Sustainable development or sustainable poverty?

Are the environmentalists hurting the poor in the name of saving the environment? Are countries who burnt the most fossil fuels and polluted the most now advocating restrain on the part of the developing countries? If you go by the latest book by Paul Drissen, ‘ ‘Eco-Imperialism, Green Power Black Death’, the answer is yes. The author argues that a new set of eco-crusaders are hurting development of the poor countries and hindering the progress of human beings in these parts of the world. After the developed countries have burnt enough fossil fuel, built enough plants and got rid of the poor men’s diseases such as malaria and kala zar, certain environmental activists are saying ‘ No more’. Countries like India and China who have not exploited even a fraction of the natural resources that US or Europe has, are suddenly being asked to sign international treaties which restrict emissions, use of pesticides and genetically modified food.

The author goes on to prove that sustainable development as defined by environmental activists focuses too little on economic development and too much on restricting development. When we say resources should be sustainable, what is the time frame we are looking at and how valid is out assumptions about resource needs of future? The world we live in today was unimaginable 100 years back, or even 50 years back. The resource base has changed completely in last several decades. For example, nano-technology and wireless can substantially reduce the use of metals in instruments and communication.

Environmentalists and experts from the developed countries are proposing alternate energy sources for the developing countries. While, such energy could be an interim solution, it cannot be permanent solution like conventional hydro or thermal electricity. The amount of electricity produced from a solar cell or wind turbine is too less and large-scale photovoltaic electricity is far more expensive than conventional electricity. A new 555-MW gas-fired power plant in California generates more electricity each year than does the state’s entire forest of 13,000 wind turbines, The plant occupies less than 15 acres, the 200-foot-tall windmills cover 100,000 acres, spoiling miles of scenery and killing thousands of birds each year

The ban on use of DDT has brought back the menace of Malaria to Africa, Asia and Latin America. While the west used it successfully to eradicate malaria, it is now restricting its use on the potential of health problems from trace chemicals in food and drinking water. There are ample proofs that use of small amounts of DDT in spray form inside the houses has a devastating impact on the mosquitoes and the spread of malaria, the so-called health impacts have not really been proved.

Another example of selfish motives of the so-called friends of the poor is this notion of “uniform rules” and “protection of worker’s health and human rights”. If MNCs are forced to pay US wages in countries where local economic and labor conditions don’t justify such payment, companies would have no cost savings incentive to relocate production to these countries and people would lose the jobs and other benefits of direct foreign investment. Without the so called ‘sweatshop’ jobs, many more beggars, criminals and prostitutes would be created. It is easy to ban the carpets from Nepal or the garments produced in India but it is hard to find alternate sources of income for the people who worked in the industries.

I think it helps to have a 360 degree view when it comes to decisions around environment issues. While there are issues related to sustainability of earth’s resources, global warming, pollution etc., the question is what is the right approach to solve these problems? Can it be at the expense of development of the poor? Certainly not! While many eco-extremist organizations such as Greenpeace and several others try to use a strict guideline on what kind of development should be allowed and what not, governments and people have to choose what is right for them. If we stop a mega hydro power plant because some part of the forest will be submerged and some tribal people would need relocation, who does it benefit? Every few days we read about the ship-breakers in Alag how they work in inhuman conditions. But, if we ban the ships from coming to Alag, what would happen to the thousands of workers earning their livelihood there? The work will shift to Bangladesh or some other poor country. Based on my understanding of the environment management, the following are some of the least-controversial things businesses and governments can facilitate to help the poor and the environment at the same time.
• Reduce energy usage and eco-foot print, create more efficiency in usage of resources.
• Increase supply of energy and invest in researching better sources of clean energy so that it can become more efficient and cheaper.
• Adopt villages/areas for economic and social development like the case of Nestle adopting villages in UP from where it gets milk supply and Tatas developing Jamshedpur as a model city along with their steel plant.
• Establish complimentary industries in industrial belts where the output of one can be used as input to another (Thermal power plant and cement plant is a good combination because fly ash generated in power plant can be used in cement)
• Reduce pollution of Air, water and soil. No one can go wrong with this. Management guru Porter says that pollution indicates inefficiency in business. Build associations to handle the pollution jointly rather than individually.
• Subsidize technology transfer and relax patents for developing countries.

You are welcome to add more to the above list. Towards a more inclusive and progressive environmental activism...!