Horizons - Filled with Hope

Imagine one fine day, human beings were to vanish from earth. No, we are not talking about extinction or asteroid collision or anything of that sort. Just imagine that all our constructions, all our signs are retained – just we humans are plucked from the earth. What would then happen?

“The World Without Us”, by Alan Weisman, tries to answer just that question. I'm sure we all know what we've done to the Earth. But, reading this book will give you a more complete picture of this. It leaves no stone unturned, no aspect of human interference untouched. Just a sample of what are the topics the book touches upon:

• What will happen to New York city without us?

• What will happen to oil refineries?

• How long before the nuclear power plants disintegrate without humans to maintain them?

• What will happen to farms and farmlands in the absence of humans?

• Will corals reinvent themselves sans us?

• How long will the non-biodegradable poison (plastic) continue to poison the animals, bird and aquatic beings after we're gone?

• Will nuclear waste buried at several places deep below the earth continue to poison all future species for millions of years to come (remember, fuel-grade Uranium has a half-life of 700-million years)?

What is even more interesting is that in order to understand what will happen in future; Alan takes us through a history of how the arrival of humans wreaked havoc with the environment. How the appearance of humans coincided with the extinction of megafauna (massive animals like giant sloths which were twice as big as today's elephants). So guys, if you though the industrial revolution was the beginning of the destruction of the earth, you are off by a few million years!

Then, Alan also takes an educated guess as to what might be the monuments which will last the longest – and as you would have guessed, most of them are ancient!

I think I'll leave you with that – and rate “The World Without Us” as a must-read if you are an environmentalist or a nature-lover. The author has travelled to all corners of the earth in quest of the answer; and he takes you from corals to deserts to Chernobyl to Serengeti to the Korean DMZ to the 5-centuries old forests in Poland and Belarus. All this makes for a very interesting read; not to mention a very relevant and thought-provoking one at that.

************************

Other books I have reviewed:

• My Friend Sancho (by Amit Varma)

• Wise and Otherwise (by Sudha Murthy)

• Bitter Chocolate - Child Sexual Abuse in India (by Pinki Virani)

• Frontline Pakistan (by Zahid Hussain)

• Dude, Where's My Country (by Michael Moore)

• Games Indians Play (by V Raghunathan)

An article that appeared in the Times of India a couple of days back quoted a comprehensive study and modelling done by the National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) which says that:

"Even if India grows by 8% every year with the current set of technologies and policies in place, its per capita emissions will not exceed 2.77 tonnes in 2031 — almost seven times less than the current per capita emissions of the US and almost four times less than the current per capita emissions of UK"

[Emphasis is mine]

This, even after taking into consideration the current and planned technologies and policies for the next two decades (infrastructure, industrialization, etc).

This report has now been taken as an excuse by India to oppose the “rhetoric” of developed countries that developing countries will overtake the developed ones in their emissions in the years to come. The article goes on to say that India and China along with other G77 countries have put forth a demand that since the rich nations have been historically the uber-polluters (ever since the industrial revolution), the rich countries should pay for the cost of any emission reduction measures undertaken by the poor and developing nations.

IMO, there are 2 “issues” here:

Excessive per-capita Emissions by developed nations

It is obvious that the developed nations are committing horrific environmental-crime as far as emissions go. What is worse is many of them are not ready to accept this fact and take measures to set them right. Instead, they are looking for ways to deflect the blame onto the developing countries.

I vaguely remember some summit (APEC i think) where, if I remember correctly, US and Australia refused to sign a treaty (which several developed European nations and several developing nations signed) which sought a commitment from signatory countries to work on containing their emissions. What was highlighted in this summit was the probable consequences (drowning of island countries, polar and Himalayan meltdown etc). In spite of pressure from others, 2 countries refused to sign.

[Disclaimer: The preceding paragraph has been written off the top of my head – I could be wrong about the second country which did not sign the treaty].

Whenever I think of this situation, the first thing which comes to my mind is a program which I had watched on Discovery or NGC (I dont remember exactly which one) about 5 years back. The 1 hour program was about the scenic and tiny South Pacific island nation of Tuvalu. The first part of the program was about the culture and people of Tuvalu, while the second part turned towards the question-mark over its future. The country has an average height of half a metre above Sea Level. The program predicted that Tuvalu will be the first country to completely drown if global warming continues at current levels.

The natives were interviewed and it was very sad to hear them argue “Why should we pay for your emission excesses? Why should we drown to wash away your sins?” Many people have started migrating to New Zealand, Australia and elsewhere; while some people stand their ground and refuse to migrate. They say “This is our home – we will stay back; come what may”.

Who is answerable to Tuvaluans? Why should they face the consequences of heinous crimes committed thousands of kilometers away?

Increasing Emissions by Developing Countries

The NCAER report stresses on per-capita emissions. However, Mother Earth is worried about total emissions – or maybe regional emissions to a certain extent, isn't she? What difference does it make to the environment whether the ozone layer is being punctured by a billion people or by one person? Its the nett effect – that the ozone layer has a hole at a certain location - that matters, is it not? At the end of the day, the ozone layer is being depleted; or the Himalayan snow-cap is turning bald; or the Antarctic ice-shelf is shrinking; or the forests in India are disappearing – that's the issue.

The point I am trying to make here is that the developing countries should not sit back and relax just because their per-capita emissions are low. The fact that India and China have billion-plus populations is their own fault. So, the total emissions being spewed out by these 2 countries cannot be neglected. I think it is time for the developing countries having bloating populations to act and act quick to rein in their emissions.

******************

A note on the conclusion of the study:

“The study concludes that an imposition of carbon tax would also sharply increase poverty levels in urban as well as rural India”

Imposition of carbon tax on developing nations is definitely a very bad idea; but these countries MUST voluntarily take steps to reduce their total emissions.

Looking forward to a world which is sensitive to its strain on the Earth; and responsible enough to roll back its emission excesses.

According to the Greendex, an annual study of sustainable consumption, conducted by NGC and GlobeScan, Indian consumers are the greenest among the 17 countries considered for this study. This study was started in 2008 and in that year, India had ranked second behind Brazil. For the second year in a row, the country which fared worst in this index is ... surprise, surprise ... the USA.

On a related note, I calculated my own Greendex score using the Greendex calculator and was surprised to find that it was a healthy 59 – especially considering the fact that I drive a car to work everyday – all alone!

Those were the facts and figures. Now, my take on the matter.

One does not need to be Einstein to figure out that consumption patterns in India are, on the whole, way more environment-friendly than those in the West. Maybe in several orders of magnitude. But it is surprising that India is at the top spot. I mean it may be true that we are environment-friendly by choice or by force. For example,

• Our low per-capita incomes do not allow us to drive big cars, thereby preventing us from committing the sin of unnecessarily high fuel consumption.

• For the same reason as above, we are primarily dependent on public transport for getting from point A to point B. Even in case of private transport, two-wheelers form the overwhelming majority.

• Air conditioning is not really wide-spread and room heaters are not necessary in central and southern parts of India.

That was just a sample, there are several other points to consider like water consumption/wastage, food production etc.

But the reason I am surprised at India's top position is that there do exist several inefficiencies in our system. For example,

• The cooking and emission setup used in the rural hinterland is extremely inefficient in terms of fuel (wood) consumption and at the same time, is also extremely polluting.

• Our vehicles, particularly the public transport vehicles, are ill-maintained. This holds for industrial machinery too. Consequently, the efficiency and emissions both start deteriorating during the life of the equipment.

• Urban India is over-dependent on plastic – mainly the “carry-bags” used for shopping. This is a heinous carbon-sin committed by India (not to mention the non-biodegradable-ness of the plastic)

• With a burgeoning middle-class, in the recent years, Earth-unfriendly elements like air-conditioning and big cars are gaining ground especially on the urban Indian scene. The bigger problem here is we tend to use some creature comfort simply because it exists. The best illustration of this point is the A/C. How many of us use the A/C (whether in the car or at home) only when it is really hot as against switching on the A/C first thing when we enter our cars or our rooms?

Well apparently, the negatives which I pointed out above form a relatively small number in the final analysis. Lets celebrate this good news by resolving to continue this leadership in Earth-friendly consumption. And, at the same time, lets also resolve to address the negatives before they spiral out of control.

(Green)Peace be upon you!

I recently came across this song titled "Tell Me Why" by Declan Galbraith. Wikipedia tells me that this song was released back in 2002, even before the singer had turned 11!

The lyrics of this song are available here .

I simply loved this song and its message. It was really clever of whoever was the brain behind this song to get a 11 year old to sing it. I wish the "leaders" around the world would see this song and if they have any conscience at all, wake up to reality - of what they are doing to this world. Its not too late to set things right - but if world affairs continue to go the way they are going, who knows the "too late to do anything" phase might dawn before we even realize it.

I have watched several movies in this "genre" before and have been left impressed by them - but never before has a song given me the goosebumps (at least in the context of world harmony) as this, and the Earth Song by Michael Jackson (lyrics here).

Hoping for the World to come to its senses and realize that we have got only One Earth, One World. Hoping that if the leaders of the world don't see light, at least the people of the world unite in this mission to preserve their only collective Home.