Dear all: Jairam Ramesh, former Environment Minister, spoke at Asian College of Journalism (ACJ) today on Warming up to the Climate Change Challenge. It reminded me of an article I wrote on Jairam Rameshs environmental position two years ago after his provocative talk at the ACJ convocation. archive.tehelka/story_main50.asp?filename=Ws25062011the.asp Jairam Rameshs talk today too was provocative. The long and short of his presentation today was as follows: Yes, we are faced with a planetary crisis. That planetary crisis was caused by the pursuit of prosperity. But the pursuit of prosperity must continue. For this, growth is essential. He emphasised that the his vision of growth is of one that is environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive. I had a two-fold question to ask of him: 1. Sustainability: No matter how you do it, growth within the capitalist paradigm involves increased production, distribution, consumption and disposal of consumer goods, products and services. Changing from coal to renewables can address the carbon emissions from power plants, but how can renewables be expected to power an inherently unsustainable consumer economy? If Mr. Ramesh is talking about a different kind of growth -- not one based on consumption -- I wanted more details on that. 2. Inclusivity: The current inequities in human society are a result of an economic system that celebrates certain problematic natural and inherent traits of human beings -- greed, covetousnous, the tendency to obliterate competition etc. Capitalism celebrates competition and accumulation of wealth. How can this model be expected to become inclusive when it thrives on exploitation. His answer: As long as environmentalists deny economic growth, they will not win the debate. He also insisted that it is foolhardy to expect people to moderate their consumption, or take public transport even though it may be desirable to do so. You got to think of a different way of growing. But grow you must. I think he is right. People who are critical of growth or consumption will not win the debate. But winning is not the point. The point is whether or not there are limits to growth, and whether unlimited growth is possible in a planet with limited resources. Degrowth or nil-growth advocates are likely to find that their suggestions are politically unviable. But that needs to be balanced with the possibility that the suggestions by the growth advocates may be ecologically unviable. Historically, human civilisation has opted for the politically viable even in the face of clear evidence that such choices may not be ecologically viable. I dont see modern civilisation opting any differently this time around. Kindly do send in your comments on the growth environment debate. This is a debate that needs to be had. Growth has for too long had an unchallenged run. ciao, nity
Posted on: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 15:53:25 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015