Other organisations are concerned that the free spread of communications technology proceeds without impediment of censorship or any other official constraint.
Environmentalist groups, such as Friends of the Earth, The Sierra Club and Greenpeace argue that globalisation harms the environment. .
The World Wildlife Fund has maintained an anti-WTO stance for over a decade. It wants the WTO to change its rules so that trade sanctions can be used to enforce environmental goals.
The Centre for International Environmental Law based in Geneva works closely with Greenpeace and the WWF.
In general they blame global corporations for global warming, the depletion of natural resources, the production of harmful chemicals and the destruction of organic agriculture.
They have particular criticisms of global investment, which they argue takes advantage of the lack of regulation in poorer developing countries. Hence, global companies may locate polluting industries in poor countries, log tropical forests, or develop mines with inadequate controls.
They oppose the production, use and global trade in toxic chemicals, nuclear materials and other products of which they do not approve, such as genetically modified foods, or endangered wildlife, including fish.
They oppose the existing rules of the World Trade Organisation, which do not allow countries to ban imports of goods just because their production may have damaged the environment in the country of origin.
Environmental groups argue that WTO rules are unacceptable from the environmental perspective and they want the rules amended to give them the right to present arguments in its appeals court.
They share a concern that the global organisations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are not doing enough to alleviate poverty and, indeed, may be contributing to it. They argue that poor countries should have their debts to international banks excused.
