Charles states that globalization leads to “rising affluence” which is an important prerequisite to environmental improvement. Though economic growth through industrialization causes air and water pollution in the beginning stages, countries later become rich enough to purchase corrective technology. Mander disagrees and points to evidence which shows that most of the benefits of industrialization goes to the global corporations which have no motivation to invest in studies. Mander’s argument seems to be more realistic because corporations which invest in developing countries only do as long as it serves their gain.

Charles claims that global corporations, when setting up their facilities, consider it more important to go after access to markets and low labor costs than to search around for “low environment regulations.” Also, that managers of global corporations tend to maintain high environmental standards. Mander refutes this argument by establishing that one agent of globalization, the World Trade Organization,has repeatedly challenged laws protecting the environment. The WTO’s first action was to challenge the US Clean Air Act which contained a clause against polluting gasolene. So it seems that even though global corporations put up a façade of only seeking markets and labor, they are working through their agents like the WTO, to soften stringent measures supporting the environment before attempting to set up shop.

So, in examining these two opposing viewpoints on the impact of globalization on the environment, we see that, superficially, they both have strong arguments. Charles claims that the increased wealth of countries, through global industrialization, will lead to clean air and water, eventually, through the introduction of corrective technologies. Mander states that this is not so because the foreign corporations reap the major profits from these business ventures, and if anyone should spend to clean up the mess it should be them; but they have little need to spend money for this. If a country has a natural resource but does not have the financial capabilities to exploit it, then it could allow a foreign corporation to help. However, it should maintain the protective measures to preserve its ecological status quo and force that corporation to operate within those guidelines, for the welfare of its citizens. Mander’s criticism is valid because he shows how global corporations exploit foreign countries for profit and disregard environmental considerations.