One week from Climate Change conference in Copenhagen, when World Leaders must meet and decide how they are going to 'save the planet', many countries are still wringing their hands and unsure whether they need to do anything at all. Unfortunately, India is one of them. India is a big polluter in absolute terms, but a minnow when compared on a per capita basis - because of its large population. India's professed stance, for more than two decades since we started talking about Ozone layers and climate in general, is that it will only do its bit when the developed world, primarily America, starts acting on cutting its own carbon emissions.
The logic of this stance was development. India and America are competing in many spheres, and the Indian government did not want to burden Indian producers with 'unnecessary' obligations to the environment when Americans are not doing enough to cut their emissions. The move would have been politically suicidal, it was argued, a permanent surrender, a reminder of the past subjugation and again letting the West get away. So, the 'principled' stance of the successive Indian governments was to have no stance at all, not to discuss climate at all. This was in line with India's refusal to sign Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, the ban on Landmines and other conventions which needed international consensus.
Frankly, the crowd at home somewhat loved it. Everyone despises an environment tax. Besides, Indian cities get by on hugely carbon emitting old vehicles every day - the fact that they may start junking some of those 1960s machines was abhorred universally. Some of the new age initiatives, mostly forced by Supreme Court, on different local governments, went badly, mostly for botched implementation. These became a butt of joke, as did all other initiatives like anti-smoking campaigns. When Gopal Krishna Gandhi, the Governor of West Bengal [and also, grandson of the Mahatma], decided to practise voluntary conservation by switching off electricity in the sprawling Governor's House in Calcutta every day for two hours, Government ministers, leftist ministers, ridiculed him for the effort. It was all giving in to America.
Of course, it makes sense for Indian government to insist that Americans must start conservation first. As it would have made sense for Gandhi to insist that the British must first practise non-violence before he entertained the idea. But, he did not do that. Not for any moral reason, he was humble enough to say, but because he could not afford violence. Like, India can not afford a climate disaster. We must act first before we need it more than many others.
For example, and of course I am being flippant here, an average 2 degree temperature rise across the world [and this will not happen evenly] will mean that South England will get Champagne climate in about ten years time. I am serious: I have heard people talk about switching to vineyards in a few years time. The same thing may mean Maldives and some of low lying areas in India, including some of Calcutta suburbs [where I come from], being permanently submerged in water. It may mean disappearance of Bangladesh in a few years, and a lot of refugees into India. It may change the monsoon and crop cycles, and as far as I know, Indian farmers are not prepared for that. More floods in Eastern Bihar, deforestation in Central and Western India. This does not imply West will not get affected, but more to the point - India, like everyone else, can ill-afford a catastrophic, irreversible climate change. It is not a political issue any more; it is a survival issue.
If one wants more proof, look at Calcutta. The city administration and the state ministers allowed old, polluting vehicles to ply many years after all the other major cities have banned them. The logic was, funnily, development - employment of many of the people who drove those old vehicles. It was forced to take some action, only haltingly and reluctantly, after being forced by the courts. The compelling reason: Calcutta turned out to be one of the most polluted cities in India, driving away people and consequently investment, and put one in six people in Calcutta in some kind of breathing disorder. Some observers said that the most affected were those who drove the polluting three-wheelers for a living and their families, with an unusually high incidence of TB. So, yes, they had a day job and earned a little; but spent all of that on medical care and ruined their own lives. The government kept the votes, but abdicated their main responsibility - to govern and to protect.
Apart from the fact that we can not afford Climate Change, the other compelling factor is that we are competing for the future as much for the present. We know that days of fossil fuel are limited. We know that environment will be considered as an economic cost in some way. We know that our cities must be environmentally sustainable to draw investment. We know that we must innovate - and encourage such innovation through policy, therefore - to prepare for the post-fossil fuel world. We know that those innovations are a must, if our own 1 billion people need to join the world that the developed 1 billion enjoyed for so long, without sinking everyone together. So, being anti-conservation is not being pro-development, it is a necessary pre-condition for our development. It is a must for us to remain competitive.
I think we have a propensity to follow wrong models. On Climate, we follow George W Bush. We could have easily looked at Japan, which pursued an independent, conservationist policy without having to be pushed by anyone. I continue to look at various energy efficient innovations coming out at various countries - converters which can create water out of air, solar panels which can satisfy industrial level requirements, LED lighting that does not generate heat - and know that we are getting left so far behind that by the time we wake up, we would have lost our competitive advantage.
We are at what I shall call a Klatu moment. I obviously liked the movie The Day The Earth Stood Still, whose new version has been realigned with climate risk. The message was - the human civilization must be destroyed to save the Earth, because otherwise both will be destroyed. But, then, there is another redeeming message that we should take into heart - we do change at the precipice. We are at the precipice. India must wake up.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was,
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen
Introduction Erna Petri née Kürbs, a farmer’s daughter from Herressen in Thuringia, arrived in Ukraine with her three year old son to join her husband Horst in June 1942. Horst, an SS leader inspired by Nazi ideologue Dr Richard Walter Darré, settled in the plantation of Grzenda, just outside today’s Lviv, to become a German Gentleman-Farmer. Erna saw Horst beating and abusing the workers in the plantation within two days of arriving there, which was, as Horst explained, necessary for establishing authority. Erna joined in enthusiastically, settling into a combination of roles of ‘plantation mistress, prairie Madonna in apron-covered dress lording over slave labourers, infant-carrying, gun-wielding Hausfrau.’  However, there were clear rules in the plantation, and Erna was very much expected to play the woman’s role of being a Cake-and-Coffee hostess. When four Jews were caught in the estate while trying to escape from a transport to a death camp, Horst told Erna and her female
A week into lockdown and things are beginning to change. Mornings are late, afternoons are lazier and evenings never end; meditations are filling out the time for Yoga routines and Netflix profiles are strewn with half-finished movies. This state-mandated, state-funded period of idleness is being likened to being called up to serve, but is nothing like that: Such a comparison is really an affront to the idea of service. Instead, this is just one long streak of panic; of the centre not holding and life not going on as usual. With the usual patterns and rules in suspended animation and business talk - and business - being rendered meaningless, space is opening up for unusual questions: Is Capitalism about to end? Is this the death of globalisation? Does it get uglier from here? My grandfather's generation would have scoffed at us. They saw through wars and pandemics. But, in fairness, we haven't had a life-ending crisis of our own. Notwithstanding the experiences of th
The ‘Why’ Question? Adolf Hitler was appointed the German Chancellor by President Von Hindenburg on 30th January 1933. This was an extraordinary turn of events. Previously, President Von Hindenburg consistently refused to appoint Hitler the Chancellor, despite the impressive electoral performance of NSDAP in July 1932, Hitler’s uncompromising demand of the Chancellor’s post and a repeat election in November 1932 which failed to break the deadlock. Explaining his refusal, Hindenburg wrote in a letter on 24th November, “a presidential cabinet led by you would develop necessarily into a party dictatorship with all its consequences for an extraordinary accentuation of the conflicts in the German people.” The question ‘why’ Hitler was appointed Chancellor, despite the President being acutely aware of what might follow, is therefore a significant one. The NSDAP had election successes throughout 1932, and was already the biggest single party in the Reichstag and various Landtags acros
I wrote a note on Kolkata, the city I come from and would always belong to, in July 2010. Since then, the post attracted many visitors and comments, mostly critical, as most people, including those from Kolkata, couldn't see any future for the city. My current effort, some 18 months down the line, is also prompted by a recent article in The Economist, The City That Got Left Behind , which echo the pessimism somewhat. I, at least emotionally, disagree to all the pessimism: After all Kolkata is home and I live in the hope of an eventual return. Indeed, some change has happened since I wrote my earlier post: The geriatric Leftist government that ruled the state for more than 30 years was summarily dispatched, and was replaced by a lumpen-capitalist populist government. Kolkata looked without a future with the clueless leftists at the helm; it now looks without hope. However, apart from bad governance, there is no reason why Kolkata had to be poor and hopeless. It sits right
Meritocracy is a convenient lie, as Socrates foretold, and it is the ballast of the social system we have built. The story goes like this. Once upon a time, we had kings and queens and their families and nobles, who got the best meat and the best mate, and everyone lived happily. But then the things fell apart as luxury corrupted the nobles and feebled the spirits of their offsprings - and the peasants and the artisans came claiming their fair share. So we had the age of revolutions in Europe and North America, when we created a new, fairer social system, under a 'natural aristocracy of men', where destiny was no longer shaped by birth but by intelligence and hard work, and anyone could make it in life. And, everyone again lived happily ever after. Of course, this did not really happen. Slavery persisted, at least for a long time. The 'fair' system mostly excluded the real peasants and workers and once they have done their duty dying for various revolutions, they were s
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.