Archive

Archive for the ‘Environment’ Category

Climate Change – I’ve given up and lost hope

January 8th, 2010 6 comments

Some of you might have noted a recent lack of climate change posts on this blog. That’s because I’ve lost hope. Our civilization is pretty much screwed. As George Carlin said, we’re going to be just another failed mutation.  We’re circling the drain now. I was really hoping for something good to come from Copenhagen in spite of the naysayers, and I’m disappointed to find that nothing happened. Nothing has changed. Everyone hawed and hemmed and basically stuck to their positions.

This simply shows that we humans are unable to change our short term habits and stave off long term disaster. For this shortcoming, we deserve to go extinct. Don’t mistake me though. Obviously the earth itself isn’t going anywhere – we are! Watch this video where George Carlin eloquently explains how we’re screwed. Initially it seems as if he’s against environment protection, but then 2 and a half minutes into the video, he reveals his real agenda. Kind of an odd way to look at it at first, but then it makes sense. Carlin argues that the planet is just fine – it’s the people that’re fucked!

To cap it all, climate change skeptics are pointing to the recent cold wave sweeping the US and Europe and are saying that this disproves global warming. This really makes me lose hope and question the concept of humans being an intelligent species. As if you can disprove decade long trends by a single data point. As if climate is the same as weather. And worst of all, as if they really think that global warming means that the whole earth is just going to get warmer and warmer each year – like switching on the thermostat!

So you think we have some hope left eh? Let me tell you why that’s an illusion.

The amount of CO2 the planet can handle without catastrophic climate change (catastrophic for us that is) is 350 ppm. Here is proof for that. And here is more proof. Our current level is 390 ppm and we’re predicted to touch 900 ppm by the end of the century! So basically:

Required CO2 concentration = 350 ppm
Current CO2 concentration = 390 ppm
Projected CO2 concentration = 900 ppm
Last time the earth had 400 ppm = 13 million years ago!

And in case you think we can cut emissions to reach 350 ppm, let me disabuse you now. Here is what we need to do to reach 350 ppm:

  1. No further oil and gas exploration
  2. No more dirty coal burning by 2030

If the US or China takes either of the above two steps, I’ll eat my iPod Touch. Nuff said. So pack your bag folks, we’re leaving. It’s been a nice 100,000 years on this earth of ours. There must be another one out in space somewhere but we’re so separated that they might as well not exist. It’s just as well we didn’t find any actually – fucking up one planet is enough! And I’m so glad I’m not having any children. What’s the use? We’re gonna all die anyway, and I don’t want my progeny to curse me.

What do you think? Are we screwed?

Is there any hope of us averting catastrophic climate change?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Similar Posts:

  • Share/Bookmark
Categories: Climate Change Tags:

Poor people must die first – so says an Economist

November 18th, 2009 7 comments

This is going to be a tough one for you guys to swallow. At the heart of it, is a chap called Lawrence Summers who’s currently the Director for the National Economic Counsel in the US. When he was president of the World bank, he wrote a memo which recommended dumping more toxic waste in developing countries because – get this – lives in poorer countries are worth less than those in developed countries.

Image Credit: Molas

Dumping Toxic Waste in Developing Countries - because rich people's lives are worth more?

Dumping Toxic Waste in Developing Countries - because rich people's lives are worth more?

The problem of where to dump toxic waste generated abroad has plagued planners in the west for a long time. The recent controversy regarding the Platinum II cruiseliner on Indian shores is evidence of this. Summer’s memo makes a very clear point by saying,

“The World Bank should be encouraging more migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Least Developed Countries]“

He gives three reasons. First, rich people in the west earn more money. Therefore if someone has to die, it makes economic sense for it to be the poor people. In his words:

“I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.”

Second, poor countries like Africa are under polluted! To quote:

“I’ve always thought that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City”.

His logic is that the pollution generated by the west must be spread over the globe instead of being restricted to the countries where it was created. In other words, he sees the good air quality in Africa as a haven for dumping the Industrialized world’s waste into.

And finally, he says that since people in poor countries anyway have a shorter life expectancy, dangerous chemicals will have less of an impact on them. He goes on to claim that they’ll be willing to trade clean air in exchange for money since they must value a clear environment less than rich people

Remember that these aren’t the words of some loony fringe economist, but the Chief economist of the World Bank in 1991 and who still holds a position of prominence in the Obama administration!

In my opinion, such statements can only come from economists who view everything including life in terms of money. Wait, that’s not true. Corporates whose only motive is profit also think the same way. When you start looking at the entire world using just one metric – money, you commit terrible atrocities because your sole aim is then to increase that metric to the expense of everything else. The whole world becomes a means to increase your money as much as possible. The lives of all living things, and the environment are fodder to be used.

When Summer’s memo was released, it created a terrible backlash leading him to claim that it wasn’t serious. But from reading his language in the original memo, I don’t believe that for one moment. I think he was dead serious. And for a brief moment, we the regular public caught a glimpse of the kind of people who rule our world today.

Similar Posts:

  • Share/Bookmark
Categories: Environment, Rights and Freedoms Tags:

Giving away Green technologies – way to go!

November 14th, 2009 5 comments

If there’s one thing that really pisses me off about the traditional capitalistic system, it’s the fact that people feel they have a right to patent ideas and technology in perpetuity. This is one reason why climate change prevention is being held up. Rich countries who want places like India to urgently reduce emissions, refuse to subsidize green technology that will help developing countries do just that. Instead, they want to be paid expensive license fees. Kind of like having your cake and eating it.

So it makes me happy when I see a company in India showing how things should be done. Ahmed Khan’s company in Bangalore is using discarded plastic to make roads which last longer – removing the need for the plastic to enter landfills. And it seems to be a success in Bangalore which already has around 1200 km built using this technology.

Image Credit: Himalayan Trails

Green Roads Reducing waste

Green Roads Reducing waste

Here’s my favorite part though: “The Khans’ business spread to other cities and states, and although they patented the plasticized pavement in India, other companies are copying the technology. The Khans said they had decided not to object”

Don’t you just love that? Inventions like this help the entire country and can speed up the process of making our living space a bit cleaner. Now with competition, prices can be cut and made more affordable. If this was a traditional western company, they would not only have not allowed anyone else to use it, they would also have charged triple the price of a regular road to maximize their profit and milk their monopoly.

Incidentally this highlights the difference between a professional corporate company and a smaller personal firm. The former doesn’t belong to any one person and has no morals other than profit. A smaller firm on the other hand is linked to a person and can behave ethically as well as make a profit. Can you for example imagine a corporate like AT&T giving away a technology to other people because it’ll be good for the country? Never! Till a few years back, I used to dislike smaller businesses, but now I understand why they’re better than large faceless organizations.

Profit isn’t the sole motive of innovation and human kind has adapted and succeeded in the world only because people copy others and when one person discovers something, the entire group shares the benefits. Here’s hoping that more of common sense prevails!

Similar Posts:

  • Share/Bookmark
Categories: Environment, Technology Tags:

Hari Batti’s Musings on Malls – A holistic picture

October 21st, 2009 22 comments

One of the blogs I’ve been following lately is Hari Batti’s Green Light Dhaba which is very close to my heart. It seems that Hari talks about all things that I myself think about and I participate avidly in the discussions on his posts. And so I thought to myself, why not have a guest post from this great guy on my own blog? His is highly popular and my own poor creation gets some new readers as well pointing all my own subscribers and trespassers to a resource which is really going places. So I floated the idea to him, and he has kindly consented to spend his time and energy on a guest post for “Expressions”. Without further ado, here it is!

—————————————————————————–

It is a real pleasure to be guest posting here; I’ve enjoyed this blog a great deal since I found it a month or so back. I spend most of my time writing in Delhi at the Green Light Dhaba; I’d love to have you stop by there as well, some time.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve made fun of Delhi’s mega malls several times. That is because I think they are symbolic of much of what is wrong with India’s model of urban development. No matter how many basil plants Arjun Sharma, the director of Delhi’s Select City Mall, may have given away this Diwali, there is no escaping the fact that his mall is a disaster from an ecological and economic point of view.

I took my kids to the pair of monstrosities known as the Select City/MGF Metropolitan Malls and we did a little research a few weeks back. (And yes, I did have to compensate them with a round of over-priced iced teas. But I have never pretended to be perfect in matters of personal consumption.)

MGF Metropolitan
MGF Metropolitan

Here are some of the things we found. First of all, the positive side: malls are designed to make people giddy with excitement! It happened to my kids; it even happened to me, just a little bit.

Where does this feeling come from? Some of it is a result of the fact that suddenly we are in a “market” where we don’t have to jump out of the way of speeding two wheelers. But there are other things malls do to make you feel that way. Look at all the lights; feel the AC; ah, the spray of the water from the fountains. Scarcity has no place in a Delhi mall; neither do really poor people.

It is an intoxicating illusion–if you don’t think too much about what it costs to create and maintain it. (On the way out, I had to wonder whether the bright blue “Riot Control” van permanently parked on the road in front of the mall was part of how that illusion is enforced.)

The Riot Control Van

The Riot Control Van

Of course, the good feeling does not feel so good once you see the price tags of the goods being sold.

You see, high end malls are…expensive! The week before Diwali, Mint ran a big spread on holiday gift ideas. It included things like a Boombox for Rs. 4,199, an iPod for Rs. 11,200, and playing cards in a crocodile skin holder for only Rs. 36,000. This is the kind of stuff you will find in a high-end Delhi mall, and it is terrible for a number of reasons. Aside from the obvious issues of bad taste and dead crocodiles, there is the fact that much of what you find in a mall is imported. From an environmental point of view, that means that a whole lot of stuff had to be shipped a very long way–and shipping is a major source of global CO2 emissions. From the point of view of old fashioned economics, there is another problem caused by all those imported goods: a large part of the money spent at the mall goes straight out of the country. Which means it does very little in terms of creating jobs here. By contrast, when you buy locally grown food or locally made products in your local market, nearly all of the money you spend stays right here in the local economy.

But what about all those workers the mall employs, you ask? In fact, a mall is a very inefficient employment generator, because very little of the money spent in the mall goes to the workers who work there. Of course Arjun Sharma is not going to let me go over his books, but we did speak to one worker who sells brand name handbags ranging from Rs. 1000 all the way up to Rs. 4,200. She earns Rs. 4,500 a month. In other words, one hand bag sells for nearly as much as she earns in a month. If there is a sale on, this woman may sell as much as Rs. 35,000 worth of product over the course of one day.  Malls promote the growth of overseas factories along with a few low wage local jobs.  We can do better than that.

Speaking of employment, it’s not as if the people who do the work of building these malls will ever be able to shop in them; in fact, they live in horrible slums. One of these tent cities occupied the land right outside Select City for years while it was being built. Now it has moved down the road closer to where some other projects are being developed. So as not to offend shoppers, it is hidden behind a tall fence.

The Slums of the Workers

The Slums of the Workers

After seeing this, my 9 year old asked me this: “Instead of building another mall, why don’t the workers build homes for themselves?”

I tried to explain about how people who invest money to build things want to make more money, and they think building a mall will give them more profits than building homes for poor people. “It’s how the game works, son,” I said.

“But it’s not a game. It’s life,” was his answer.

There wasn’t much I could say to that, of course, because he was right; life is not a game and to use such metaphors runs the risk of trivializing things that are not trivial: poverty, environmental degradation, enormous unfairness.

A new mall, like over-consumption in general, is possible and profitable because we don’t pay the full cost of products from the mine to the dump. It is profitable because the monthly wages of the woman who sells you a handbag may not be equal to the price of the handbag itself. It is profitable because we allow the men, women and children who build our malls and our roads and our homes to live outside under tarps.

It will not be easy to encourage investment in sustainable development. Investors won’t change their behavior out of the goodness of their hearts. Somehow, we need to change what is profitable.  We can start by strengthening and enforcing minimum wage laws.  Then we can see to it that companies are not allowed to pollute for free; the full cost (including the cost of pollution and disposal) of all products should be reflected in their price tags. That will make a lot of stuff, especially stuff  that is designed for the dump, more expensive. If we do this, we will have to consume fewer material goods; if we do it right, we can compensate by consuming more things that are sustainable: art, leisure time, good food, clean water etc.

Figuring out how to make all this happen will be a complicated business, but it’s not impossible, and it’s terribly important that we start soon. We need to change the way we do business; to do this we’ll to change the rules of the game. The rules of life.

HB

Similar Posts:

  • Share/Bookmark
Categories: Environment, Rights and Freedoms Tags:

Want to Pollute? Pay for it

October 13th, 2009 4 comments

I’ve often wondered how things can be produced and sold so cheaply. Stuff that takes centuries to degrade and travels half the world to reach a customer costs so little that I get the sneaking suspicion that someone else is paying the price for it. Indeed someone is.

Tirupur, known as the “Knitwear Capital of India”, produces most of the garments that originate in India and find their way all over the world. The garments are cheap. Overly cheap. In reality, they cost far more. The real cost of the garments is paid by the people and other living creatures of Tirupur who have to live near the Noyyal River that’s contaminated by the textile producing factories. The sludge in the water has been building up over generations.

Image Credit: TamilBuddy

Noyyal River Sludge

Noyyal River Sludge

Finally, someone decided to make the factories pay the full price of the garments they produce. The Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection Association (whew!) made them pay 55.6 Cr for  the treatment of the river as well as for pollution checks. Well they tried to anyway. Predictably, the factories fought it tooth and nail. But the Supreme Court had the final word. And very sweet words they were too. Here they are:

“Undoubtedly, there has been unabated pollution by the members of the appellant association (factories). They cannot escape the responsibility to meet the expenses of reversing the ecological damage. They are bound to meet the expenses of removing the sludge from the river and also for cleaning the dam. The principles of `polluters pay’ and `precautionary principle’ have to be read with the doctrine of sustainable development.”

Awesome. Like all judicial judgments, this one can be cited in the future for other similar cases – and since it’s pronounced by the Supreme Court of India itself, it can be applied anywhere in the country. You want to pollute? Pay for it. This is one for the history books. Corporations can no longer deny the sole responsibility of cleaning up the muck they produce. Of course, this may lead to higher costs for the final products, but that’s the burden we all have to bear. That’s the real cost you’re paying!

Similar Posts:

  • Share/Bookmark
Categories: Environment Tags:

The Environment? It’s not just us!

September 23rd, 2009 3 comments

When discussing climate change and the environment in general, a common type of argument I hear is “it won’t really affect humans so much.” Whether we’re talking about the effects on rainfall, sea levels, seasonal disturbance, or running out of oil, there are always those who claim that by virtue of their geographical position, economic status, or lifestyle, they personally will escape the brunt of the devastation that climate change can cause.

Some proclaim that they don’t care since they will be long dead by the time any such effects are in a position to harm them, and you know what – they’re right. There is an excellent chance of most people currently living not being affected by climate change. As Bjorn Lomborg so eloquently puts it, Bangladesh would probably have become rich enough after a hundred years to escape the problems caused by rising sea levels. This he argues, is enough reason not to sink money into environmental protection efforts.

Discussions on the environment at a global level almost exclusively deal with the effects on humans. Whether such and such country’s economic progress will be affected. Whether or not the threat to this particular coastal city is real. Whether or not we will have enough oil. Overuse of natural resources is an issue only so far as it affects human lifestyle.

However, I feel that most of these people are missing a crucial fact. Even assuming that you don’t feel regret for ruining the planet per se, aren’t we ignoring the large number of non-human living creatures on the planet? How many multicellular living creatures are there on earth anyway? With how many conscious creatures do we share the earth? To put things in perspective, let’s just take insects. There are a hundred million insects for each human on earth! Assuming there are no other species, what percentage of the conscious life do we make up? Answer: 0.000001%

Not that the insects really have much to worry about. They’ll survive long after humans have gone even in the event of a nuclear holocaust (kind of relieving isn’t it?) But what about all the other species whose lives are affected by our activities? The amount of suffering we cause them is incalculable. Yet we never think of them because they don’t suffer in front of us. Well, I want to bring some of it forward. Into our faces. This is what we do:

Image Credit: Save_The_ Planet

Bird Trapped in an Oil Spill

Bird Trapped in an Oil Spill

Fish dead due to pollution

Fish dead due to pollution

Polar Bear trapped on thinning ice

Polar Bear trapped on thinning ice

These are just isolated examples. There are so many more. Ask yourself. Even if our policies were to have no impact on humans whatsoever, do we still have the right to cause so much suffering by our actions? I’m not exactly a bleeding heart animal lover – it’s just a question of what is fair and what’s not. If these animals had votes, we wouldn’t be so casual about them would we? What exactly gives us the right to mess up resources that we share with an overwhelmingly large majority of other conscious creatures?

Having met some of the people that I have, I know that they will continue to not give a shit about anything that doesn’t bite them on the nose. But hopefully there are others out there to whom this has given some food for thought.

Similar Posts:

  • Share/Bookmark
Categories: Climate Change, Environment Tags:

How Patents stifle and go against Human nature

September 21st, 2009 No comments

Coming to the US has introduced me full force to the Patent system prevalent in the country. “Intellectual Property” as it is called rules large aspects of America’s legal system. Almost anything can be patented – right from software, to hairstyles (as my wife told me), to business practices. Coming from a country where such things don’t enter most people’s minds, I’ve been able to observe it from outside, and have realized that it’s contrary to the very thing that makes humans special.

It’s a travesty and an insult to the natural behavior of humans and goes against the very impulse that has propelled humanity to the top of the food chain. Don’t believe me? Read on!

Read more…

Similar Posts:

  • Share/Bookmark

Patents standing in the way of Combating Climate Change

September 16th, 2009 No comments

As we approach the Copenhagen conference in December 2009, we’re finding a divide between developed countries like the US and developing countries like India and China. This is because rich nations want poorer countries to commit to drastic carbon emission cuts that the latter are unwilling to do without assistance.

Clean Technology and Intellectual Property (IP)

Given that it’s in everyone’s best interests to adopt clean energy technologies, it makes sense that developed countries should give poorer ones the means to do so. However, rich nations have issues like patents and intellectual property that they are unwilling to let go of. They want poor nations to pay the high prices for these technologies so that they can profit by selling them. It goes without saying that poor nations cannot afford these technologies as long as they’re sold by the rich countries. It’s no secret that big businesses are not happy with the whole climate change issue and are willing to sacrifice our planet at the altar of their profit.

Image Credit: Dominic’s pics

Opposing Clean Technology Transfer

Opposing Clean Technology Transfer

Developed nations (especially the US) say that a “free market” ensures that lower prices will result over time. But this doesn’t wash. For one thing, the “patents” for clean technologies take several decades to expire before a free market can ensue. Valuable time that we can’t afford to waste. By all estimates, we have a maximum of 10-15 years to cut and stabilize carbon emissions and for that, we must start now.

Developing and Developed – Not on the same plane

The truth is that developed countries have become rich in the first place at the cost of disrupting our planet. Not to blame them as such, since they didn’t know. But it does shift the burden of fixing the problem onto them since they created it.

Secondly, cutting carbon emissions will hurt poorer countries much more than it will developed countries. One reason is that people in rich nations are already well off. On the other hand, there is widespread poverty, lack of electricity and clean drinking water in poorer nations. These people will be doomed to remain in that state if carbon emissions are to be reduced without clean technologies to offset the loss. This is grotesquely unfair since it means that poor nations will be doomed to forever remain poor if they commit to cutting carbon emissions by themselves.

Another reason is that rich countries possess the know how that will enable them to cut carbon emissions without compromising economic development. Poor nations on the other hand will have to stop growing to achieve the same cuts. Once again, this is preposterously imbalanced.

In a way, developing countries are being punished for being poor since by being poor, they will suffer more. This is completely unfair. Certainly, developing countries also have to try and keep emissions in check – and from what we hear, they’re making more grassroots efforts than people in developed countries.

When all the world leaders meet in Copenhagen, it must be understood that it’s not a trade conference. It is meant to protect our planet. Something that they must be willing to make sacrifices for. Developed nations, having caused the problem must by necessity sacrifice more. No one’s asking for direct monetary assistance. The least that can be done is by helping poor nations help themselves by releasing patents and intellectual property rights for solar, wind and other clean energy sources. Given the burden of historic responsibility for the current crisis, it’s the least that can be done.

Similar Posts:

  • Share/Bookmark
Categories: Climate Change, Environment, Technology Tags:

A “Green Party” in India? It’s about time!

September 15th, 2009 1 comment

I really feel it’s time India had another viable party apart from the Congress. The BJP is not really an option as long as it continues with it’s hindutva agenda, disrupts parliament, and keeps inducting people into the party based on seniority instead of merit. For a democracy to work properly, people must have real choice.

Now, there’s some refreshing news coming from Kolkata. The possible introduction of an Indian Green Party gives us hope. Some of us have heard about the recent coup d’etat by the environmentalists in Kolkata who managed to remove all old and polluting vehicles in the city. Of course, they had to fight to achieve this. Auto drivers went on a long strike rendering the city paralyzed, but to no avail.

Perhaps the most important factor was the massive support from the public. Despite facing a tremendous inconvenience due to the strike, they remained steadfast. This showcases an important fact – something that cynics don’t believe to be true – that the people of India are willing to do what is right even though they may have to suffer for it. One commuter said, “I would rather stand in long queues for a bus or a green auto than patronize these polluting vehicles again.” This sort of statement is inspiring and showcases our willingness to look past ourselves.

Indian Green Party of Subhas Datta

Indian Green Party of Subhas Datta

Now the man behind this campaign Subhas Dutta is starting a national party based on its environment policies. I’m personally very excited about this. A party that is progressive, based on ideals, and headed by a man passionate about his job rather than keeping power will be a breath of fresh air in Indian politics. He’s certainly serious. The European Green Party (EGP) has invited him to Brussels to give him tips from their experience about what his party’s principles should be. By throwing their support behind him, Dutta’s dream to set up an Indian Green Party has just come a bit closer.

The party’s first step is to fight in the West Bengal Polls in 2011. When it comes to the rest of the country, it’ll have my vote with pleasure.

Similar Posts:

  • Share/Bookmark
Categories: Climate Change, Environment Tags:

The Real cost of Natural Resources

September 11th, 2009 4 comments

A strange way of viewing man’s activities on earth occurred to me a few days ago – the economic point of view. We often hear of moral or scientific arguments but not many economical ones. Let me explain what I mean.

Natural Resources – Artificially low prices

There’s something skewed about the price we pay for the products we consume and the fuel we burn. To take an example, I bought a plastic bag today at Aldi’s (I had to – needed to walk 2.5 km back home with groceries) for 10c. It’s so cheap that one wouldn’t mind paying for it at all.

And yet, that plastic bag poses a real problem as far as its effects go. Depending on the type of plastic, it can take anywhere from 20 to 700 years to decompose naturally in a landfill and it’s incredibly difficult to recycle. You don’t want to try burning it either because quite apart from the horrible smell (as anyone who has smelt plastic burn can attest), it could – again depending on the plastic – release toxic dioxins.

Read more…

Similar Posts:

  • Share/Bookmark
Categories: Environment Tags: