In the backdrop of 'crisis of democracy' as a result of almost unquestioned “let the markets sort things out” phenomena, ‘globalisation’ means increasing flows of trade and investment between parts of the world and between countries. Living in a world of extraordinary movement of global capital and a growing disconnection between the real trade and financial systems, international financial institutions seem to be financing “no change” in the developing nations in general and in Asia in particular. In 1914 there were eight great powers, now there is the Group of 8 (G-8). These powers have always usurped common resources and community initiatives. US and Australia are out to promote resource-destroying technologies as renewable energy. In the case of waste management globalisation has come to mean increasing flow of trade and investment in waste technologies unmindful of specific local circumstances.

Diseases were global long before globalization but the recent phenomena of ozone depletion, global warming and the problem of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) traveling beyond borders without passport as a consequence of hazardous wastes and toxic technology transfer is a pointer towards the toxic trade and investment in the name of globalisation.

The causes of these global consequences are local for instance, burning waste but it is the international financial institutions that are creating the problems. This is because they are suggesting cures worse than the diseases with ulterior motives of treating burgeoning waste problem as a business opportunity instead of treating it as an issue of resource management to conserve the Natural Capital.
World Bank Group is financing incinerator technologies and has also floated a Prototype Carbon Fund to misuse even Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of Kyoto Protocol to fund non-renewable and toxic waste burning technologies for energy generation. It is notoriously attempting to term waste incineration as renewable energy. In India Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy and Department of Science and Technology’s Technology Information Forecasting and Assessment Council (TIFAC) is also doing the same under their influence. In the aftermath of World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) Doha Declaration, the way incinerators known for their green house gas, heavy metals and POPs emissions are being listed as environmental goods is a cause of serious concern.

Ministers agreed at the Fourth Ministerial Conference in Doha, Qatar, in November 2001, Ministerial Conference to start negotiations on certain aspects of the trade and environment linkage. WTO’s Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) has been conducting negotiations in the Special Sessions on the relationship between existing WTO rules and specific trade obligations set out in multilateral environmental agreements. The negotiations will address how WTO rules are to apply to WTO members that are parties to environmental agreements. There are approximately 200 multilateral environmental agreements in place today. Only 20 of these contain trade provisions. They are discussed in the WTO’s Committee on CTE.

The ministers also agreed to negotiations on the reductions or elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers to environmental goods and services. Examples of environmental goods and services are catalytic converters, air filters or consultancy services on wastewater management.

The CTE is paying particular attention to the areas such as the effect of environmental measures on market access, especially for developing countries. When eliminating or reducing trade restrictions and distortions would benefit trade, the environment and development. WTO members recognize that removing trade restrictions and distortions can benefit both the multilateral trading system and the environment. This applies particularly to removing high tariffs, tariff escalation, export restrictions, subsidies and
non-tariff barriers.

Paragraph 31(iii) of the Doha ministerial declaration calls for negotiations on the reduction or, as appropriate, elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers to environmental goods and services. Under the negotiating structure adopted by the Trade Negotiations Committee, negotiations on market access for non-agricultural products are taking place in the Negotiating Group on Market Access.

Although "Environmental goods" are not defined in the Doha declaration. Negotiations are on to come up with a list of environmental goods WTO. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and OPEC have already drawn a list.

The APEC list of 109 environmental goods mentions Incinerators as a "Environmental Good". Japan has a list of 160 environmental goods. Ministries seem to be rushing through the formality of public participation, as they have to negotiate these by March 2003. If technologies like incinerators become environmental goods it will lead to situations arise where unviable economic and disastrous environmental problems cannot be solved at the level of the communities.

A case in point is the Energy Developments Limited (EDL), an Australian multinational company whose subsidiary Brightstar Environmental has signed more than half a dozen Resource Incineration Projects in several Indian cities like Mumbai, Jaipur, Kanpur and Bhopal without either technology clearance or a demonstrated capacity to deal with such volumes of waste. Its Solid Waste Energy Recycling Facility (SWERF) projects in Delhi and Chennai have been has been dumped following the detection of its polluting nature by the respective State Pollution Control Boards.

The only saving grace in the case of India is that due to the 74th amendment in the constitution, the government cannot commit on behalf of local municipalities and corporation and even if they do it has to be subject to their approval but its implementation leaves a lot to be desired.