East and west on pollution and related
First, check out Gulatis post about how people in the West are wasteful and that people should not point fingers when somebody is polluting the planet.
I find it ironic that he talks about how "India's duty is to her 800 million poor people" and while talking about the "efficient waste management system - the local rag-picker" so that he can slam a "fancy machine[s] at the supermarket" that "segregate the waste".
It's either a fancy machine or poverty. No one will ever pay a rag picker as much as anybody. If there are laws in place that means everyone should be paid a minimum amount of money, then there won't be a rag picker. Which, by the way, is what has happened in the west!
I'm not saying the developed world doesn't pollute. I think they overdo everything which leads to lots of pollution. Lots of cleanliness, lots of sanitisers, lots of plastic, lots of waste.
The amount of "standard of living" you get for every resource spent is a diminishing return. To be a little more comfortable, when you're already very comfortable, you need to spend a LOT more. This is pretty much what has happened in the western countries. Considering the population boom plus the standard of living boom, there is no way natural resources can keep up with human consumption.
But this is not what the post is about. It's about the "pointing fingers" Gulati is talking about. There are several points I need to talk about.
- Nobody (not in a literal sense) is blaming India for pollution or global warming. It IS the the USA and other developed countries. It's a fact. If people don't know that, then they are ignorant. So it's the peoples fault, not a scientific one.
- If normal people don't know that, there is a good reason why. Pollution in the west is NOT obvious. There is NO smoke. Ever. I have not seen smoke in the US at all. No dust. Nothing that looks like pollution. It's easy to think the place is very clean. It is! But pollution is a different thing. It hasn't got much to do with pollution, in the global warming sense. AND, companies nowadays have gotten a LOT cleaner. And are going to get hundreds of times cleaner in the coming decade.
- When people from abroad criticise India about pollution, it's not the actual pollution they are blaming. They are blaming the "don't care" mentality. It's true that Americans are polluting a lot more. But, they care. And now that they've learnt about it, they want to do something about it. The problem with Indians, not just with this pollution debate, is that they don't care. They don't take the responsibility. We've always been like that. That's the mentality that is so strikingly different. The common person is part of the debate.
Edit: And what I find even worse is that most of the young people are strongly trying to emulate western culture. Infact, most of what we learn in school and college today is western knowledge. Except for "0". Don't say that they haven't given us anything.
And I wish people would stop talking about their own respective countries. Everywhere. The time we are in is beyond that. What happens in one part of the world affects everyone else. Think about Google, melting glaciers, Afghanistan, outsourcing and kickass research in CERN. We're all in it together. It sucks that age old traditions like patriotism still exists. I suppose cave men created the concept so that they stay together and not get eaten by bears. But that's not the case anymore.
20 drops:
"Nobody (not in a literal sense) is blaming India for pollution or global warming. It IS the the USA and other developed countries. It's a fact."
"It sucks that age old traditions like patriotism still exists."
totally agree with these two statements. instead of looking at the issue rationally, indians get carried away when someone in the west says anything that hurts. why can't we just ignore it and let the facts do the talking. it was last year,I think, that Bush said something which squarely blamed india for the food crisis. the indian media was all over this news item at that time. over playing it on TV and in print. why we should give two hoots when someone makes an irresponsible statement is what I don't get(and it was Bush for God's sake!!).
As you say its time we tone down the jingoism.
Nice post!
I'll tell you why it irritates people when world leaders make statements like "Indians eating more is the reason for the food crisis".
1) They are world leaders (I know, I know, it's Bush, but still)
2) The developed world seems to have a "holier-than-thou" attitude when it comes to this sort of thing. Whatever India/China does is "third-world-rubbish" or "uncivilized madness" and whatever they do is the gold standard.
I agree, the Indian media makes mountains out of molehills, and needs to lessen the jingoism as it were. (the Australian hype seems to be a case in point)
However, there is no cloaking the fact that all the hype/buzz/furore/whatever has a valid, root cause. This is something we tend to forget in our efforts to blame the media as "sensational". The point (of my article and this comment) is simple: India has a different set of responsibilities than the developed world, and does not deserve to be penalized for following it. For the proverbial wise-guy asking "what penalties?", I refer to both Obama's and MaCain's statements that India and China need to "get serious" about pollution. This while their beloved country consumed a record amount of energy, emitting a record amount of CO2. Stop the hypocrisy. That's all I'm asking for.
P.S. @Layfield: The "irony" was the entire point of my article. (I'm not as skilled as you in bringing out the main theme, so please excuse the lack of clarity) If India is to make pollution a main criterion, rather than development, the rag-pickers will forever exist. In trying for inclusive development, CO2 emissions (from power plants, factories, cars, wherever) are inevitable. The developing world shouldn't be penalized by hypocrites for this.
P.P.S Just a short reaction to "the points I need to discuss".
1) "Nobody is blaming India for pollution". Really? That's not what the people who matter are saying. (http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/node/258345)
2) Obvious pollution is not the problem. CO2 is. Methane (from belching cows - grown for beef - mainly in developed markets) is. All these are invisible problems. It's quite convenient to blame what you can see, isn't it? See black smoke - pollution. No black smoke - no pollution. Problem solved. Hypocrites.
3) Indians don't care? India has never had an excess of resources. As a result, all of us conserve what we can, where we can. I agree, we can do much more and I am NOT implying wastage. However, learning about an evil that you have created and taking small, insignificant baby-steps towards tackling it, does not give you the right to lecture others on conservation. Spare us the "three-Rs" rhetoric. Start doing something about it already.
Gulati,
By all means, if there are sanctions/pressure against us(India/Third World) to change our policy we must oppose them if they are not justified when judged DISPASSIONATELY, not blindly oppose them because an industrialized country is asking us to do so.
Having said that, how serious is India really about energy conservation/pollution?
To give an example at the grass root level, take most of the products we get at Amul(in college). They come in Tetrapak which is suitable produced so that it can be easily recycled after use. Invariably, you will find hundreda of these strewn around in ditches around our hostel blocks.
The point is that there is no awareness about how we can change things here in India, without much expenditure and with enormous benefit's but we will not do so because of our attitude of making up excuses( including the 800 million poor that you mentioned) and finger pointing which will not get us anywhere.
India's responsibility towards her 800 million poor ppl makes sense.
America making an effort to reduce emissions makes sense.
Developing and developed countries having much different priorities is clear.
Everyone needing to make an effort to decrease pollution is still consistent.
Tata Nano is very much alright.
Your last point on ppl's idea of a 'country' is a very deep routed concept. I've seen and spoke to several ppl who say - like your city, care about your state, love your country, but stop right there. Education is probably the best bet to give a broad perspective to the people.(I'm speaking of no one in particular here, but about the masses) Its happening, its slow.
well written
"In trying for inclusive development, CO2 emissions (from power plants, factories, cars, wherever) are inevitable."
Wrong! Green technology can create jobs and give us a better economy and future. We don't have to pollute to have progress.
Also, you are absolutely right in saying that we don't consume as much as the US. The problem is that if each of us in India were consuming so much as the each person in the US does, we would be be screwed. The major factor that slows down progress is lack of resources. Keep in mind that our land is 1/3 that of US but our population is more than 3 times! We're stretching our resources more than 9 times from their point of view. From our point of view, they are wasting that same land!
What bala says is right, the problem is the attitude. We have extremely negative and "dont care" attitudes. Just because our country as a whole doesn't pollute is not a reason to pollute.
And yes, a lot of americans are dumb! But so are a lot of indians. Turns out the distribution of dumb and hypocritical people is always the same in any people regardless of their education!
Regarding Bush and Obama on pollution cuts. I think the amount of pollution must be limited per unit of land and have nothing to do with population. Since the US creates 6 times as much pollution as India but only 3 times more land, they need to CUT by half to meet our standards. ;)
On the flop side, our country is overloaded with people.
Definitely. We don't need to pollute to progress. However, apart from nuclear energy, the only viable source of energy is fossil fuel, especially coal. At current technology, coal energy is a whole deal cheaper (http://greenecon.net/understanding-the-cost-of-solar-energy/energy_economics.html - 15+ times as much - agreed, thin film panels etc. hold promise, but that's in the future) than solar, wind, tidal, whatever. For India, China and the rest of the developing world, it will remain (however unfortunately) a major source of electricity for a long time to come. And, electricity generation is one of the major sources of CO2 emissions.
And I completely agree with the "don't pollute" ideology. What I don't agree with is the fact that the developed world seems to be adopting a high-pedestal approach to this entire problem - forgetting that they've created it in the first place.
P.S. Not only have they created it, they seem to be doing precious little to solve it. The US was never part of the Kyoto protocol. Their ethanol system is a disaster. (many scientists warn that it could actually worsen the problem, rather than solve it) They can't seem to do anything about coal fired plants. The list is pretty much clear on one thing. The developed world needs to do a lot more, before it can point fingers at others.
@Bala: I agree, we can and should do much more. The case of Amul is very valid. However. I'd like to point out that the people doing the wasting are people like you and me - people to whom there is nothing to be gained by recycling. That's how most of the developed world thought up to a short while ago (and still thinks to a large extent, even today) And our levels of consumption are much lesser than that abroad. Even if they recycle, they are bound to generate more waste, simply because they are used to consuming much more. That is the entire basis of their economy. Unfortunately, an economy that consumes more also ensures that poverty is minimal. Sad, but true. The way I see it, for the foreseeable future atleast, it's going to be a choice between poverty alleviation and environmental concern. We need to concentrate on the former, and let the developed world worry about the latter. I'd love for a solution that encompasses every problem, but I just don't see it happening any time soon.
Sorry, I can't seem to restrict this to single posts.
India does do a lot for conservation. We've actually increased our forest cover over the past decade, our bio-diesel/ethanol system is revolutionary (unlike the corn based system - that's probably because we understand the value of food), our vehicles are set to get a lot cleaner (the emission norms are as strict as those in Europe - plus many cities' public transport is getting converted to CNG/LPG) and on the whole, we're doing reasonably given the constraints we have. That said, we can obviously do much more.
@Gulati
Correct! :) Wow, you could have made a blog post out of all that.
Easily! :D
All right! One essential thing that you fail to see here is how SELFISH the entire world is. Just make a superficial study of how world diplomacy works. At a time like this, if you don't care for your country, you are doomed.
I agree with the global family concept; Why it is said so in the vedas; Vasudha eva Kutumbam, which translates to " the world is a family". As far as being global and tolerant, I am yet to see a country which is superior to ours.
The Americans are the most insecure, self centred breed of people who inhabit the earth today. All their measures are a result of the benefit it bestows upon AMERICAN people. They have systematically planted their vested interests as a people everywhere.
We aren't perfect. However, we are far ahead as far as these values go.
And if your take on patriotism stretches as far as to envelope nationalism as well, then if we acted by your principles, we'll still be under the selfish unrelenting British yoke.
So is unconditional love for your country a joke? Probably you think cavemen won us our independence.
To add to the above statement, India is one of the most accommodating (and trusting) countries in terms of diplomacy. Quite unlike China, which explains why China is feared and India is, well, ridiculed. Heck, even a failed-state-neighbour doesn't acknowledge our presence. So much for globalisation and the fighting of common issues. If nobody else cares, it makes no sense that we should.
Pommy!
"We aren't perfect. However, we are far ahead as far as these values go."
Sorry, that's totally wrong(the values part). Indians aren't even Indians. They're Bangies, NIDs, Mallus, Gults. I don't care what the government policies are, because that's not what will define us as a people. I don't know what your next two paragraphs are saying though.
Regarding the Americans selfish thing: That's one reason why their government system rocks. Tax money MUST benefit tax payers. That's how a good government should work. Sorry to say that I really don't know what's happening to taxes that Indians pay.
The American system is good as a closed system. Their interaction with the outer world isn't good.
Anyway, the overall argument wasn't that Indians or Americans are closer to a "world government". Totally crappy that USA sabotaged the whole UN affair and now its just a building in NY. I was just alluding to how these arguments generally run(India, China, America and so on) and how the collective thought about things that affect everyone needs to shift all across the globe.
Using your taxes for your peoples development is one thing while developing unscrupulously at the cost of the rest of the world is entirely another.
As I said, as Indians, we've never attempted to conquer or colonoise any other country. I cannot see a more perfect blend of so many cultures in anyother part of the world coexisting so peacefully. Argubly, the number of languages, including the many dialects is comparable to how many of these exist in the rest of the world put together.
Whatever the race of people in India, look at institutions and situations where we rise above these petty difference. The Indian Army clearly stands testimony to my statement. Please take into account these real facts before you judge Indian people so harshly.
And my last two paragraphs were in objection to your stand on patriotism. Your stand tends to be one of a typical American diplomat who says "lets be citizens of the world" and uses that as a pretext for economical colonisation.
You need to compare similar attributes. You cannot compare the colonisation by Americans to how nicely indians live with one another. That's wrong logical argument. You can't compare a persons sense of hearing to another persons football knowledge. That's ridiculous.
I don't know how the discussion got to these issues. Anyway, I will repel them. :D
"taxes for destruction, etc"
George Bush is an idiot, sorry about that. So are the republican. Actually, any conservative is an idiot, regardless of race. When a conservative party comes to power in the most powerful nation in the world, stupidity is what happens. You can't extend that to the entire nation. Of course American economics sucks. Of course they're becoming dumber everyday. Of course Of course.
"indians live nicely with another"
Not really. In fact, people in india do not care for one another. At the level of a neighbourhood or a city, people in our country don't really care what happens. "Let's mind our own business" is the name the of the game. You seem to think Americans are savages and they are constantly having street fights. Nop. Actually, Americans have a wider variety of races and ethnicities than any part of the world! It's truly what is closest to a "world culture"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States). You may think that just because Indians speak different languages, they are different people. In India, entire families have been living in the same regions for two millennia, maybe more(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India). The difference is that Americans are a race from all over the globe. Indians are..well..from India. You can say "Wow, look. We have so many languages and still we're united". You can ALSO say, "Woo, lookie. We are supposed to be one country, but still we have so many languages". I believe the latter argument is more realist. That is what I'm trying to express.
"Your stand tends to be one of a typical American diplomat who says "lets be citizens of the world" and uses that as a pretext for economical colonisation."
Well, if you don't want economic colonisation, you can go back to Indira Gandhis era and the fucked up india before 1990. You can wait 10 years to get an Ambassador car. Needless to say, opening up India's economy to world investment is probably one of the best things that ever happened to India. In fact, any reason for India not being like Afghanistan today is the British colonisation. Otherwise, we would probably be getting invaded by Afghanis now. The only reason you're using internet, watching TV and listen to "Rock" and "Classical Western" is economic colonisation. We could have been spinning chakras, but now we're importing sexy clothes all over the world.
We're not economically colonised in any way. Nobody is forcing anything on you. If an Indian can come up with a kickass business model, then let him. This has happened too. You're misinformed about "colonisation". It's a free world.
Your take on republican take is irrelevent, nevertheless true. Your demographics take is like a short sighted digger mole trying to shoot a moving target. That Indians don't care about their fellow Indians couldn't be more judgemental and wrong. (Try reading letters to the editor for once in your life)
As for opening up to the free market, I agree that was a huge plus point though it was cheap labour and outsourcing that helped.
I wasn't someone who brought up living in harmony with the world to start with, though I merely illustrated how benevolent we really are. That was the point being delivered there, not your misunderstood absurd anology.
Government policies don't define their people? Have you heard of democracy? What you say is true with the Taliban regime and Kim Jong Ill's North Korea perhaps.
Well maybe in a holistic way we do care. I mean, when asked the question, who the hell will say 'no'? Does letters to the "editor" show anything about the whole society? Even if the entire society were forced to write letters to the "editor", everyone would write "we care", because, social convention dictates we say so. But what happens when there's a neighbourhood robbery? What about some other things? My neighbour died last month. He was 16 years old. He died in bike accident. Ofcourse, the family became a big gossip. Stupid bike accidents will still happen. No laws will be stricter. Police will still be bribe-able with 250 bucks. THAT is what society is. Not whether government policy/law says "People under 18 may not drive".
So I don't get what the problem is yet.
Is it because the labour is cheap? Sorry, but none of us can comment on that yet. We ourselves pay 250 bucks a month for the kelsa lady. Man that's one meal in palki. That's also the standard police bribe.(not literally)
Since when did government policies have anything to do with the people? Usually government policies are created by a bunch of old timers elected a majority of 50% turnout of voters getting 100 bucks a vote. Obamas election campaign for example was the most expensive and comprehensive in history. Sorry but I think democracy and governments have failed in a broad sense. We need a better system.
Hmm. I don't even know how we got to these topics. Our opinions differ greatly, perhaps we should just like it at that.
Post a Comment