Economists have rightly emphasised the risk to globalization from economic and financial instability. They have ignored environmental destruction, and the resulting global warming which is now the central global concern. Fast -growing middle – income nations, such as China, Malaysia and India, have a big in globalisation and therefore, in confronting this environmental danger. their rise has been tied to globalisation. They have doubled their trade in the past decade, and by liberalising commercial policies, have also helped others gain. To China, Indonesia as well as India, environmental outcomes have a special significance. They posses 60℅ of the world’s fresh water resources, 60% of the forests, much of the coral reefs, and valuable biodiversity. But they also face massive degradation of air, forest, land, fresh water and marine resources, with the rise in population, adding up to high cost. The atmosphere concentration of carbon dioxide reached 379 parts per million in 2005 compared to a pre industrial, level of 280 ppm. scientists concur that to avoid massive climatic instability, the change in global temperature ought not to be more than 2°C above are industrial levels. To secure that outcome with some certainly, the concentration of carbon dioxide needs to stay below 400 ppm. Rich countries like the united states, Japan and the European nations are by far the most responsible for this and other greenhouse gas emissions in per capita terms. so they must propel mitigation measures to improve efficiency and protect the environment. But middle income countries now account for half of the emissions, and they, would not want to emulate the poor example set by rich countries. In Brazil, China and India, air and water pollution. Is severely impairing peoples health and productivity in the workplace with a direct impact on grow’ prospects. Moreover, globalisation has speeded the spill – over of these damages. Growth fuelled by energy – intensive industry, urban crowding, and deforestation has added to atmospheric concentrations of carbon, warming land and ocean and bringing extreme weather. In turn climate change threatens to crode coastlines and provoke drought and floods, in rich countries and poor. A clear link is ’emerging between’ deforestation and soil degradation on the one side, and the fastest ‘ rising natural disasters, which are floods and wind storms, on the other, societal benefits of abating high levels of emission far outweigh the costs of doing so. Economists and policy makers have not drawn the implication of the calculations for the reform agenda, be it in trade, energy, or i infrastructure. Sadly, the cost of such neglect are large. Also, no country, rich or poor, has enough motivation to confront global problems alone. Because only a part of the benefits of addressing those problems would accrue to countries taking action. While others could have a free ride. The gains are also spread over time, beyond the horizon of politicians’ interest. Such situations call for collective action even if they are not easy when many verse countries are involved. The crucial question is how to be countries might participate in collective measures to mitigate environmental threats to growth. One opening involves avoiding deforestation. Cutting down forests accounts for a fifth of the emissions , more than those from all transportation. by protecting their forests, countries can reduce carbon emissions in the atmosphere, paving the way for new markets for tradable emission permits that would compensate them for the protection. Whether and how quickly the environment is accorded top priority will determine the future of the world economy.