The environment ministry cleared 80% of the proposals it had received within a span of a few weeks. There are some who are cheering for development and the boost that this gives to our industry and infrastructure. There are others who are going completely alarmist over this. What is my take on it? Well, as usual, nothing simple - The environment ministrys mandate must be made clear. What is its purpose? Is it to protect the environment at all costs? Or if not at all costs, then what limits does it set for itself? What Lakshman rekha must be observed, beyond which it must say a firm, unshakeable NO? I dont know the answer, and worse, I dont know if Javadekar Ji knows the answer, or even Modi Ji himself. Economics and psychology offer us two insights: 1. One is, everything - and I mean EVERYTHING - is a trade-off between (perceived) risks and returns, and opportunity costs of our actions - that is, what value we forego when we take an action instead of other alternative courses of action - play a major role in our decisions 2. Second, as a living, breathing animal, we are spectacularly bad at estimating probabilities and long-term effects of our actions, and we find it very hard to delay gratification or self-inflict hardship NOW for intangible benefits in the indefinite future accruing not to us but to unknown future generations With these two insights (they are both backed by solid research - pick up Freakonomics or Black Swan to read a layman-friendly introduction to a few of these ideas), we can safely assume that it will be very difficult for us to estimate the effect of small policy changes now that have zero tangible positive impact now but prevent environmental damage later. All around us we see only sluggish economic growth, which is fed back to us over and over again in the media, reflected in food inflation, in our EMIs, our salaries, and our job prospects. Cocooned as we are in our AC buildings and high rises and concrete houses, we cannot estimate the impact of a minor relaxation in our environment laws. If anything, we will be prejudiced in favour of economic growth at all costs. However, environmental disasters can be triggered or at least influenced by man-made events. Forget global warming, just consider Diwali, which is around the corner - by bursting smoky crackers, we create pockets of heat in a larger area (research proves this). Or consider mobile towers: we are yet not certain what impact such constant, intense radiation might have on us. Or consider why sparrows have uniformly disappeared from heavily urbanized areas - nobody knows. And the worst part is, these changes might begin to show their impact not now but a few decades later. Am I an environmental alarmist like Vandana Shiva or Al Gore? No. But I firmly believe the earth is not for human beings alone, and we OWE it to our future generations to leave them an inhabitable planet. Sure, we can all argue and say that on a per capita basis the Americans pollute way more than we do, but thats like saying the liver has a cancerous tumor so lets ignore the gangrene on our foot. I hope our environment minister and Mr Modi, while formulating policies for protection of the Indian environment, have heeded the expert opinions of senior environment scientists, and not just economists and industrialists. Otherwise disasters like J&K floods and Uttarakhand floods and landslides in Maharashtra will keep recurring more frequently and more intensely. Thats it for tonight - breakfast meeting again, tomorrow >:( see you all in the AM! ~ Suneil
Posted on: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 19:40:14 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015