-headed for the most part so it really is a conflicting, intricate area.  As long as the demand increases, international markets will flourish and will deteriorate local fishing and shrimping economies (like here in Charleston).  To add, I recently found out that in the last year, due to over-fishing and the increase of fishing regulations, that four of the most prominent deep-sea fishing companies have gone out of business; a once booming leisure activity in the Charleston harbor.  This was incredibly shocking because the cost of gas was not a factor in its demise.    

  The concept of globalization is that market is the primary organizing principle of life.  It is evident that globalization is intensifying in nature.  Its principles also go hand in hand with the concept of capitalism.  The premise to acquire sustainability for both capitalism and globalization is to have financial control that requires a specific agenda.   That agenda is reflected, threaded, and flourishes into both the local and global economy.             

           

 

 

 

   

 

Quinn:

 

The main objective of the “No Passport Required Globalization from a Community Perspective” is to bring home Globalization.  Where is globalization felt in the United States and specifically in South Carolina?  Globalization is a concept that is so often used and applied as general concept that it can seem a solely abstract concept.  When I say that this course was meant to bring home globalization I simply mean that globalization has been brought out of the upper atmosphere and down to the concrete of Charleston for our class.  The term, though it may seem abstract, has very real world consequences.  This class brought to light the fact that globalization is not only as far reaching as China or Argentina, but that globalization reaches as far as Charleston, South Carolina. 

With our readings we were able to have a brief but effective background on the topics which the class touched upon.  In class discussion, various interpretations of the readings were mixed with personal experiences and outside information of the students under the orderly guidance of the professor.  The gaps in our understanding were realized during this class discussion time. These gapes were articulated in the form of questions collected and asked to stakeholders who were involved in the fields of discussion. 

The structure of the class allowed for coherent conversations with locals who dealt with some aspect of globalization in a real way.  Whether that aspect of globalization was obtaining work visas or creating alternative sources of fuel with global motivations-namely, the wellbeing of the environment or promoting energy independence for concerns in national security-these stakeholders dealt with globalization in a real and tangible way.  The fact that common issues are also global issues was a personal epiphany for me.

As an undergraduate I’ve had very little opportunity to deal with people directly and this class did that while simultaneously emphasizing the importance of scholarly works.  Without the readings, the class would have found itself ill-equipped for dialogue with the stakeholders and without stakeholders the readings would not have been as relevant or interactive.  While I can confidently say I understand-for the first time-the effect of globalization on South Carolina, there is a greater comprehension this course requires.  First, understanding globalization locally creates a much better understanding of globalization in its entirety.  By seeing the specific effects in a way that is relatable and tangible, the abstract concepts that are derived from or rely on globalization become much more concrete.  Secondly-and more crucially overall-I have arrived at a greater appreciation for academic study and have a better understanding of the application of those studies.  Understanding the application of academic work makes academic material more accessible.

 

 

 

 

Throughout the course, a common theme emerged on how globalization is changing the look of local landscapes. Through globalization traditional land uses, which have created an image of a place, are shifting. This change of functional uses and historical images is causing citizens to redefine their homes and heritage in the context of a globalized world.

Both regional and individual images and identity are directly tied to geography and the land which they live and depend on. South Carolina has always had deep ties to the coast. The states geographical location and its coastal and agricultural resources were the foundation of society and commerce from the original settlers, who relied on the landscape to shape their lives and culture. The interaction between people and their location can be seen in many ways, such as relationships between people and nature, culture, economy, society, politics, and other people which are all interconnected into what makes a place.

Having heard from various stakeholders there is a clear sense of change throughout industry in the state. Traditional industries are having to adapt and respond to new foreign competitors and global markets which they can not avoid. This theme can be seen in both the dying SC shrimp industry and the uncertain future of the State Port Authority to the up-and-coming biofuel industry.

Local markets, somewhere in between thriving and struggling to hang on, are not immune to consumer preferences. Consumers have shown that price matters most, and they are not always loyal to local products. This being said, with imported shrimp costing less local shrimpers are struggling to stay afloat. Groups such as Wild American Shrimp and the SC Aquarium Sustainable Seafood Initiative have been created for the sole purpose of saving this traditional industry, not only for economical reasons but also for the sake of heritage. Their efforts are primarily to educate and persuade consumers to think twice before purchasing foreign seafood.

As the video Carolina Caught depicted, Shrimping is not only a historic industry, but also a way of life. Those involved in the family owned shrimp trawlers, community support through festivals and local cuisine show the deep ties between the work and the geography of coastal SC. Not only is shrimping a livelihood but a culture within itself.

Today though, while few communities fight to hang on, the majority of shrimpers have sold out for more profitable work. The image of trawlers on Shem Creek, while synonymous with the lowcountry, has turned into a nostalgic memory of the past.

Grimes and Yow, in their article, “Contesting Globalization by Reconstructing Markets: Florida’s Wild & Wonderful Shrimp Program,” suggested one way to attempt to save the local shrimping industry was to use the state as a marketer and facilitator of promoting local shrimp.  ETV’s Big Picture, offered the suggestion to include local shrimpers in aquaculture efforts.   Though both efforts fall short when the infrastructure is not in place to support their efforts; as we discovered, without processing plants and packaging plants within the state, local seafood has to travel to neighboring southern states to be processed and are thereby lost within those states catch.

Historic Shem Creek

Shem Creek Today

Considering notions of local spaces what would the low country look like without the shrimping industry?  For that matter, what would certain coastal areas in China, Indonesia, and Vietnam look like without the mangroves? The future has yet to determine final answers to these questions.

Another SC industry which is seeing the effects of globalization has been the changing landscape of ports and the shipping industry. In the Bowe piece, “Nobodies; Modern American Slave Labor and the Dark Side of the new Global Economy,” he states:

“According to the doctrine of free trade in an era of globalization, American workers now compete with foreigners.  As we move into a world of decreased trade restrictions, our incomes will perhaps fall-and then fall, and fall some more- until all workers around the planet earn similar pay for similar work.”

With that notion in mind, one might consider the Charleston State Ports Authority.  As discussed with our stakeholders, Mr. Riley, and VP of the ILA, the future of the Charleston docks are being threatened by both non-union workers as well as the new Savannah Port.  The Savannah Port boasts more storage space, convenient shipping and modern equipment.  Historically, Charleston has been known as a port city.  Early on, it was bigger than NY City and immigrants came through the Charleston harbor.  Once again, the city of Charleston was synonymous with the port.   But for fiscal reasons, state legislators have not prioritized the need to expand and update our local ports to handle to influx of goods attempting to enter our shores.  Without this expansion, some fear ships will go to other ports and Charleston will become obsolete.  According to Mr. Riley, longshoreman have been a traditional image in Charleston history prior to slavery.

As we witness these two fading images and how industries have responded in response to the land which they were based, South Carolina land also holds the potential for emerging new industry to stay competitive in the global economy. This shift will undoubtedly reshape the image of the state and the connotations of the lowcountry.

Moving into the upstate, life is also embracing changes and the future. Agriculture has traditionally consisted of images of cotton and tobacco. If biofuels take off as a viable alternative fuel the landscape of South Carolina is likely to shift again. While the biofuel industry is still emerging, it has potential to be a major fuel of the future replacing traditional fossil fuels. Upstate SC is remembered as vast tobacco and cotton fields but with switchgrass as a main source of biofuel, the image of cotton and tobacco will be a memory of the past.. With the importance of switchgrass in production, SC farmers have the opportunity to move into a new market and embrace the technology.

South Carolina fits into the larger regional image of the southeast and it is safe to say, will never forget its roots. Looking into the future, people’s relationship with the land will likely be constantly evolving and shifting in response to the rest of the world. Globalization may have the power to change production patterns, but a geographic location and its specific resources will always have intimate ties to the culture and lifestyles of its people.

Final thoughts on the course:

Mae Link

The course has shown a clear challenge South Carolinian’s face in trying to adapt and be competitive in a global economy while still staying true to their roots and holding tight to the states unique heritage. Each topic, while independent in their roles in society, was connected by common threads of people trying to improve their lives and those of future generations. Meeting with people who have experienced hardships firsthand and gone on to embrace a change and fight for what they believe in has been an inspiring experience and a call for social activism. While no stakeholder was in an ideal situation, they all played an active role in trying to maintain a standard of life which they believed it.

As a result of the course, I was disappointed to find few authors writing on alternatives to the overwhelming neoliberal development model promoted by the western world. The topic of “sustainable development” has emerged but still follows a capitalist framework. The success of a location and its people should be based on a more rounded view taking into account quality of life, education, healthcare, income, and other elements together with the state of the economy. South Carolinian’s have demonstrated their work ethic; however legislation and political leadership seem to be major setbacks based on the feedback of each stakeholder. With this discontent, it is hopeful that citizens will act through voting to protect their own interests and future.

It was powerful to put faces to the abstract notion of globalization and see how much living in a globalized world impacts each of our lives. The policies and practices of multinational corporations may seem far away but hit home when their actions trickle down to a local and individual level. In this respect, I think a true definition (while very hard to define) would include a key component of globalization as the increasing interdependence and interconnectedness of places around the world, creating a system in which events in one place and have significant consequences for individuals in distant parts of the globe. These implications have both positive and negative impacts, and are not always ideal.

The issue of inequality was particularly strong in the shrimping and labor rights sections of the course. It seemed all stakeholders involved (at least on the local, domestic side) realize that there are flaws within the current system, however there are few alternatives for change. Controversial issues will remain and it is difficult to please all parties in the search for a solution. Through balancing readings, which focused on the larger perspective on an issue, and first hand accounts showing local examples of these theories, the concept of globalization has become a bit more concrete with this course. The way issues are named and framed, and who is portrayed as a victim or a hero, can be quite different in reality than the general perception.

Sarah Nobles

The statement, “Globalization at its most basic level addresses human’s ability to manipulate space and thereby the relationships between places,” informed my thinking as we’ve discussed globalization’s effects on our local community.  As we looked at the Port and unions, the fate of the local seafood industry, immigration and guest workers, and finally the emergence of the biofuel industry in SC, I remained cognizant of traditional images of the Low Country.  It appears to be true, that South Carolina is, in fact, on a precipice.  South Carolina as my grandfather knew it, will most certainly not be the South Carolina my grandchildren will know.  While, in general that is the case for any geographic area, it is apparent that globalization is speeding up this process of ‘change.’

Our study of unions, transformed my opinion on the needs for them.  Prior to taking this class, I held the common notion that unions were a negative thing.  They were generally corrupt and they secured exorbitant wages for their ‘own.’  After listening to the stakeholders and reading the articles, I have determined that unions do much more.  They secure fair wages for often exploited workers, they secure safe working conditions, and they serve as a mechanism for workers address issues with company owners and leadership.

Our study of the migrant worker and guest worker program informed my understanding as to the fact that these workers often sacrifice much to come to the US and often are taken advantage of.  This is often a heavily debated issue and many have strong opinions on both sides, but the fact remains, they fill a need for labor that Americans in general don’t want to fill.  In saying that, I was skeptical at the practices described by the stakeholders who claimed to fill some of those jobs locally first.  Their claims seemed more plausible in agriculture as opposed to hospitality and tourism.

As with the shrimping industry, it was a shame to hear how the future of that local tradition is up in the air.  It has traditionally shaped the image of SC, so the idea of emerging industries, such as the biofuel industry as the new image, is still somewhat ‘foreign.’  Once again, historically, SC is synonymous with tobacco and cotton and in more recent times, tomatoes.  But to equate SC with switch grass is a stretch for me. Although, one bridge to that image could be our image of sweet grass and the sweet grass baskets.  As Dr. France put it, “globalization is not an inevitable thing, but people are having to respond and adapt to it.”

“I am a member of a team, and I rely on the team, I defer to it and sacrifice for it, because the team, not the individual, is the ultimate champion” – Mia Hamm

We exist on a global playing field, where each team needs to play to win.  Each country is her own team, with her citizens and commodities as the players and the ‘market’ is the coach.  Keep in mind, there’s no ‘i’ in ‘team’.  When a player isn’t performing well, whether that’s on the field or in a certain position,  the coach must make substitutions; put a player in that will perform well or move players around.  Each team must understand that there will never be a level playing field; a team will always be facing the sun or will play against faster players.  It’s part of the game.  The home team must know their opponent and understand her her own strengths, strategize and find a way to win.

Globalization, although it’s considered a very stiff competition, calls for team players from time to time, whether it is through partners gained through unionization or through government intervention, no one can do it all alone. Unions are good because there is obviously strength in numbers when pushing for change within the workplace.  Players of a specific position on the team must unite and work together to get ahead in the field. Employers will more readily adhere to demands and complaints from a group rather than just one person. Unions have done a lot to improve workers conditions, for instance, Professor Hopkins shared with us the fact that the weekend and the 40 hour work week was brought about by unions. He also pointed out a very important reason as to why South Carolina lags behind the majority of the country. He contributed that lag to lack active citizens. When groups of people come together to work towards a common goal more will be accomplished. Of course this is not always favorably looked upon by the employer because they feel that they are no longer in that coaching position to run things. They feel like the player has more of an advantage and will therefore, eventually over run them, which is not true at all.

Another aspect to being a team player is to know exactly who the members of your team are. One should know whether there are laws backing their needs because that will allow it to be seen if they have the support of the government, whether or not there are organizations that are fighting the same cause in order to see if there is awareness about the issue, or whether or not there are agencies designed specifically for that cause. By knowing these things it is easier to judge how big your battle is going to be. For instance, in the shrimping industry it is imperative that they understand that the shrimp farmers and the wild shrimpers are on the same team. They should be working as a team to market local shrimp rather than allowing the importation of international shrimp to take over the market and put them out of business; they should compliment each other.

There will never be a level playing field.  There will always be countries that can produce at a lower costs than others, whether it’s because they have cheap labor, better technology, or fewer governmental regulations.  Asian countries have been known for their cheap labor and lack of environmental regulations.  Martinez-Alier attributes the success of shrimp farming in Thailand to the absence of environmental restrictions; they’ve been able to destroy mangroves and ecological systems and produce shrimp in a location that is cheap and efficient.  This is their strength.  More developed countries find success in their technology and in knowledge-based service industries.  If one team is shorter than the other in basketball, they don’t lower the hoop for the shorter team.  However, when it comes to the team dynamic, the better player plays, no matter if they’re bigger, faster, stronger. If they can get the job done, then they play.  Having said this, Findeis urged for more relaxed restrictions on welfare so that migrant workers can collect and live a better life. This challenges the idea that there’s never going to be a level playing field.  In plyometrics, the player who is 6′5″ and the player who is 5′6″ jump the same box; the coach won’t give the shorter player a shorter box.

Globalization involves substituting players. Players get worn out, loose their spunk, and eventually will need to be replaced. If they get taken out, does not entirely remove them from the game. It just requires for them to step up to the plate and improve their skills or come up with new techniques. For instance, the situation with the migrant workers is just a substitution concept. Foreign labor has always been a substitution concept beginning with the African Americans for the Native Americans. The majority of migrant workers today are of Hispanic ethnicity and they are being substituted for the American workers who are unwilling to work certain jobs, such as agricultural work.

Substitution is not just limited to people though. Machines are also being substituted for manual labor. In the Findeis reading this is regarded as one of the best substitutions there is because he feels that as long as there is immigration farm workers will continue to depress wages thus [retarding] technological development and negatively influencing farm production in the original country and potentially leading to undesirable consequences. Substitution also comes in the form of switching skills. Because our economy is being drained by the cheap labor that is available in the international markets we must now switch our play. Instead of trying to be industrial based or knowledge based the best play as of now for this game would be to create a play for the service industry. That is the best route for us to take right now and would definitely keep us competitive for a while.

Substitution works best when the substitute player is comparable to the player being substituted. In the case of switchgrass substituting coal this is not the case and no matter how it is looked at switchgrass can not compete when it comes to the cost and longer endurance that coal possesses. Switchgrass is just not the best substitute player and should not be brought into the game until the last seconds when all hope for coal is played out.

There’s always a way to win. Teams just have to find it.  One way is to know your opponent’s weaknesses.  Sure, foreign shrimp fishers and farmers have cheap labor and almost no environmental restrictions, but they have their weaknesses too.  As we discussed in class, in most of the Asian countries, the younger workers go straight to unskilled labor rather that into the knowledge-based realm, thus stunting their technological growth.  The home team needs to realize this and capitalize on her own strengths, which happens to be the opponent’s weakness.  If the home team players, like biodiesel and switchgrass, aren’t playing well in the the U.S. part of the field , then send them to the other side, the European Union.  The SouthEast Biodiesel plants already sells to the UK and Carolina-Pacific is marketing their switchgrass to the UK as well because it sells.  They have government n that forces business and household to used these products; the U.S. hasn’t reach that point yet.  Finally, if a team is down, they mustn’t go down without a fight.  Gordon, representing Wild American Shrimp, talked about improving the equipment of the shrimp boats and partnering with universities.  Teams tend to win with the latest technology.  Andy Roddick doesn’t play with a wooden racquet from the 1950’s. He plays, and wins, a graphite/titanium racquet.  However, ‘going down without a fight’ does not mean trying change the way the opponent plays.  We discussed in class that it takes an extreme disaster to change the way the consumers buy.  Wild American Shrimp tries to highlight the quality and the ‘homeland’ aspect of the product but when it comes down to it, the wild American shrimp is still more expensive than the foreign product.

In conclusion, globalization is just a game. By knowing your playbook from front to back, which includes playing as a team, knowing and remembering that the playing field is never leveled, knowing when and what players to substitute, and by always playing to win, you can never lose. There may be times when you might be down a few points but by knowing the playbook you will always remain in the game not giving the competition a chance to feel that they have, can, or will defeat you.

E M M A ‘ S   P E R S O N A L   S T A T E M E N T

Coming into this course, I really did not have much interest in learning about globalization and of the effects of it in South Carolina. Coming out, however, I’ve gained new perspectives on the way the world works. I now realize that globalization really is at my doorstep and there’s no escape.

As much as I despise reading about things I really have no interest in, the reading for the course got me interested. They were easy to read and I never got bored. Sure, some of the authors had opinions and outlooks different than mine, but I still wanted to know what they thought. I find that it’s essential to read as many different views on whatever topic is at hand. I thought I understood unionization and the shrimping and biodiesel industries and I had my ideas on them. However, I came to realize that I really had no idea. I asked my educated, college friends how much they knew about these topics, and they were in the same boat as me. As much time as it took to read all the articles, I’ve come out with a better understanding of the way the world works.

I feel that the most important aspect of the whole Capstone experience was discussing issues with classmates. Each classmate came from different backgrounds and had different views on issues. It’s imperative in life to understand where people are coming from when they express their views. When I listen to what other people say, I really gain a lot of insight in how deep and complex the world is. The more I know about, the better I feel that I can understand it.

Field trips and stakeholder interviews are what really made the concept of globalization a reality. It’s something that affects everyone whether you’re a member of a tribe in the farthest corner of the undeveloped world or you’re the CEO of large corporation. Going to sites and asking stakeholders questions allowed for me as both a citizen and a future leader to understand the dynamics between the players of the free world.

I’ve had a truly unique experience at the College and I wouldn’t have wished to go anywhere else.

A L E X I S ‘ S   P E R S O N A L   S T A T E M E N T

Throughout my collegiate career as a political science major, globalization has been a big theme. Each year I learned more and more about what globalization is, how it directly affects my country, and the impact it is having on other countries. This class brought everything closer to home and opened my eyes to the realization of globalization. Until this class, I always viewed globalization as an entity that the media blew out of proportion and exaggerated to great lengths and to an extent I still think it’s exaggerated profusely.

From our field trips and conversations with stakeholders it is obvious that globalization has displaced many people but the way that I see it, this is only another form of evolution. I see globalization as one big evolution and evolution is inevitable. Throughout history people have always fought evolutions because they were either scared of change or just did not want to take the time to develop new skills, new markets, and new ideas and discussions with stakeholders reinforced that idea. The wild shrimpers did not want to change the way they fished and only work off of shrimp farms but they were all for developing new technologies to improve the way that they fished. Because they did not want to do change they had to find new ways to keep themselves competitive.

During this class we met with the people who were actually being displaced and those who were either replacing them or played a factor in replacing them. I liked the idea that a majority of the time we got a chance to hear both sides of the story and that the class was not generally geared at either promoting or debasing globalization. Class discussions definitely opened my eyes in different realms but it also solidified some of the ideas that I previously held.

I gained a lot from this class through the discussions, readings, and trips. It has definitely solidified my concept on how real globalization is and the direct impact that it has and will continue to have on my community specifically. It will cause me to look at the world differently when I see foreign workers, not negatively, but more inquisitively. Like what are their struggles, how are they being treated, and things of that nature. I don’t necessarily see it has a destruction tactic or an uplifting tactic. I still thinks its inevitable and that we must now just work on improving our habits.

             Every person identifies with a single or multiple cultures. Unfortunately, many of the world’s cultures have been negatively affected by globalism.  For years, a prevailing argument against capitalism and globalism has been that the western world used capitalism to force the peripheral states of the world to assume western principles and traditions.  At the height of the Cold War, capitalism pitted itself against communism in an epic ideological battle for world dominance.  Now, after capitalism won out, the western world’s ideology has spread to every corner of the world and for a period of time brought great prosperity to the United States and its citizens.  That trend has changed.  Globalization has turned the gun inwards, and local communities, all across America, are beginning to suffer the consequences of their very own capitalist system.  One of the most visible aspects of globalism in local communities is the loss of traditional jobs associated with the specific region or people.  Many of these local communities link the jobs being lost to their culture and way of life. 

            One of the most apparent ways globalization is changing local communities is through the seafood industry. Many places around the country have been catching and selling local seafood for decades and it is a way of life rather than a business. Now faced with challenges due to imported seafood products, domestic shrimpers and fisherman from North Carolina to Texas are being forced to decide whether or not to go out of business or to continue the tradition in the stagnant market. Globalization is blind towards cultural heritage. It has no interest in whether a culture survives as long as there is profit. From the human perspective citizens who are culturally tied to specific locations are facing a dilemma between perpetuating their culture by purchasing more expensive locally caught seafood or making the most economical choice by purchasing imported fish. This trap becomes wider in our current economic state.

            Another way that globalization is visible in local communities is through migrant workers. Other than the most apparent affects of migrant workers with their participation in the local labor market, there are many ways they are shaping local cultures as well. When migrant workers arrive in certain communities they bring with them their culture from home and begin to integrate their values into the local community. This is just one more instance in which globalization is leaving its foot print on local cultures in the U.S. Americans have also had to accommodate in many ways for the increase in immigrants which is also changing part of the culture we line in today. For example, almost every service in the U.S. is now offered in two different languages: Spanish and English. Maribel Santiago elaborated on the importance of culture even among the immigrants themselves when first entering the U.S. She explained how the location of immigrants affected who they socialized with and communicated with once they arrived in the U.S. at worker camps. This emphasizes the importance of location and brings up some challenges to the theory that globalization changes cultures and is watering down the importance of location.

            Globalization has traditionally been thought of as a form of westernization. Although this stigma still remains an overarching idea of globalization, American culture is now feeling the repercussions of their capitalistic ideologies. Local communities are now forced to defend their culture and suffer financial loss. Traditionally, differing cultures have associated themselves with specific traditions, norms and occupations of the region.  As globalization continues to grow there is the need for communities of people to make a push to preserve their culture.  If not, the role of local identities may lose their importance, and a capitalistic homogenized culture will become more apparent.

What is the American Dream?_________________________________________________________________

Globalization in Local Communities

Globalization 101

__________________________________________________________________

Alex Tureman

            Whether we realize it or not, globalization plays a central role in our lives and our local communities.  Gone are the days when a small town could live autonomous of the rest of the world (excluding the federal government).  In today’s world, where information, money, and product moves faster than any one person can keep track of, it is clear that the traditional lines that divided cultures are slowly becoming clouded.  Many people witness their communities and the customs associated with their community quickly losing ground and importance.  After the capitalistic snowball began to roll this process of cultural muddling quickly became apparent.  Industries see the potential for profit and do not allow something as menial as a community’s culture to get in their way.  The following post includes several personal viewpoints and instances regarding globalization’s effects on local communities and their cultures.

            Within the South Carolina shrimp and fish industry it is clear that globalization and lackadaisical trade policies have led to local shrimpers, and seafood farmers losing business and/or the ability to make profit in their time-honored occupations.  Seafood has traditional roots within South Carolina, both economically and culturally.  These cultural ties between South Carolinians, shrimpers, fishermen and the waters they work in are quickly becoming a thing of the past, as more imported shrimp and fish flood American markets.  These shrimpers, fishermen, and farmers are deterred by mounting debts, fuel prices, and underpriced market values.  The only way in which the shrimp and fish tradition of South Carolina can continue is if local communities band together in an effort to protect their quickly diminishing seafood culture.

            As globalization and capitalism tighten their grip on the world community, transnational corporations seek to make their individual footprints a piece of every culture.  A McDonalds in every corner of the globe does not mean that McDonalds is trying to make the world community in to a French Fry Nation.  Individually these transnational corporations are attempting to gain larger profits by expanding into other areas of the world, but as a whole, the league of corporations is attempting to capitalize the globe.  This “capitalization” of the world is gaining momentum via the product of western corporations.  The theory poses that if social nations begin accepting western goods and services, they will slowly begin to westernize their economic system, which will allow for the TNC’s to expand into those countries for the purpose of profit.

            When it boils down to it, capitalism is the seed that sprouted globalization.  At capitalism’s core is profit.  Profit is the only true moral or baseline theory backing a purely capitalistic system.  Globalization does not care if it destroys a culture if that would be profitable.  The South Carolina shrimp and fish industry realized this the hard way.  It is a cold, ever-expanding system that is uncontrollable at times.  It can be great, but in order to be great, it will require the efforts of a united global community.

____________________________________________________________

Sarah Khouri

            Before I took this course I had the idea that globalization did not really affect the United States as much as it affected other countries around the world. Now, I know this is not the case. There are many different ways that globalization can be observed in peoples lives. It can affect people culturally, economically, politically and much more. Since this course, I now realize many of these are observable right here in the state of South Carolina. One of the most interesting things I have learned about globalization is how it never looks the same across locations. Every state is affected in different ways and reacts differently from these changes. South Carolina is making changes and adapting differently from any other state and that is what makes location such an important factor when discussing globalization. Honestly, I was astonished by how much globalization is changing the city of Charleston more and more each day.

            One of the first ways globalization is visible in South Carolina is through migrant workers. What became very apparent through the readings and sites that we visited on John’s Island is that migrant workers are not receiving good treatment or pay. Before we visited these sites the exploitation and bad conditions immigrant workers receive seemed so distant but shortly I realized it is less than an hour away. Being a right to work state this makes this situation even more likely to affect the local workers in South Carolina. Workers in South Carolina already have a harder time unionizing and receiving high wages. It is hard to observe the long term affects this will have on workers in South Carolina, but they will not be good. The ways this is affecting South Carolina immediately is observable through population change and culture. With more and more people coming from other countries to the state of South Carolina they bring their culture with them. While this has not become a big issue right now, I do believe in the future their will be more discussion on this topic. Also, there is the issue of these foreign workers taking American jobs. While Mr. Lalich said this was not the case along with Mrs. Wall, there is still reason to have skepticism. The advertisement that Mrs. Wall said she was legally obligated to run was only for three days. It is obvious that the resort would prefer foreign guest workers because they are cheaper.

            Another aspect where globalization is visible in the state of South Carolina is in the shrimp industry. What is happening is the imported shrimp are much cheaper due to cheap labor costs and less regulations our local shrimpers cannot compete. The main component that shocked me about this issue is how there is not much being done to bring more awareness to people locally. To me, if people knew more about this issue they would be more willing to try and buy local shrimp. This seemed to be the case in Florida with the “Wild and Wonderful Shrimp.” This class also made me realize, with this particular situation, how contradictive the government can be on certain issues. For example, we want our aquaculture to have the highest regulations to where they cannot even afford to run anymore but then we allow imports from other countries that do not have any regulations. Also, with the issue of free trade we seem to be hypocritical. We promote free trade until it starts to hurt our people. I’m not sure how justified the tariffs that were put on certain seafood products from other countries really were.

            The seafood industry also brought me back to the issue of globalization and its affects on culture. For all of the classes I have taken in regards to globalization, I have never actually discussed its affects on culture locally. Most classes I have taken discuss Western culture being imposed on people around the world but never discussed the amount of culture that is deteriorating right here in the United States. This is one aspect of globalization that I was able to observe in this course. The main area this became apparent to me was in the seafood industry because of how local seafood and the seafood industry is a “way of life” for many people across the country. It is a part of tradition and people’s heritage. The idea of the crawfish industry in Louisiana and the shrimp industry in Florida and South Carolina not being able to compete with imported seafood products is part of the United States culture and our history disappearing. All of the topics that we discussed in this class were eye opening and hopefully I will be able to make some sort of difference by being more aware of what is happening here in South Carolina.

Ecological Sustainability

We’ve looked at the term sustainability through several lenses: the plight of the worker struggling to get by on limited funds, that of whole industries doing the same, and the relegated role of the environment as it attempts to shoulder the weight of capitalist mass production.  This final perspective, often overlooked in attempts to understand the world economy and its complexities, is certainly not unimportant; ultimately, its survival is our own.  In the past, it has been difficult to recognize specific threats to ecological sustainability.  Now, new technologies have brought the world under a microscope of sorts; consumers in America can now view the environmental practices used to bring fish to their tables and fuel to their vehicles with clarity and concern.  Mass production, and the trail it leaves behind, seems to be an inherent threat to the world’s ecosystems.  As the globalization trend continues to increase productivity, examples become both more abundant and obvious.

One of the most visible examples comes from foreign shrimp and fish farms, mostly based in Southeast Asia and South America.  In these traditionally underdeveloped nations, trade liberalization meant an opportunity to gain access to the world’s most coveted markets.  In many cases, they seized this opportunity with success; notably, in recent years Asian shrimp has flooded the American market, driving prices down and some American farmers out of business.  Their advantage over their American competitors was, and remains a matter of regulation.  Seeking low production costs, foreign farmers engaged in irresponsible environmental practices including the clearing of mangrove forests; further, this clearing was often made permanent when the use of chemicals including prophylactic antibiotics and steroids altered the local ecosystems to an extreme.  These fish farmers are not uniquely subject to blame, however.  Their governments should be equally implicated; by selling off previously public mangrove lands to prospective fish farmers, they rob local people of their livelihoods by destroying the environment that provides their subsistence.  Even further, the destruction of mangrove forests opens these locals to exceptional damage from hurricane and other ocean forces.  Of course, these actions are irresponsible on the parts of both the producer and its facilitator; regardless, both are driven by the need to accumulate capital in order to survive in a global marketplace.  And how does one accumulate capital in such a marketplace?  Production.

Another water-related example is a problem shared by most of the world: overfishing of oceans has occurred at unsustainable levels for decades.  As any nation’s commercial fishermen gained access to international markets, the need to produce higher and higher levels of yield has driven natural populations to their lowest levels in natural history.  Like any unsustainable trend, there exists a certain point at which sustainability is irretrievable.  In this case, in order to avoid this, innovation is necessary; people are not going to simply lower their demand for fish.  One potential answer to the problem lies in aquaculture.  One of capitalism’s better qualities is its ability to produce innovation; in this case, it could save the world’s ocean life in its hour of need.  But the lessons of sustainability learnt from the ocean must apply here, too.  Farmers like Rick Eager of Swimming Rock are leading the way in clean, efficient production of fish; others need to follow suite, under the watchful eye of a responsible regulatory mechanism.

Other problems arise from the need to, quite literally, fuel production.  Those caused by human exploitation of naturally occurring fossil fuels are better known; those caused by the search for a viable alternative, in this case biofuels, are less recognizable.  Whatever the reason for its rise, be it sincere responsibility or carefully marketed profiteering, the mass production of biofuels would put a strain on any of the world’s ecosystems in which it is carried out.  For example, the relative inefficiency of known feedstocks for biofuels dictates that mass amounts must be grown to produce even a reasonable output; to do so, tracts of land must be cleared to provide room for growth, potentially causing a net gain in the atmosphere’s carbon emissions.  Feedstocks are often grown out of their natural habitats and in monocultures, raising the possibility for devastating blights or the like.  So much land will need to be cultivated in order to raise feedstocks that food production will either decline or have to be shifted elsewhere; this strain on the world’s ecosystems is one that has already been felt by its inhabitants, primarily humans in terms of global food prices increases and shortages.

Of course, these are just several of the ecological issues associated with mass production and its driving force, globalization.  In the modern world information can be easily accessed about them, and consumers should make informed decisions regarding their connection to potential environmental impacts.  Ultimately, the power lies with those that pay the offending corporations for their efforts in production; perhaps a slow in demand for those least sustainable products can ultimately result in higher production standards the world over.

- Sam Bolz

Over the course of the past three weeks, we as a class have been exposed to a small segment of the contemporary conceptualization of globalization.  Furthermore, we have been introduced to the effects of globalization on the local community of Charleston, South Carolina and its surrounding communities.  From the shores of John Island to the streets of North Charleston, the ‘Lowcountry’ is being incorporated into a global community; where economics, culture, and politics are intertwined.

What one person or one country does on the other side of the world has the capability to affect the day to day realities here in the United States.  Irresponsibility on the part of individuals and collective industries affects everyone in the broader global community.  Some shrimp farmers and the greater aquaculture industry compete for better and more profitable yields of seafood produce – all the while ignoring the realities that what they engage in is not unsustainable in an ecological context.  It is not my assertion that all aquaculturists are irresponsible, however ignoring the reality that there are a considerable number of aquaculturists who do will not make it self-correct or dematerialize into the white noise of globalization.

Mass production, but in this case, mass consumption and production without standards or mandates to protect the ecology of respective aquacultural sites will lead to ecological problems which will not be easily resolved with quick ‘fixes.’  Irresponsibility could lead to the complete demise of the aquaculture industry in certain regions of the world – not to mention the potential harm that irresponsible aquaculture could do to other people in those communities (e.g. agriculture, suitability of water for human consumption, potential for the extinction of indigenous species).  The utilization of excessive harvesting, pesticides, and antibiotics have broader implications for the community as a whole – and not necessarily the aquaculture industry alone.

Beyond the issue of aquacultural sustainability, the global community is addicted to petroleum – this is reality, like it or not.  From this reality, the biofuels movement took off with a goal for making agricultural feedstocks, among other things, the newest cash-cow of the energy industry – and attempting to secure some sense of energy independence from the petroleum addiction.  The world, and the United States in particular, has developed an addiction over the course of more than one hundred years – an instant fix of biofuels working in concert with other alternative energy sources like solar, hydroelectric, and wind energy is highly unlikely.  The biofuel industry – and by extension, the biodiesel industry – utilizes feedstocks as a backbone for production (e.g. corn, soybeans, etc.).

It just so happens that these very same feedstocks are being used to feed a global population of close to seven billion people.  From this realization, you must ask whether or not an emerging energy industry can effectively tap into this massive demand for feedstocks used to feed the global community.  Last year, we witnessed food riots across the globe in response to the spike in basic food staples – which was only augmented by the fact that many in the agriculture industry opted to use their conventional feedstock yields for the emerging biodiesel market in an attempt to profit off the unprecedented demand for alternative fuels.  This can not be a coincidence.  This event was one in a preliminary stage of development.

Yes, the floods in the American Midwest only amplified the problem, but the reality is that it was not the sole origin of the problems confronting the world on the issues of energy and sustenance.  In the end, we must inquire as to whether the current methodologies in practice by the biofuel/biodiesel industry are sustainable with the current and projected demands on the broader agricultural community for food – and if last year’s riots were any indication, I would dare say it is not.  Issues over energy yields and energy requirements for the production of biofuels is still one which demands scientific inquiry – the conventional assessment is that some biofuels are not comparable, energy-wise, to the traditional coal, gasoline, and oil.  Is this a practical alternative resource – one that uses more energy to be produced than it eventually yields? This alone does not foment an environment in which the global community can effectively transfer over to a sustainable energy resource – and it’s open to debate whether biofuels, as they are produced now, are sustainable over the ‘long haul.’

With respect to the air, irresponsible agricultural practices such as the ’slash and burn’ method of clearing land for agricultural utilization are not even remotely sustainable.  Beyond destroying micro-environments for incredibly unique species of plants, animals, fungi, etc., we actively dismantle the planet’s capacity to recycle ‘green house’ gases.  Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a common pollutant that originates from our global community’s self-imposed necessity for travel – not to mention CO2 being a byproduct of organic respiration of many species, including ourselves, in the process of sustaining organic life.  It just so happens that plant life on this planet requires CO2 in the process of its maintaining its organic metabolism.  So when we clear cut land for development and agricultural use, we also neutralize natural resources for keeping ‘green house’ gases ‘in check,’ so to speak.

One plant’s demise is not going to affect the greater ecology of the planet, but the destruction of large swaths of tropical rainforest will most definitely alter the ecological dynamics of the globe.  With less plant life to absorb CO2 into its metabolic cycles, the majority of which is located in tropical regions, the more ‘green house’ gases we will have to contend with in the atmosphere as a result of our dependence on transportation that emits gases which warm the planet’s atmosphere – and by extension, us as a community.

The issues that confront the global community are not mutually exclusive.  In many ways, we have created the problems we find ourselves faced with in the 21^st century – and irresponsible resource management is in no way playing a marginal role in it all.  By altering the dynamics of one industry, one community, we alter the dynamics of other industries and other communities in our increasingly globalized world.  Sustainability of industries and products are open to interpretation and respective opinion – but if it is not sustainable, wishful thinking will not change that reality.  Responsible resource management, progressive scientific inquiry, and an understanding of global interconnectedness in association with big-picture ’cause and effect’ patterns will be the best possible ‘renewable’ resource.  Knowledge and responsibility are resources we ourselves control – these are the best possible resources for insuring we will have finite resources available to us in the future to benefit from.

- Ryan Thomas

Ecological Sustainability and Mass Production

Ryan Thomas and Sam Bolz

Over the past 2 weeks, several topics in particular focused on the centuries-old conflict between industry and the environment.   In a modern sense, the ongoing trend of neoliberal globalization is driven by one relevant motivator – profit.  In order to accumulate significant wealth, production must occur at an exponentially higher level than the wealth it generates.

The effects of this mass production, coupled with the modern capitalist’s blinding need for profit, has resulted in the destabilization of ecosystems throughout the world.   On the land, in the seas, and in the air, the detrimental effects of human economic activity are easily identified by modern technology.

Ultimately, the mass production of goods is inherently unsustainable for the environments which support it.  Humanity must realize this and adapt; we must remember that without a sustainable environment, human existence is unsustainable as well.

LAND

After recently entering into the world’s liberal capitalist marketplace, previously underdeveloped nations attempted to access developed markets with one strategy – low production costs.   For example, take the Southeast Asian seafood farming industry – in a bid to maximize profit, both private corporations and governments turned a blind eye to ecological sustainability, resulting in predictable devastation for public lands and those that inhabit it.

Mangrove forests, once sources of subsistence and natural defense for local inhabitants were cleared for farm set-ups.  The use of prophylactic antiobiotics and steroids to increase output has ruined many of these lands permanently – unsustainable for the environment, and unsustainable for people, all in the name of profit.

Below, a former mangrove swamp cleared and utilized by Asian aquaculture operation.

AIR

Carbon emissions, the primary culprits behind the global warming trend, are perhaps the most public of mass production’s negative consequences.  In order to combat these, “clean” fuels like biodiesel have recently emerged, seeking to carve out a corner of the world’s fuel market.

The truth behind biofuels is that, in all modern cases, their production is not sustainable.

The image to the left would have you believe that biofuels are sustainable.  A closer look reveals a different reality – the planes, trucks, and cars produce carbon dioxide, to be “filtered” by…….the biomass being cut down for fuel sources, and to provide land to grow feedstock?

Feedstocks are inefficient and demand land-clearing in order to avoid a significant decline in world food production.  In undeveloped nations lacking strict regulations, deforestation for feedstock can occur unchecked, resulting in a net positive of carbon emissions in the atmosphere as a result of biofuel production.

SEA

Mass overfishing of the world’s waters has occurred for decades, even centuries.  Such an unsustainable trend has reached an apex.  Soon, what is unsustainable for the ocean will be unsustainable for humanity – our supply of seafood will plummet drastically unless an alternative is assumed.  Please refer to the guy from Reno 911 for a brief, but gravely important message regarding overfishing:

Enter aquaculture.  In developed states with strong environmental regulations, aquaculture has emerged as a potentially sustainable industry of the future.  However, in those states which disregard such regulations in favor of cheap, rapid production and high profit, aquaculture is clearly unsustainable.

CONCLUSIONS

Our primary conclusion is that the mass production of goods, when driven by the exclusive desire for profit, almost always results in a disregard for the environmental conditions surrounding an industry.  The examples offered by this blog post are only a few out of a seemingly endless list, readily available via modern technology.

In order to combat this trend, change is necessary.  While the replacement of the capitalist economic system is perhaps unnecessary, revision is needed – and quickly.  Regulations on production, as seen in the EU, US, and other Western states, need to be strengthened and replicated on a global scale.  People often talk of “levelling the playing field” – it should be levelled, with higher standards for all people and ecosystems.

Commitment to alternative energy is a positive step, but responsible insight into the energy used to produce such energy sources must be committed as well.

The one renewable resource we,  as a collective, global community, is the dessimination of knowledge – and by extension, a emphasis on individual and collective responsibility.  We can not make natural resources, organic or otherwise, infinite resources – but we can control these resources through effective resource management.  With responsible management and appreciation of our resources, we will be able to make finite resources one step closer to being infinite resources, figuratively speaking, if not literally.

Ultimately, the answer to ecological sustainability is a revision of our consumption habits.  With the abundance produced by liberal capitalism in the last half century, people have learned to demand, even to expect, unsustainable levels of goods and services from all industries.

This morning we traveled to the former Navy base in North Charleston to witness first-hand what some might view as the future cash-cow of energy, biodiesel. While we as a culture have yet to fully embrace it as an alternative resource, the reality is that petroleum is a finite resource; which will one day no longer be able to sustain our civilization as a primary energy resource.

As we walked through the SouthEast Biodiesel Plant, I must admit, it was not what I anticipated. I did think to myself a few times, “if I had some extra funds available, I might consider investing in an operation like this…,” but then it hit me, the issue of sustainability. Feedcrops are a cornerstone to the contemporary biodiesel operation – and that is very touch and go. With that ‘touch and go’ reality, I have to question whether biodiesel meets the criteria for being considered a sustainable resource.

In the Pahl E-Reserve, “Biodiesel 101,” it stated that biodiesel, at best, might be able to compensate for approximately 10% of the world’s current demand for oil. Furthermore, beyond the small percentage, I have yet to see any evidence that efforts to refine biodiesel as a viable product is sustainable – even when possibly coupled with other alternative, sustainable resources like solar and wind energy. Electric energy (e.g. electric cars), due to its demands on power grids and plants, is also a questionable ’sustainable energy’ resource of the future in itself let alone coupled with biodiesel.

Alternatives to utilizing feedcrops such as cooking oil from restaurants were discussed, however I’m still not sold on the sustainability issue. Yes, I was impressed with biodiesel’s interesting qualities such as being resistant to explosions or fire and being “cleaner” than conventional ‘gas’ products utilized in combustible engines on the roads today. I was even impressed with the assertion that biodiesel is safe to drink – though it may give you the “runs” – I will not test that theory myself.

As for the moment, I see feedcrops being the backbone of the biodiesel movement. In extension of that, it does not seem logical or practical to invest resources and effort into producing something that does not yield more energy than it took to produce. Concerns over food crops being ‘dumped’ in favor for the production of biodiesel crops should also be questioned in the assessment of biodiesel’s sustainability.

Access to water, climate change, and rainfall should also be considered in the assessment of biodiesel’s potential for long-term sustainability. I’m interested in the idea of a alternative resource, however biodiesel has inherit flaws and benefits; which in the end, will have to be weighed next to one another. Do the benefits outweigh the flaws and risks of converting an entire society to a potentially unsustainable resource like we are currently finding ourselves facing. If we do this conversion, lets do this right – and not find ourselves facing one shortage then another.

More research and study is warranted into biodiesel production; but from what I’ve seen and heard today at the biodiesel plant, I have my doubts about sustainability without the commitment of resources (if available to begin with at all) and the public’s willingness to take the next step towards a resource that may guarantee a cleaner environment, energy independence, and energy sustainability.