I've done some research on globalisation lately and there are a spate of books offering the reassurance that there's no such thing; that the wealth and the jobs remain firmly entrenched in wealthy nations.
The divide between rich and poor is just as entrenched internationally as it is nationally. The implication of these "good news" books on globalisation is that there is no other perspective from which to view the issue--as if globalisation was "only" about the movement of capital and "only" concerned those in wealthy countries.
As you suggest, globalisation is also about resources, ecology and life and death. Action on climate change, and by extension on third world poverty, should first be grounded in conservation, in cutting consumption. The current policy on tackling climate change--so far all talk--is taxing consumption rather than cutting it, in the hope that entrepreneurs will get the message and innovate--all without upsetting the economic dynamic, conspicuous consumerism.
When Schumpeter called capitalism creative destruction I doubt he realised it would extend unto the very life supports of the planet.
If it was the third world that was somehow by its actions threatening our survival, we would take decisive action--blow them up and feel justified doing it. Yet we can show complete indifference for them and go on lazily consuming the lion's share of the food and resources while degrading the "whole" environment in the process.
The only way to tackle global warming is by cutting consumption, and not only energy. All consumables and their production have a direct correlation in terms of oil and environmental degradation.
The West's addiction and selfishness is despicable.
And yet there are many people who are prepared and even eager to make the necessary sacrifices.
The insatiable demand for economic growth is the problem. Much of our latter-day consumption is redundant in terms of quality of life. It is about making capital! and not improving the quality of life.
We are not going to address AGW, and its direct effects on vulnerable humanity and other species, until we find a way to turn off economic growth and cut consumption.

'The current policy on tackling climate change--so far all talk--is taxing consumption rather than cutting it, in the hope that entrepreneurs will get the message and innovate--all without upsetting the economic dynamic, conspicuous consumerism. '

Oh! Oh! God one squeersy, what's the Chinese factory worker going to do when we all refuse to buy TVs anymore? Starve to death!

Just stop the rich countries from protecting their primary Industries with tariffs and wipe all third world debt. Then we'll have real globalisation, and the farmers will all commit suicide. I hate farmers, they're not the 'salt of the earth' and they're not doing me a favour. All they do is put their hand out when their business goes bust because they try to grow crops in the desert.

Houellebecq,

I'm well aware of the implications of what I'm recommending, but I'm just trying to face facts. We have to start shrinking economies, living standards and populations and reducing our impact on the planet. It won't only affect Chinese workers, but everyone including capitalists. It's a closed system and sooner or later we're going to have to bite the bullet---or not.
The other option, which I believe is western policy, is to prepare for the inevitable collapse by making provisions for those who will be protected--the elite and a collection of essential servants.

Alternatively, we could survive the end of capitalism if we ended it before it ends us; we could easily turn our sprawling suburbs into pastures, orchards and vegetable gardens to begin with.
One way or another, we're going to have to face the end of consumer heaven, actually a depressive nightmare. We ought to do so for the ethical reasons alone that Rodney Crisp outlines.

'The other option, which I believe is western policy, is to prepare for the inevitable collapse by making provisions for those who will be protected--the elite and a collection of essential servants.
'

Sounds like a plan.

A much better plan than pre-empting what may never happen, and crippling the world so it has no chance of producing an inventive response for such a catastrophe if it does happen.

The dams going to burst! Only the people living up on the hills will survive. Let's chop down the hills! Who will save us now? Don't worry, that poor peasant with no money will come up with a brilliant device to turn all the water into wine. Just wait until he's finished gathering firewood and searching for berries.

You cant build an ark when you reduce the elite to the lowest common denominator.

I'm not in favour of building a western ark! I just don't believe there are not heavily financed think-tanks in place, as we speak, devoted to just that, to "managing" the crisis when it hits and saving the quality.
I also don't believe capitalism is the only social/economic system capable of producing inventive responses.
Capitalism is the direct "cause" of the mess we're in! Do you think more of the same is going to fix it?
I give you credit for more intelligence than your old side kick, Col rouge (if you're in touch send him my love), yet you immediately interpret what I say as some crude notion of collectivism.
Certainly I'm in favour of reducing capitalists' spending power to a semblance of modesty--the drive for capital is the furnace of growth--but there are other and more meaningful forms of competition, achievement and personal transcendence apart from gloating over personal wealth and petty empires.

But relax, I don't think there's a hope in hell it will happen, and I'm sure the capitalists, our demi-gods, will be God's chosen people to emerge from the devastation--certainly it won't be the poor bastards the author of the article is concerned about.

Oh I'm not worried. The force and momentum of uber capitalism is supreme. You wont stop it. Watch even in the next 5 years after that pesky GFC is finished.

'Certainly I'm in favour of reducing capitalists' spending power to a semblance of modesty'

But how modest are you when compared with the average guy in Malawi?

I miss Col.

Socialism by Stealth!

'I also don't believe capitalism is the only social/economic system capable of producing inventive responses. '

Yes, but if our position is so dire, why would you jeopardise the strengths in it waiting for the new system to gain traction? Huh? Answer me that!

'I'm not in favour of building a western ark!'
You would be if you REALLY believed in global warming. Oh sorry climate change.

Which provides a good analogy. I would rather the rich engineers build some bigger stilts to save the glorious place. But you want to cripple the engineers, thinking if we all pull together and have our own bucket, we'll be able to keep the waters at bay.

One bucket each, it's only fair!

It's only from the position of vast personal wealth that grand gestures of Bill Gates scale are possible. On a smaller scale, you can only afford to give to UNICEF because your country exploits the third world. How much great anti climate change work will you be doing when you spend half your day looking for food out the back of Maccas?