Environment Inc(Anand Soondas)
Those of us who have some hope of remaining alive for the next 20 years will be very worried about the doomsday predictions for the environment. Looks like the world won’t just be a hothouse, but a very bleak house — ACs in Srinagar, no rain in Cherrapunji, Londoners without overcoats, Bangladesh under water and base camps almost at the top of Everest because the mountain sans snow and fog won’t be half as treacherous as it is now. Of course, the Chinese would have made the whole thing easier by building metal roads that would take truckloads of T-shirt clad tourists right up to where Hillary and Tenzing planted their victory flags, but that’s besides the point. The issue, really, is that in the absence of proactive steps by governments across the world, who obviously choose economics over ecology, letting developing countries do the emissions saving for them in the name of carbon credits, who will take care of the environment, global warming, vanishing pandas and tigers? The capitalists, who else. Just privatise the environment and see what a difference it makes. For money, they will gladly make a business of it and even go to the extent of saving humanity from imminent collapse. This is how the model will work. Each eco-entrepreneur — let’s call them that until something more apt is coined — will bid for “spaces” in an auction by the government. Ghaziabad will go to someone and Noida to someone else. Mumbai, of course, will go to one of the Ambanis. It’ll be the sole responsibility of the winners to ensure that their space is as clean as what is mandated by a global body. This will mean that the air in their specific areas of operation is permissibly clean, the rivers have no effluents, endangered species don’t go extinct, the water table doesn’t dip further, the hills don’t become naked without pines and both flora and fauna are secured well. For his hard work — because he will have to tackle the industry, poachers, agriculturists, bus operators and autorickshaw guys, almost everyone who’s out to make a fast buck at the cost of earth — the eco-entrepreneur will get a good portion of the taxpayers’ money. Everyone will be happy, except maybe netas fattening up on huge cuts from various cartels. In which case, we can go one step ahead and privatise politics.
Thoughts (An Opinion sent to TOI Editor):-
Privatization of the environment?
Sounds good, but not an ideal solution in this far stretched world out there. Where we have sub-Sahara African countries like Mali etc., to places in Middle East and other developing nations all sustaining at the whims & fancies of the great super powers of the world, one just cannot anticipate the participation of private players as a blessing in disguise for protection of environment.To quote a few; Africa (read as resource rich nature), being a nation with a hugely growing vegetation & highest rate of forests growth in the world, is cut down by countries like US (read as those private advanced nation players) excessively just to serve their own interests. Another example to quote here is again of US economy causing most terrible impact on environment. Kyoto protocol did create a technique of saving eco-system using Carbon credits, but the day wouldn't be far when an equal encouragement to pollute would be made to earn more profits monetarily in one place on the expense of the other (nation) just like arms race.
Privatizing the space-width would not be a wise decision for protection of the environment. It reminds one of the novel 'Frankenstein' by Mary Shelly which had a living being named Frankenstein with all likelihood of a human, but went on to be a lot more powerful and a gruesome monster. Playing with the forces of nature and taking control over them would never result in anybody's good, the race can go beyond all human expectations one day!!!
In the article, author talks about the sharing of space geographically amongst the big shots for the good of the environment, plants and animals. But that idea has a very acute & dominating limp attached to it. When individuals run business, ethics & moral values receive a toss, and stakes are automatically higher when it is the question of safeguarding our environment. The tendency to save the environment using capitalism would definitely lose it's objective in long run and eventually one day become a warring battle between players to make the most out of it. The only entities that would bear the brunt would be plants, animals, common man and the environment. Privatization would lead to privatization of basic amenities of nature, which may include inhaling a clean air, drinking clean water, eating a non-genetically induced vegetation. And on same hand, it would lead to severe catastrophes like cloning of the endangered species, creating of artificial food, revoking the rights of the individuals, tussle between people for agricultural land, security concerns over other's industrial set-ups, exploitation of workers, inflation going overboard, government losing control etc.
Protection of environment, reducing greenhouse gases, planting trees, reducing effluents discharge are the objectives for the future. But more viable, feasible, practical and environment friendly steps need to be devised as a course of action needs to be carved out. Use of more renewable source of energy, employing the benefits of carbon credits, creating awareness amongst individuals and nations, exploiting the best use of Solar energy, nuclear energy etc would help in protecting the eco-system. Alternative fuels like ethanol etc. can be studied as a replacement for combustible fuels. As the adage goes, with great power, comes greater responsibility. Now it is the responsibility of humans to define a track that would define future for us and our generations to come.
