Globalization has been the defining trend in the closing decade of the 20th century and the dawn

of new millennium heralding a new era of interaction among nations, economies and people. Globalization has a deep historical root. Economic historians date the modern era of globalization to approximately 1870. The period from 1870 to 1914 is often considered to be the birth of modern world economy. The first modern stage of globalization was followed by two additional stages, one from late 1940s to mid 1970s and another from mid 1970s to present. Globalization is an on-going process of global integration that encompasses (i) economic integration through trade, investment and capital flows; (ii) political interaction; (iii) information and information technology and (iv) culture. Economic globalization impacts the environment and sustainable development in a variety of ways and through a multitude of channels. At the Ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization in Seattle in November 1999, some protestors wore turtle costumes while launching the first of the big anti-globalization demonstrations. Subsequently, anti-globalization protests became common at meetings of multinational organizations. EFFECTS OF GLOBALISATION ON THE ENVIRONMENT Direct environmental effects are generated by the use of new technologies for agriculture Industry and energy, by the exploitation of hitherto untapped renewable and non-renewable natural resources, by the creation and dispersion of new biological forms and by the release of new substances into the environment. Indirect environmental effects are generated by the social, economic, political and demographic adjustments driven by the wave of new technology, which has resulted in changes in prices and demand, the social organization of work, production systems, employment, the international division of labor, services and the location and nature of human activities and settlements. Pollution Haven Effect (PHE), This research conclude that if anything, trade liberalization has shifted U.S. industrial composition toward dirtier industries, by increasing imports of polluting goods by less than clean goods, a result at odds with the popular sentiment that trade liberalization has shifted dirty industry out of the US and into its less developed trading partners, but consistent with the proposition that the United States has a comparative advantage in dirty goods. By a mathematical explanation it can be proved that, trade will lower national emissions if and only if the expanding sector is relatively less pollution intensive. Let, the countrys total emissions Z. Z = eEQE+eCQC.

where indicates changes, ei indicates emission intensity in sector i and Qi is output. If, for example, prices were equal across sectors, then an income- and scale-preserving reallocation of resources across sectors would require QE=-QC, such that the change in

emissions can be written as Z = [eE-eC]QE. That is, trade will lower national emissions if and only if the expanding sector is relatively less pollution intensive. Antweiler, Copeland and Taylor (2001) and Copeland and Taylor (2001, 2003a) represent an extensive body of empirical research explicitly focused on the effects of trade on the environment. They conclude that trade liberalization that raises the scale of economic activity by 1 per cent works to raise SO2 concentrations by to %, which results a great environmental degradation -- such as SO2 pollution, which is responsible for acid rain, or water pollution, which flows downriver. Not only SO2 pollution, due to globalization co2 emission have also increased tremendously. the total CO2 emissions of the Latin American and Caribbean energy sector (not including emissions of biotic origin) have risen steadily since 1970. If this increase is correlated with economic growth using the index of emissions per unit of DP, it transpires that the 2000 level was 16% higher than the 1970 one, largely because of the steady increase observed since 1985.

In the late 1990s, Latin America and the Caribbean accounted for 8.5% of the worlds population and 4.5% of world GDP. As regards greenhouse gas emissions, total world CO2 emissions grew by 6.5 billion tons in absolute terms over the 25 years that followed the first oil shock. The contribution of Latin America and the Caribbean to total world CO2 emissions is still low, but the regions share of this total grew from 2.6% in 1973 to 3.8% in 1999. The share of other regions has increased more, with that of China doubling from 6% to 12.7% in the same period, while that of the rest of Asia tripled. Though it was late but after all the world leaders have understood the fact and took necessary steps. In the Reformulated Gasoline case, Venezuela and Brazil brought a complaint against the US alleging that the Gasoline Rule, promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act, which excluded importers from exercising two alternatives for determining the appropriate fuel content that were available to domestic refiners, violated the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) as an unjustifiable barrier to trade. In 1996, the Appellate Body of the WTO determined that the reformulated gasoline rule did violate GATT as it subjected Venezuelan and Brazilian refiners to potentially more stringent requirements for fuel emissions than domestic refiners and was, therefore, in violation of Article XX exceptions.

In the Tuna/Dolphin case, US import restrictions on tuna caught with unsafe nets and techniques were struck down under the GATT rules as an illegal barrier to trade. Under the Marine Mammals Protection Act of 1972, the US restricted the importation of tuna caught using methods that killed dolphins. The restrictions effectively imposed a barrier to trade on tuna caught in Mexico as a result of the ban on such importation. Mexico successfully argued that the ban served as an illegal barrier to trade under GATT and that the US could not extraterritorially regulate in the name of the environment.

In 1996, the US Court of International Trade ordered the prohibition of shrimp importation from all countries that had not adopted harvesting methods comparable to the US methods, which included Turtle Exclusion Devices to prevent further mortality of endangered sea turtles. India, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Thailand brought issue with these Guidelines at the WTO. In 2001, upon Appellate review, the WTO issued the ruling in the Shrimp/Turtle case, upholding, for the first time in GATT history, unilateral trade restrictions to conserve extraterritorial natural resources. The restrictions were upheld under the General Exceptions in GATT Article XX. The outcome is contrary to that in the Tuna/Dolphin dispute as sea turtles had been listed by the United Nations as threatened with extinction. The Basel Convention on the Control of Tran boundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, the Montreal Protocol on the Ozone Layer, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Framework Convention on Climate Change and its related Kyoto Protocol all cite technology transfer as a critical method for achieving concrete environmental improvements. Agenda 21 also underscores the importance of technology transfer to sustainable development. In the public debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement, one of the most prominent concerns of opponents was the pollution that had already accompanied industrialization in northern Mexico, particularly among the maquilladoras along the border, which in turn was a result of the ability to trade with the United States. The final agreement departed from previous U.S. trade agreements, or those in most other parts of the world, by taking into account environmental concerns, at least in a small way. The preamble includes environmentally friendly language, such as a stipulation that the

NAFTA goals are to be pursued in a manner consistent with environmental protection and conservation. Chapter 7B allows the member countries to continue adopting sanitary and phytosanitary standards. Chapter 9 allows countries to set whatever environmental standards they want, provided only that they do not discriminate or discourage trade unnecessarily. The most effective law were given by Kyoto-protocol,1997, article 12. According to that The Poisonous and Deleterious Substance Control Act, Law No.303 of 1950 (Poisonous and Deleterious Substance Control Act) would require any person involved in the separation and capture of CO2 to: take all necessary emergency measures; and notify the police, fire department and health care centre where there was a leak, spill or other incident involving the poisonous substances NaOH or KOH used during the CO2 separation and capture process, which may harm the health of the public (Article 16-2(i)). Further, as the substances NaOH and KOH are regulated by the Poisonous and Deleterious Substance Control Act, under this law any CCS facility using these substances to separate and capture CO2 must: take the necessary measures to prevent against the theft or loss of these hazardous substances (Article 11); ensure appropriate labelling as a hazardous substance on containers (Article 12); establish technical standards for the transport, storage and handling of the NaOH and KOH (Article 16); and ensure necessary emergency measures have been provided for, to prevent against damage to public health in the case of leaks, spills etc (Article 16-2).

So overly, we can understand that globalization causes a great degradation to our environment. So we all should together protect our environment.
These constructs that were living in noweconomic globalization based on the growth

imperative is killing the planet. Its dividing the Earth into rich and poor.

References
Adams, J. (1997). "Globalisation, trade, and environment." Globalization and Environment, OECD Proceedings, OECD: Paris. Bhagwati, J. and T.N. Srinivasan (1997). "Trade and the environment: Does environmental diversity detract from the case for free trade?" in Bhagwati, J. and Hudec, R., (eds), Fair Trade and Harmonization: Prerequisites for Free Trade? Vol. 1: Economic Analysis MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Charnovitz, Steve. 2002. A World Environment Organization. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 27 (2):323362. Esty, Daniel C., and Maria H. Ivanova. 2002. Revitalizing Global Environmental Governance: A Function-Driven Approach. In Global Governance: Options & Opportunities, edited by D. C. Esty and M. H. Ivanova. New Haven, CT: Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.