SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA
ARCHIVES

Ashwin Mahesh

The Wretched Earth

For several years now, the impact of human activity on the global climate has been the focus of intense debate. In particular, during the past decade, international conferences in Rio de Janeiro and Berlin have put the role of anthropogenic emissions in the environmental spotlight. As I write this article, the most recent one, in Kyoto, is just winding down. Whereas some progress has been made through such meetings, many of the problems remain intractable.

Developed countries have historically accounted for almost three-fourths of the pollutants discharged into the atmosphere, but increasing industrialisation in Third World Asia is bridging this gap. However, rich countries are home to a much smaller fraction of the global population than developing ones. This means that the per capita impact on climate is much higher in the first world, where consumption is extremely high.

The average American, for example, consumes about 20 times more resources than his Asian counterpart, and this imbalance is not likely to diminish significantly in the imaginable future. Yet, the US has consistently linked its pollution control proposals to corresponding ones from developing nations, especially India and China. Not surprisingly, both nations have balked at this.

Developing nations view American proposals as attempts to curtail their growth, and are unwilling to accept any reduction in emissions. Law-makers in most developing countries contend that western prosperity is largely founded on past actions which have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of pollutants, and to hold developing countries also responsible for cutbacks is essentially to deprive those nations of the opportunity for prosperity.

That is true enough, but the American counter-argument has some merit. Whereas the US, Japan and Europe may have caused much of the past increase in atmospheric pollutants, developing nations now account for an ever-increasing share. Given that, it seems reasonable that any reduction on the part of the developed countries must be accompanied by simultaneous commitments from developing nations as well. Else, any reduction on the part of the developed out will be rendered ineffective by corresponding increases from the newly industrialising nations.

Togetherness is important, since the consequences of our actions can be local, regional or global, and this is often not easy to predict. Sulfate emissions from industrial areas might cause severe local smog in Mexico City or Los Angeles, and leave Xian or Pretoria mostly untouched. On the other hand, the recent smog in Malaysia resulted from fires in Indonesian forests, and the Malays had little control over the fires themselves or the winds that blew them in. The oscillations of the southern ocean temperatures, popularly known as El Nino, regularly disrupt economies in more than a dozen nations. Nations acting independently are no match for such natural changes, cohesion is of paramount importance.

An obvious difficulty in achieving joint action is that a changing climate is not always something to be afraid of. In the wake of El Nino, Peru's once-thriving anchovy-fishing industry has collapsed as the fish have moved to milder temperatures off the coast of Chile, but the Chilean fishermen are not complaining. Some years ago, the Russians were enthusiastic about global warming, and at least one Russian scientist urged the rapid burning of fossil fuels, hoping that global warming will open more land to farming in Russia. Such warming might have wiped out the Maldives, but that is hardly a Russian concern. When the effects are so disparate, any global consensus becomes difficult to achieve.

Differing international objectives aside, the biggest reason for the ongoing destruction of natural resources is the firmly entrenched relationship between business and government everywhere. Large corporations routinely use the government as an arm of their own operations. In many democratic societies, this is possible because of the huge cost of winning an election; donors professing support for political campaigns easily buy the legislative support needed to carry on their actions with impunity.

In the undemocratic world, even this lip-service to legality is absent. The forest fires that started months ago in Indonesia continue to smolder in pockets, with fire-fighters now depending on the monsoon to put them out completely. The mindless pillaging of the tropical forests on Borneo continues even as this catastrophe is ravaging the land; the influential corporations connected to Suharto are making off with their bounties without the least concern for the consequences of their actions.

Businesses are often bitterly opposed to any changes that require additional investment to safeguard the environment. Automobile manufacturers want to keep the emission standards manageable, refrigerator manufacturers would rather not worry about ozone-depleting substances, oil companies hire hordes of lobbyists to ensure that energy policy does not favour cleaner solar, wind and hydroelectric generators. In a political system where money rules, change is gradual at best, and often non-existent.

Businesses also make use of scientific arguments in support of their ambitions. Although the general consensus is that human activity is changing the climate, quantifying this change is not easy. Inadequate data, combined with the natural variability of the climates, makes accurate determinations difficult. Last year's Leipzig declaration, for example, urged law-makers to go slow on addressing climate change precisely because several questions remain unanswered. As we fight over the numbers and what they mean, industries influence the debate with money.

Business interests are visible punching bags in this debate, but ultimately, every travesty that is perpetrated by business is not only a sign of greed within the corporation, but also of utter callousness in society at large. The industrialists who lobby for environmental standards to be relaxed are mostly doing so in pursuit of our money. They realise that the public is neither organised enough nor seriously committed to the common good -- most of us are too busy looking out for ourselves and our interests.

Too few of us take much interest in the economic and social consequences of our everyday actions. If I could demonstrate to you that your cherished morning coffee was grown on land that a major corporation confiscated from an Amazonian tribal by bribing the local mafioso into forcing the tribals off their land and then clear-cutting it for cultivation, would it stop you from drinking that brand again? If it turned out that the man's three-year-old daughter died of starvation, would you be convinced?

It is only at these identifiable levels that we are willing to act, yet these identifiable levels can never be reached in an economy with such a high degree of division of labour. As far as we can tell, the coffee we drink came from the cafe at the corner, and all traces of its origin vanish beyond that.

The destruction of the natural habitat and the abuse of the poor that accompanies our lifestyles are usually of no concern to us. Much as we mourn the destruction of wetlands, forests and entire species, we still cherish the good life with all its trappings. Suburban communities fleeing the cities are essentially full of people who've decided that their luxury cars, fancy wooden furniture, and every thing else must take priority over the grievances of the underprivileged, and the destruction of the environment.

Increasing income disparities are hard to imagine in our closeted worlds of comfort, but for those at the bottom of the economic ladder, our success is obviously related to their misery. According to the Worldwatch Institute reports, per capita food production peaked in 1986. World population has grown more than 500 million since then. Who is eating less? Africans, Cambodians, indeed, many Indians. For most of us, it is not clear how our increased consumption relates to the starvation of others, and we do not consider our potential to make changes seriously.

Among the worst signs of our apathy is in the value we put on our relationships. The people we know and like are the ones we are most able to influence, yet they are also the ones we hardly ever admonish. Almost every one of us knows at least one industrialist, at least one businessman who is flouting some standard of social responsibility. Yet, we would much rather preserve our relationships with our family and friends than demand that they account for their behaviour. Somehow, it is easier to protest Starbucks's treatment of farmers in Latin America than to ask your uncle if he employs children in his factory, or where he discharges the waste from it.

How did we ever come to accept the notion that the earth was a limitless provider of resources, and it is acceptable to abuse it? Many historians and scientists trace much of the current destruction of the natural environment to the Western notion, drawn from religious texts, that man has dominion over the earth. The idea that the earth is something to be exploited for the betterment of a supreme species is egoistic at best, and at worst, as we are slowly learning, completely ruinous.

Still, it is in the West that individual responsibility for protecting the environment is at its strongest. Recycling systems are routine, computerisation has reduced the amount of paper pushed around needlessly, and environmental agencies have real teeth. Transportation policies that heavily subsidise the consumption of fossil fuels are the most egregious exception to this rule, but this is more a sign of entrenched relationships between business and government than of individual choice. Here too, major metropolitan areas are working on public transportation systems, and reinvigorating urban communities.

Even as individuals and communities take increasingly more responsibility for their own actions, this is not translating into bigger gains. Industries, which affect the climate far more than individuals or communities ever will, continue to disregard the dangers of pollution and global warming. And in places like Indonesia, where the distinction between government and business is a hoax, the mindless destruction of natural resources and ecosystems is a fixture. Often, the catastrophic effects of such rapid destruction are borne by the poor.

Clearly, the need to address the environmental consequences of our actions has never been greater. At the same time, our ever-present disparities of income, diverging national interests, and entrenched preferences for certain industries, are all enormous obstacles in our effort to do anything of consequence. Sooner rather than later, we will have to quit bickering and start acting. Whether we do it voluntarily and in a well-planned manner, or in despair and hurry, remains to be seen.

If there is to be hope for the future, then we must learn to limit our development to sustainable levels. We must learn to see the dispossessed and the oppressed of this world as our burden, for we have created the material world that ruined their lives. The resistance to such truths which has characterised the past must be replaced with the willingness to embrace the natural world we live in. Our self-interest and geopolitics are unreliable barometers of the success we will have in overcoming disastrous consequences to ourselves.

Nature's response, on the other hand, is harsh and unforgiving.

RELATED REPORT:
US wants India, China to assist war on global warming

Ashwin Mahesh