http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/forsaking/popimm.html
Forsaking Fundamentals
The Environmental Establishment Abandons U.S. Population Stabilization
By Leon Kolankiewicz and Roy Beck
Center Paper 18, March 2001

This article focusses on the impact of immigration on the environment, but the main part that I found interesting was the discussion on globalism.

This article is super long (I counted 46 page-downs). So, I've just included the globalism section.

Globalism vs. Nationalism/Internationalism
It appears that in at least some cases a significant change in ethical frameworks was occurring among many national environmental leaders and a portion of their memberships.

Historians will want to explore the extent to which the rising "globalist" philosophies that took root in the American business communities of the 1980s and 1990s also began to replace the "nationalism" of the earlier environmental movement. The 1990s, after all, was a time in which many scholars, newspaper columnists, and other prognosticators espoused the possibility of the impending end of the era of nation-states. Major political fights erupted between those who argued that the United States should stop resisting the "inevitable" forces of globalization and those who argued for the country to retain sovereign control over its labor and environmental standards and its economic destiny.

For the purposes of this analysis of globalism vs. nationalism, we distinguish "globalism" as something quite different from "internationalism." The internationalism to which we refer is based on the "nationalist" philosophy; it is the inter-relationship of nations, all of which are working together but in their own self-interest. "Globalism," however, supersedes traditional liberal and conservative ideas of the nation-state and of working toward national solutions of national problems, and toward international solutions for international problems.

The heart of the difference between globalism and nationalism is an ethical viewpoint of whether a community has the right or even responsibility to give priority attention to the members of its own community over people outside the community.

That relates to whether a nation has the right to protect its own environmental resources before it helps some other country to preserve its environment. Is it ethical to stabilize the population of one’s own country when other countries are still growing? Is it ethical to bar a human being who is alive today from immigrating and advancing economically if the reason for barring the immigration is to preserve the natural resources of the target country for the benefit of human beings not yet born? All of these questions came up during the 1998 national debate within the environmental movement about U.S. population stabilization.

"Nationalism" as used here should not be confused with nativism, imperialism, jingoism, or super-nationalism, but is used to describe a philosophy of community... The ethical basis of nationalism is a community in which every member has a certain responsibility for everybody else in that community... The highest priority of a national government under the nationalist ethic is the members of that community... This has been the dominant ethical principle in the United States and most other nations in which the national government is expected to establish laws and regulations concerning trade, labor, capital, and the environment based primarily on the effect on the people of its own nation.

The globalist ethic that we describe here is less communitarian and more individualistic... It gives a higher ethical value to the freedom of an individual (and by extension, the corporate bodies owned by individuals) to act with fewer or no restrictions by national governments... This ethic similarly unleashes laborers around the world to cross borders to work in ways that maximize their incomes and unleashes corporations to move capital, goods, and labor in ways that maximize their profits... Under the globalist ethic, an American corporation does not owe any particular allegiance to American workers or American communities if the corporation’s interests are better served by moving a factory to another country or by replacing its American labor force with imported foreign workers... While some might see such moves as selfish and hard-hearted, a globalist would explain that the corporation would not be able to undertake those actions unless there were ample foreign workers who saw such actions as opportunities for economic advancement.

[color=purple]American globalists on the political left (such as many in the artistic, university, and environmental communities) tend to disapprove of plant re-location and of many free-trade agreements... But globalists on both the right and the left (including many in the environmental movement) agree on the ethical correctness of mass movements of labor such as has occurred over the last 30 years through immigration to the United States... (The Sierra Club vigorously opposed the globalism implicit in both NAFTA and GATT, yet actively endorsed globalism with regard to labor flows, immigration, and population stabilization... Journalist Peter Beinart, writing in Time magazine, described the more consistent nationalist environmental stance that "distrusts the free movement of goods â€â€