Globalization and its effect

          The processes of globalization are constant and even irreversible today. We can observe their results in all spheres of people’s life. If spite of that the questions of globalization invoke more and more discussions.
          So how can we explain what globalization is? There are lots of its definitions. For some people globalization is associated with erasing of borders between countries , simplifying and speedup of making bargains. For others it’s creating, development and spreading of unified culture and values. Generalizing different opinions we can note that globalization is a condition when the entire world functions as a single system and each country makes own and special contribution into its work.
          Of course it’s impossible to define uniquely whether globalization is good or bad. It has lots of supporters and opponents. Let’s have a look at the influence of this process on different aspects of modern life and try to note its positive and negative sides.
          First globalization has a great influence on state economics. The appearance of multinationals is one of its consequences. Today all the world knows lots of different brands. Wherever you are, you’ll more likely have an opportunity to eat at a fast-food restaurant MacDonald’s. You can wash down your dinner with Coca Cola or Lipton tea. As you see products of multinationals is offered in every country practically. These firms offer a great amount of working places. Corporations are engaged in charity sometimes.
          But at the time the multinationals prosper little firms often incur losses. Actually it’s sometimes very difficult to resist in competition with worldly recognized companies. As a result there is some aggregation and concentration of capitals in the hands of multinationals’ leaders. Though there is a question if it’s that bad? The business of such companies is quiet stable; therefore it promotes in some ways economical growth.
          Another one peculiarity of globalization is speedup of life rhythm. There is an impression that distances among countries shorten. Today the trips for a couple of days on hundreds of kilometers have become a norm. And if it was considered to be a great distance then now it’s not a problem. From the other side such things condition increases the opportunities of emigrants wishing to leave their country to live in another one. There is a new problem with this moment. It’s a “brain drain” problem. Some countries lose their highly specialized professionals in the end, and the costs for their education become ineffective for the state. Though for the side accepting professionals it’s quite favorably.
          Cultural peculiarities change with globalization too. They unify in some ways. Besides the mutual penetration of cultures and their exchange take place. For example being in Russia you can find Chinese, Japanese, Georgian, French and many other restaurants. With such means the inhabitants of one country get an opportunity to get acquainted with national peculiarities of other states. At the same time young generation is under big influence of American culture which appears in modern cinema, music etc.
           But there is a negative side here. Unfortunately preferring unified world culture we sometimes forget about our own one. Traditions and customs are being lost. The youth stops to be interested in them. Besides less attention is paid to the development of the country culture in its own unique destination.
          The world economics theory proves that the most effective condition is achieved on an open market. But unfortunately the total world effectiveness is estimated here. Speaking of one country the conclusions can be quite the opposite. Sometimes there is a decrease of profits when branches which are not so well developed as in other countries come to an open market. These branches incur losses and even stop functioning in the end. And for the whole state that means a partly loss of independence from foreign suppliers. Though developed countries win here of course. They increase the sphere of their influence and enlarge the areas of their markets.
          The consequence of globalization is appearance of a flock of different international organizations which try to collaterally solve economical, political, ethical and many other problems. Though here the extent of countries’ influence on making decisions often differ.
          And the governments must carry on competent international politics. Each state needs an interaction with other countries. But they should open the broads and merge with the world in the degree when the state can worthy compete with other participants of the world market.

Globalization. History. Good and Bad Sides.

Your shirt was made in Mexico and your shoes in China. Your CD player comes from Japan. You can travel to Moscow and eat a Big Mac there and you can watch an American film in Rome. Today goods are made and sold all over the world, thanks to globalization.
Globalization lets countries move closer to each other. People, companies and organizations in different countries can live and work together. We can exchange goods , money and ideas faster and cheaper than ever before. Modern communication and technology, like the Internet, cell phones or satellite TV help us in our daily lives.
Globalization is growing quickly. A German company can produce cars in Argentina and then sell them in the United States. A businessman in Great Britain can buy a part of a company in Indonesia on one day and sell parts of another business in China the next, thanks to globalization. Fast food companies open shops around the world almost every day.

History of Globalization
Globalization is not new. For thousands of years people have been trading goods and travelling across great distances. During the Middle Ages, merchants travelled along the Silk Road, which connected Europe and China.
The modern age of globalization started with the Industrial Revolution at the end of the 18th century. New machines were able to produce cheaper goods. Trains and steam-powered boats transported products farther and faster.
Since 1980, globalization has been moving at a faster pace. Today it is easier for companies to work in other countries. The Internet gives them the chance of reaching more customersaround the world. Teleworkers work for firms that may be far away.
However , there is a growing debate over globalization. Governments are in favour of globalization because the economy can grow. Other people are not so sure that there are only advantages. Here are some arguments from both sides:

Good sides
Globalization lets countries do what they can do best. If, for example, you buy cheap steel from another country you don’t have to make your own steel. You can focus on computers or other things.
Globalization gives you a larger market. You can sell more goods and make more money. You can create more jobs.
Consumers also profit from globalization. Products become cheaper and you can get new goods more quickly.

Bad sides
Globalization causes unemployment in industrialized countries because firms move their factories to places where they can get cheaper workers.
Globalization may lead to more environmental problems. A company may want to build factories in other countries because environmental laws are not as strict as they are at home. Poor countries in the Third World may have to cut down more trees so that they can sell wood to richer countries.
Globalization can lead to financial problems . In the 1970s and 80s countries like Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia or Brazil got a lot of money from investors who hoped they could build up new businesses there. These new companies often didn’t work, so they had to close down and investors pulled out their money.
Some of the poorest countries in the world, especially in Africa, may get even poorer. Their population is not as educated as in developed countries and they don’t have the new technology that we do.
Human, animal and plant diseases can spread more quickly through globalization.

Many experts say that we need a different kind of globalization in our world today. There must be ways to make sure that all countries profit from the good sides of globalization. We should help poorer countries by giving them better education and showing them how new technology works.
Every year, leaders of the world’s biggest industrial countries get together to discuss economic problems. This meeting is called the G8 summit. In the last few years groups against globalization have organized protest marches and demonstrations to point out that not everyone is happy with how the world’s economy is developing.

GLOBALIZATION Глоссарий

consumer [kənˈsjuːmə(r)] – потребитель

irreversible [ˌɪrɪ'vɜːsəbl] - необратимый

to invoke [ɪn'vəuk] discussion(s) [dɪ'skʌʃ(ə)nz]– вызывать обсуждения

to erase [ɪ'reɪz] borders ['bɔːdə] – стирать границы

to simplify ['sɪmplɪfaɪ] – упрощать

speedup ['spidˌʌp] – ускорение

bargain['bɑːgɪn] –сделка, to make bargain – совершать сделку

to spread [spred] – распространять

values ['væljuː] – ценность; to spread unified culture and values – распространять единую культуру и ценности

to function ['fʌŋkʃ(ə)n] as a single system – функционировать как единое целое

supporter - [sə'pɔːtə] сторонник

opponent [ə'pəunənt] – противники

to be engaged in [ɪn'geɪʤ] charity ['ʧærɪtɪ]– участвовать в благотворительности

to incur [ɪn'kɜː] losses [lɔsis] – нести потери (убытки)

to resist [rɪ'zɪst] – сопротивляться

competition [ˌkɔmpə'tɪʃ(ə)n]– соревнование; to resist in competition – выстоять в соревновании

to promote [prə'məut] – способствовать, содействовать

growth [grəuθ] – рост; to promote economical growth – способствовать экономическому росту

speedup of life rhythm ['rɪð(ə)m] – ускорение ритма жизни

brain drain [breɪn] [drain]– утечка мозгов

cultural peculiarities [pɪˌkjuːlɪ'ærətɪ] – культурные особенности

to get acquainted [ə'kweɪntɪd] with - знакомиться с…

national peculiarities of a country –национальные особенности страны

cultural exchange – культурный обмен

to unify - объединяться

mutual penetration of cultures – взаимное проникновение культур

to be under a big influence of – находиться под большим влиянием …

to carry on competent international politics – проводить компетентную международную политику

interaction (with) – взаимодействие с…

to merge (with) - сливаться с…, объединяться с…

to exchange goods, money, ideas – обмениваться товарами, деньгами, идеями

to trade goods – торговать товарами

to move at a faster pace – двигаться быстрее

debate over smth. – спор по поводу чего-то

to be in favor of. … - быть в чью-то пользу (в пользу чего-то)

advantages/disadvantages – преимущества/недостатки

undeveloped countries – неразвитые страны

underdeveloped countries – слаборазвитые страны

to cause unemployment – вызывать безработицу

investment - инвестиции

to lead to environmental problems – вести к проблемам окружающей среды

to spread communicable diseases – распространять инфекционные болезни

G8 summit – саммит (встреча на высшем уровне) большой восьмерки

to get access to – получать доступ к…

to trigger adverse reaction – спровоцировать противоположную (неблагоприятную) реакцию

to promote goodwill – способствовать доброжелательности

ramification – последствие

tolerance – терпимость, толерантность

inhumane conditions – негуманные, жестокие условия

human trafficking – торговля людьми

to benefit – приносить пользу, выгоду

Greenpeace

Greenpeace is a non-governmental environmental organization with offices in over 40 countries and with an international coordinating body in Amsterdam, Netherlands. Greenpeace states its goal is to "ensure the ability of the Earth to nurture life in all its diversity" and focuses its work on world wide issues such as global warming, deforestation, overfishing, commercial whaling and anti-nuclear issues. Greenpeace uses direct action, lobbying and research to achieve its goals. The global organization does not accept funding from governments, corporations or political parties, relying on more than 2.8 million individual supporters and foundation grants.
       Greenpeace evolved from the peace movement and anti-nuclear protests in Vancouver, British Columbia in the early 1970s. On September 15, 1971, the newly founded Don't Make a Wave Committee sent a chartered ship, Phyllis Cormack, renamed Greenpeace for the protest, from Vancouver to oppose United States testing of nuclear devices in  Alaska. The Don't Make a Wave Committee subsequently adopted the name Greenpeace.
       In a few years Greenpeace spread to several countries and started to campaign on other environmental issues such as commercial whaling and toxic waste. In the late 1970s the different regional Greenpeace groups formed Greenpeace International to oversee the goals and operations of the regional organizations globally. Greenpeace received international attention during the 80s when the French intelligence agency bombed the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour, one of the most well-known vessels operated by Greenpeace, killing one. In the following years Greenpeace evolved into one of the largest environmental organizations in the world.
       Greenpeace is known for its direct actions  and has been described as the most visible environmental organization in the world. Greenpeace has raised environmental issues to public knowledge, influenced both the private and the public sector. Greenpeace has also been a source of controversy; its motives and methods have received criticism and the organization's direct actions have sparked legal actions against Greenpeace activists.

Global Warming

 Global warming is sometimes referred to as the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is the absorption of energy radiated from the Earth's surface by carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to become warmer.

Each time we burn gasoline, oil, coal, or even natural gas, more carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect is what is causing the temperature on the Earth to rise, and creating many problems that will begin to take place in the coming decades.

Today, however, major changes are taking place. People are conducting an unplanned global experiment by changing the face of the entire planet. We are destroying the ozone layer, which allows life to exist on the Earth's surface.

All of these activities are unfavourably changing the composition of the biosphere and the Earth's heat balance. If we do not slow down our use of fossil fuels and stop destroying the forests, the world could become hotter than it has been in the past million years.

Average global temperatures have risen 1 degree over the last century. If carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases continue to spill into the atmosphere, global temperatures could rise five to 10 degrees by the middle of the next century. Some areas, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere, will dry out and a greater occurrence of forest fires will take place.

At the present rate of destruction, most of the rain forests will be gone by the middle of the century. This will allow man-made deserts to invade on once lush areas. Evaporation rates will also increase and water circulation patterns will change.

Decreased rainfall in some areas will result in increased rainfall in others. In some regions, river flow will be reduced or stopped all together completely. Other areas will experience sudden downpours that create massive floods.

If the present arctic ice melting continues, the sea could rise as much as 2 meters by the middle of the next century. Large areas of coastal land would disappear.

Plants and other wildlife habitats might not have enough time to adjust to the rapidly changing climate. The warming will rearrange entire biological communities and cause many species to become died out.
The greenhouse effect and global warming both correspond with each other. The green house effect is recalled as incoming solar radiation that passes through the Earth's atmosphere but prevents much of the outgoing infrared radiation from escaping into outer space. It causes the overheat of the air and as a result, we have the global warming effect. As you see, greenhouse effect and global warming correspond with each other, because without one, the other doesn't exist.


Questions:
1. What is global warming?
2. What is greenhouse effect?
3. What activities are unfavorable and change the composition of the biosphere and the Earth's heat balance?
4. What can prevent the developing of greenhouse effect?
5. Why are water circulation patterns changing?
6. What might cause disappearing of large areas of coastal land?
7. Does the warming affect biological communities?
8. Is there a correspondence between greenhouse effect and global warming?

Vocabulary:
global warming — глобальное потепление
to refer — иметь отношение, относиться; касаться
greenhouse effect — парниковый эффект
absorption — поглощение, абсорбция
surface — поверхность
carbon dioxide — углекислота, углекислый газ
to burn (past burnt, p.p. burnt) — сжигать
gasoline — бензин
oil — нефть
coal — уголь
ozone layer — озоновый слой
to slow down — замедлить
fossil fuel — ископаемое топливо
average — нормальный, обыкновенный, обычный, средний
to spill into — проливать(ся), разливать(ся)
the Northern Hemisphere — Северное полушарие
destruction — разрушение, уничтожение
evaporation rate — скорость/уровень испарения
to increase — возрастать, увеличивать(ся); расти
water circulation pattern — сложившийся круговорот воды в природе
rainfall — количество дождей, дождевые осадки
river flow — уровень воды в реках
downpour — ливень
massive flood — крупное наводнение
to melt — таять
coastal land — прибрежные земли
to adjust — приспосабливаться, привыкать
entire — весь, целый
biological communities — биологические сообщества
to die out — вымереть, исчезнуть
outer space — внешний/открый космос
overheat — перегрев
to correspond — согласовывать, соотноситься

Ray Bradbury DANDELION WINE (Home Reading 3 course)

http://www.ibooksonline.com/273/section4.html

Give up weapons, Russia urges Syria

Russia has asked Syria to put its chemical weapons stockpiles under international control and then have them destroyed, in an attempt to avoid US military strikes.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the offer was made during talks with his Syrian counterpart, Walid Muallem, who welcomed the initiative.

The US said it was sceptical, but would have a "hard look" at the plan.

The US accuses Damascus of war crimes, allegations denied by the regime.

US Secretary of State John Kerry, in Europe to garner support for the military action, has once again warned that taking no action is riskier than launching strikes.

When asked at a news conference whether there was anything Syrian President Bashar al-Assad could do to avoid military action, Mr Kerry replied that he could hand over his entire stockpile of chemical weapons within the next week.

US officials subsequently clarified that Mr Kerry was making a "rhetorical argument" rather than a serious offer.

However, Mr Lavrov later said he had urged Mr Muallem during talks in Moscow to "not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on their subsequent destruction".

He said he had also told Mr Muallem that Syria should then fully join the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Mr Muallem told reporters through an interpreter that Syria welcomed the Russian initiative.

He praised Russia for "attempting to prevent American aggression against our people".

UK Prime Minister David Cameron said the destruction of the weapons would be a "huge step forward", but warned that it should not be used as a "distraction tactic".

The Russians have been the main international ally of Mr Assad's regime throughout Syria's two-and-a-half-year civil war.

Russia has blocked three resolutions against Syria in the UN Security Council, and has dismissed evidence linking Mr Assad's forces to a chemical attack in Damascus on 21 August.

The US says Syrian government forces used poison gas to kill 1,429 people in the attack.

Mr Assad's government blames the attack on rebels fighting to overthrow him, in a conflict that the UN says has claimed some 100,000 lives.

The UN sent weapons experts into Damascus to investigate the attack.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said on Monday that if the experts concluded chemicals had been used, he would consider asking the Security Council to set up a zone in Syria where the weapons could be destroyed.

Meanwhile, the Syrian leader gave an interview to US network PBS in which he warned the US against intervention, saying the Middle East was "on the brink of explosion".

"You're going to pay the price if you're not wise with dealing with terrorists. There are going to be repercussions," he said.

"You should expect everything. The government is not the only player in this region. You have different parties, different factions, different ideologies. You have everything in this decision now."

Mr Assad did not explain whether his comment was a threat that Syrian-backed groups such as Hezbollah would launch retaliation, or a warning that strikes would bolster al-Qaeda-linked groups.

He calls the rebels "terrorists" and has often insisted that they are linked to al-Qaeda.

He also denied using chemical weapons saying there was "no evidence" to hold his government responsible for the 21 August attack.

US national security adviser Susan Rice said later that Mr Assad and his allies would have to be "more than foolish" if they tried to take on the US.

US officials have admitted they have no "irrefutable" evidence of Mr Assad's involvement in the August attack but say it common-sense that his government was responsible.

US President Barack Obama has cleared his schedule this week to focus all his attention on building support for the Syrian intervention.

He has acknowledged he faces a "heavy lift" to win congressional backing.

A poll carried out by ABC and the BBC on Friday suggested more than 230 of the 433 members in the House of Representatives were either opposed or likely to oppose strikes.

Just 44 representatives said they would support or were likely to support action, and a large proportion are still undecided on the issue.

Many US politicians and members of the public remain concerned that military action could draw the nation into a prolonged war and spark broader hostilities in the region.