Trajectory Change?

In the recent cabinet reshuffle, the one move that caught my eye was that of Jairam Ramesh from the environment ministry to rural development. I have been following news around Mr Ramesh in the past months. He has been putting curbs on the entry of the energy, mining and other industrial sectors into ecologically sensitive areas across the country. I have felt that here is a man who has brought the environment in our country into the prominence that it requires as probably the most important area for our existence, even more important than economic progress. There were a couple of times when I chewed on the idea of writing to him and offering my services in any way that could help the cause.

In the recent months, the PM has been under visible pressure from energy, mining and other industries to move Ramesh out. There has been growing noise about how Ramesh is hindering economic progress for India Inc and depriving it of vast amounts of foreign investment that will enable every Indian to possess a car and a mobile. Given the economist that the PM is, he also shares the view that the way to poverty eradication is to flood the entire population of India with cash so that it percolates all the way down (hopefully).

In what could be a pivotal move for the country’s future, it appears to me that he has taken the step of clearing the way for further economic progress as against a more ecologically aligned one that probably is a much more crucial but unstated(??) need for life in India. With this, five coal based thermal projects that were stalled when Mr Ramesh was around will proceed. The new environment minister has sent out the message that things will now happen rapidly and my understanding is that this message is directed at the industrial sector.

An opportunity to set a sturdy framework for possible sustainable development has been lost. India’s biggest problem by far (and also the world’s) is the mammoth size of its population. The stress placed by this on food, water and the environment is staggering. We are rapidly running out of agricultural land, fresh water sources and possibly most importantly the natural ecosystems that almost subtly sustain ALL life on the subcontinent. The focus for all of us and most definitely our leadership, should be to ensure that these essentials are not jeopardized because without this our billions may have all the gadgets and fuel but no food and water. But then the ideal picture for any economist is the market with its buying power and not the ground realities of nature.   

If we stood firm on protecting the environment, this would have forced the energy, mining and other industries to accept their greater responsibility to our future rather than looking at the year end balance sheet. This would have forced them to start thinking to innovate( at least now) if required to come up with sustainable options or step aside rather than take the easy but short sighted approach that they have been taking for too long. There is an urgent need to phase out coal based power and bring on more and more cleaner options like nuclear, solar and wind energy. The recent discovery of uranium reserves as well as the large land areas should provide the impetus for the shift to these cleaner options. But then the impetus required is huge and time consuming . Even though this is critical it is always approaching elections and public opinion that constantly takes precedence.There is a huge misconception among many people about the harmful effects of nuclear energy and the recent Fukushima incident has further fuelled this (along with the vested interests who have a huge stake in the existing industries). My understanding is that since the advent of nuclear energy, the number of persons who have died in total due to exposure to nuclear radiation mishaps including Chernobyl is under 500 as against the millions who have died due to direct and indirect exposure to coal and other thermal energy sources. The waste from a life time operation of a nuclear plant can be housed in a tank the size of your overhead water tank (and buried safely underground) as against the tonnes and tonnes of fly ash from a thermal plant.

Mining in ecologically sensitive areas for commercial metals is fuelled by various local and international industries and the products of these are mostly useless displays of economic status often in other countries. If Indian industry is as great as it thinks it is, it should be looking to provide leadership in ecologically sustainable alternative materials for these products rather than destroying our sources of food and water. If commercial mining is to be done this should be restricted to clearly identified safe spots (if there is such a thing). Mining in forest areas should only be permitted for extremely rare minerals of utmost national importance and that too after a clear understanding of the adverse impacts.  There is a huge risk of rebellion by the millions and millions who are increasingly being deprived of their land and finding essentials going out of their reach. In such a scenario the urban image of economic driven well being could be torn down and we could quickly slip into tribal mode. The upheavals in recent tribal and agricultural areas are ominous signs. Unbelievably, industries seem in no way ready to accept their environmental responsibility and since they fund our political parties, arm twisting is easy. But then as long as the buying continues, the killing will.  This has happened for too long and the exit of Mr Ramesh could signal the advent of increased natural exploitation and nature’s fearsome response in addition to huge upheavals among the teeming millions whom our leaders are supposedly trying to provide the good life for. These are critical times as always.