Why I Should be Tolerant

198 Pages·2016·2.704 MB·English

by  Sunita Narain

D
o
w
n
T
o
E
a
Why I Should be Tolerant is an rth SUNITA NARAIN
environmentalist’s reflections, reactions
and arguments on contemporary issues
related to the environment and development.
The writings make the critical connection
between local and global developments
and between the developments of the 20th
century, and how they continue to impact us
in the 21st century. The writings stem from
the author’s own experience in forests, farms
and factories, besides the numerous debates
she has been part of during her 30 years in
public life. Every piece of writing featured
here represents various threads of public
discourse that have haunted the world on its
relationship with nature.
On environment and
environmentalism in
S
U
N
the 21st century
I
T
A
N
A
R
A
Down To Earth IN
FORTNIGHTLY ON POLITICS OF DEVELOPMENT,
ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH, SINCE 1992
SN Reader Cover_final.indd 1 23/05/16 8:13 PM
SUNITA NARAIN
On environment and environmentalism
in the 21st century
Down To Earth
FORTNIGHTLY ON POLITICS OF DEVELOPMENT,
ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH, SINCE 1992
00Preamble(03-11).indd 3 23/05/16 8:09 PM
Sunita Narain is a writer and environmentalist
who uses knowledge for change. She is currently
the Director General of the Centre for Science
and Environment and the Editor of the fortnight-
ly magazine, Down To Earth. She has been in
public life for the past 30 years.
She asserts that the poor must be put at the core
of the sustainable development agenda. In her
writings and advocacy, she has championed the
environmentalism of the poor.
In 2005, the Government of India awarded her
the Padma Shri. The same year, she received the
Stockholm Water Prize for her contribution to
build a water-literate society. In 2016, Time mag-
azine put her on the list of the world’s 100 Most
Influential People.
00Preamble(03-11).indd 4 23/05/16 8:09 PM
To the women of India’s villages
who taught me environmentalism
00Preamble(03-11).indd 5 23/05/16 8:09 PM
Editors: Richard Mahapatra, S S Jeevan
Editorial support: Rajit Sengupta
Design: Ajit Bajaj, Chaitanya Chandan
Illustrations: Sorit Gupto
Production: Rakesh Shrivastava and Gundhar Das
Special thanks to Environment Resource Unit, Centre for
Science and Environment (CSE), for their expert archival services
The designations of persons and officials mentioned in the book are what
they held at the time of the original reports.
CSE, founded in 1980, is a public interest research and advocacy organisa-
tion based in New Delhi. CSE researches into, lobbies for and communi-
cates the urgency of development that is both sustainable and equitable.
Down To Earth is a fortnightly on politics of environment and develop-
ment. In its 25th year of publication, it continues to adhere to its founder
Anil Agarwal’s objective of bringing out news, perspectives and know-
ledge to prepare citizens to change the world.
ISBN: 978-81-86906-94-1
Price: `350
Published by
Centre for Science and Environment,
41, Tughlakabad Institutional Area, New Delhi 110 062
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [email protected], Website: www.cseindia.org
© 2016 Centre for Science and Environment
All rights reserved throughout the world. Reproduction in
any manner is prohibited.
Printed at Multi Colour Services, New Delhi
00Preamble(03-11).indd 6 23/05/16 8:09 PM
{
CONTENTS
8 Preamble
chapter 1
12 Climate Change
chapter 2
40 Excreta
chapter 3
58 Energy
chapter 4
82 Governance
chapter 5
100 Urbanisation
chapter 6
116 Air Pollution
chapter 7
128 Health
chapter 8
150 Water
chapter 9
174 Forests
194 Index
00Preamble(03-11).indd 7 23/05/16 8:09 PM
{
Preamble
The environmentalism of the poor
India’s environmental movement, like so much else in the country, is about
managing contradictions and complexities—between rich and poor; between
people and nature.
But the movement in India has one key distinction, which holds the key to its
future. The environmental movements in the rich world emerged after periods of
wealth creation, and during their periods of waste generation. So, they argued for
containment of waste, but did not have the ability to argue for the reinvention of
the paradigm of waste generation itself. However, the environmental movement
in India has grown in the midst of enormous inequity and poverty. In this envi-
ronmentalism of the relatively poor, the answers to change are intractable and
impossible, unless the question itself is reinvented.
Just consider the birth and evolution of the green movement. Its inception
dates back to the early 1970s with the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi made
that now fabled statement at the Stockholm conference on environment: “Poverty
is the biggest polluter.” But in this same period, the women of the Chipko move-
ment in the Himalaya showed that the poor, in fact, cared more about their
environment. In 1974, years before environment became fashionable fad, the
women of Mandal, a poor, remote village in the upper Alaknanda valley, stopped
loggers from cutting down their forests. This movement of poor women was not
a conservation movement per se, but a movement to demand the rights of local
communities to their local resources. The women wanted rights over the trees,
which they said were the basis for their daily survival. Their movement explained
to the people of India that it was not poverty, but rather extractive and exploita-
tive economies that were the biggest polluters.
This is because in vast parts of rural India, as in vast parts of rural Africa and
other regions, poverty is not about a lack of cash, but a lack of access to natural
resources. Millions of people live within what can be called a biomass-based
subsistence economy, where the Gross Nature Product is more important than
the Gross National Product. Environmental degradation is a matter of survival.
In these cases, development is not possible without environmental management.
In the environmental movement of the very poor, there are no quick-fix tech-
Why I should be tolerant
00Preamble(03-11).indd 8 23/05/16 8:09 PM
9
nological solutions that can be suggested to people who are battling for survival. In
this environmentalism, there is only one answer: to reduce needs and to increase
efficiency for every inch of land needed, every tonne of mineral and every drop of
water used. An environmentalism of this kind will demand new arrangements for
sharing benefits with local communities so that they are persuaded to part with
their resources for common development. It will demand new paths to growth.
I say this because the environmental movement of the relatively rich and
affluent is still clearly looking for small answers to big problems. Today, everyone
is saying that we can deal with climate change if we adopt measures such as energy
efficiency and some new technologies. The message is simple: managing climate
change will not hurt lifestyles or economic growth; a win-win situation where we
will benefit from green technologies and new business.
Years before India became independent, Mahatma Gandhi was asked a
simple question: would he like free India to be as “developed” as the country of
its colonial masters, Britain? “No,” said Gandhi, stunning his interrogator, who
argued that Britain was the model to emulate. He replied: “If it took Britain the
rape of half the world to be where it is, how many worlds would India need?”
Gandhi’s wisdom confronts us today. Now that India and China are threat-
ening to join the league of the rich, the environmental hysteria over their growth
should make us think. Think not just about the impact of these populated nations
on the resources of our planet but, again, indeed all over again, of the econom-
ic paradigm of growth that has led much less populated nations pillaging and
degrading the resources of Earth.
The Western model of growth that India and China wish most feverishly
to emulate is intrinsically toxic. It uses huge resources and generates enormous
waste. The industrialised world has learnt to mitigate the adverse impacts of
wealth generation by investing huge amounts of money. But the industrialised
world has never succeeded in containing those impacts: it remains many steps
behind the problems it has created.
The icing on the cake is a hard fact: the industrialised world may have cleaned
up its cities, but its emissions have put the entire world’s climatic system at risk
and made millions living on the margins of survival even more vulnerable and
poor because of climate change. In other words, the West not only continues to
chase the problems it creates, it also externalises the problems of growth onto
others, those less fortunate and less able to deal with its excesses.
On environment and environmentalism in the 21st century
00Preamble(03-11).indd 9 23/05/16 8:09 PM
10
It is this model of growth the poor world now wishes to adopt. And why not?
The world has not shown any other way that can work. In fact, it preaches to us
that business is profitable only when it searches for new solutions to old problems.
It tells us its way of wealth creation is progress and it tells us that its way of life is
non-negotiable.
But I believe the poor world must do better. The South—India, China, and
all their neighbours—has no choice, but to reinvent the development trajectory.
When the industrialised world went through its intensive growth period, its per
capita income was much higher than the South’s today. The price of oil was much
lower, which meant growth was cheaper. Now the South is adopting the same
model: highly capital-intensive and so socially divisive; material and energy-in-
tensive and so highly polluting. But the South does not have the capacity to make
investments critical to equity and sustainability. It cannot temper the adverse
impacts of growth. This is deadly.
There is no doubt we live in an increasingly insecure world. Indeed, the state
of insecurity in the world is made more deliberate, more wilful, because of the
intentional and unintentional actions of nation-states and governments in the
name of development and global justice. So, if the rich world is increasingly para-
noid about its defence from the failed, bankrupt and despotic states of the devel-
oping world, the poor are insecure because they are increasingly marginalised
and made destitute by the policies of the rich. The challenge of climate change is
adding a new level of insecurity for the world’s people. It is also equally clear that
the business-as-usual paradigm of growth will lead the world towards a vortex of
insecure people, communities and nations.
It is here that the countries of the South face even greater challenges. They
will need to rebuild security by rebuilding local food, water and livelihood security
in all villages and cities. And in doing this, they will have to reinvent the capital and
material-intensive growth paradigm of the industrialised North, which deepens
the divide between the rich and the poor. They will have to do things differently in
their own backyards. But, more importantly, these countries will have to become
the voice of the voiceless, so that they can demand changes in the rules of globali-
sation in the interest of all.
Sustainable development needs to be understood as a function of deepened
democracy. It is not about technology, but about a political framework, which
will devolve power and give people—the victims of environmental degradation—
Why I should be tolerant
00Preamble(03-11).indd 10 23/05/16 8:09 PM
11
rights over natural resources. The involvement of local communities in environ-
mental management is a prerequisite for sustainable development.
The South’s quest for an alternative growth strategy should have two essential
pre-requisites. Firstly, a high order of democracy, so that the poor, the marginal-
ised and environmental victims can demand change. It is essential to understand
that the most important driver of environmental change in these countries is not
government, laws, regulation, funds or technology per se. It is the ability of its
people to “work” democracy.
But democracy is much more than words in a constitution. It requires careful
nurturing so that the media, the executive, the judiciary and all other organs of
governance, can decide in public, and not private (corporate) interest. Quite sim-
ply, this environmentalism of the poor will need more credible public institutions,
not less.
Secondly, change will demand knowledge: new and inventive thinking.
This ability to think differently needs confidence to break through a historical
“whitewash”, the arrogance of old, established, and ultimately borrowed ideas. A
breakthrough—a mental leapfrog —is what the South needs the most. The most
adverse impact of the current industrial growth model is that it has turned the
planners of the South into cabbages—making them believe they do not have
answers, only problems, for which solutions lie in the tried and tested answers
of the rich world.
It is also important that this environmentalism of the poor—building bottom
up, based on the principles of equity and human need—must influence the world.
If the world wishes to achieve sustainable development and combat climate
change, it must learn from these movements about the need to share resources so
that we can all tread lightly on Earth. n
On environment and environmentalism in the 21st century
00Preamble(03-11).indd 11 23/05/16 8:09 PM