… On Environment, Humanity & Quality of Life

Two streams of thought fight for space in my mind when I think of environment. One, are we,human beings, part of our environment? And, two, what are we doing to our environment?

The second question is the easier one to answer and we will take that up first. We, by virtue of exhaust from our planes and other lifecycle products, are creating a hole in the ozone layer up there in the atmosphere. There may be a spurt in evolutionary changes because of the possibility of faster mutations, not necessarily benevolent and highly likely to be detrimental to us, experience shows. We are spilling oil here, there and everywhere in the seas. This affects not merely the tourists or the tourism business; pity the marine animals in an ocean of oil. Do we know how many deep sea Oliver Ridley Turtles, whose eggs are delicacies and aphrodisiacs, along the coast of Mexico laid their life for us to enjoy ours? Many whales have propeller notches in their fins, thanks to our ships plying the oceans. Less said about the air in our cities or the available quantum of potable water the better.  We are flooding the earth with pesticides in our efforts to boost agricultural output – not bad at all. But do we notice what happens underneath the top soil when chemicals seep down? There is a certain grimness to this reality.

But, there are hopes also that things would get better. It appears that environmental awareness (not necessarily action on it) is greater in the developed countries. You have catered to your survival needs and more, you have time on your hands, you can contemplate and take in the big picture, which definitely includes the environment, the argument goes. This does appear plausible given that environmental activism is more vigorous in the developed countries. Environmental protection is an affordable item on the agenda of developed countries. How does this stack up to the reality in the rest of the world?

Many developmental professionals and economists – and that should be a surprise – have said that for least developed or developing countries to wave off environmental preservation as unaffordable is not judicious. Awareness about safeguarding the environment, while it could be a byproduct of development as mentioned earlier, also drives the developmental agenda. Without developmental concerns – environmental issues occupying the place of pride – any growth path is bound to be unsustainable.

Can we wait till we become developed to start showing concern about environment? If we did wait, we might not have an environment by then! If our fellow travelers in life on earth do not survive, we do not survive. In this, for the first time in this talk, I have exposed my inclination to include humans as an integral part of environment.

In a recent book, “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive”, Jared Diamond tries to explain how the long-term environmental factors have contributed to collapse of societies. His book should be a must read for those who are disinclined to accept humanity as part of environment. The author argues, among many other things, that collapse of civilization of Easter Island three centuries ago was caused largely by deforestation. The linkages he establishes are illuminating, to say the least.

Transporting and erecting those extraordinary statues required a lot of wood. The early Easter Islanders also used wood to cook their food, cremate their dead and build large canoes. With such sustained and widespread dependence on wood, it is no wonder that deforestation was the result. The ecosystem was wrecked. The soil was rendered infertile. The climax is yet to come. As population grew they cut down trees to satisfy their hunger for wood.

When disaster came, it was not a tsunami, but something that was no less effective in eliminating people from the face of the earth. No big logs were left with which to build sea-worthy craft and the islanders had no means of escape. They could not even paddle far enough out to catch porpoises, which had been a chief source of protein. They ate their land birds to extinction and then they starved. Wars erupted, in which the victors ate the vanquished.

This, even if nothing else does, proves that human beings are integral part of environment.

Here I would like to refer to a recent book by the noted story teller biologist Prof. Richard Dawkins titled The Ancestor’s Tale. The author traces out a wonderful journey, a time machine sort of journey, going back from us to the very first lives on the earth. On this backward journey we meet our ancestors at various points. To me, what is wonderful about the book is that every life – I mean algae, fungi, animals – is shown to be our cousins, millions removed maybe, but cousins nonetheless.

Then, following all of the above it is easy to answer the first question because it is trivial. If an Oliver Ridley Turtle is part of nature, then so am I and so are you! If a species becomes extinct then we have lost a part of a family. This is not a wooly or mealy-mouthed sentiment carrying no meaning. The thought just makes you aware that you may have to locate the threshold that signals an irreversible decline in environment, which includes you, and act accordingly. Referring to the Easter Islanders, we may with hindsight say that they missed the warning signals.

Starting to answer the second question we have arrived at the answer to the first question! It is my earnest desire that no one leaving this meeting would ever ask himself/herself whether we are part of environment. Humanity is a subset of environment.

International relationships have been stretched almost to breaking point because aspirations of developed countries do not match those of the least developed or developing countries. I have in mind the Kyoto Protocol, with special reference to carbon emissions and the US. The developing countries pose the question,

… over all these years, you [the developed countries] have dumped all your wastes in air, sea and land and ravaged the earth (all in the name of your development and growth) and now when its affecting all of us, you are not assuming the fair share of responsibility that is yours on account of your past actions … now you are asking us to reduce our emissions [put a brake on our developmental path] and citing your standards of living, you claim that asking for reductions in emissions from you is not tenable … this is eating the cake and having it too! … in whichever way – past or current culpability – you count it, the contribution from the least developed and developing countries would only be a miniscule portion of the total …

We, counting ourselves as a leader of the group of developing countries, have the responsibility to lead the way on the above debate. But, before doing so, we have to ask ourselves ‘Are we following the environmental regulations that we ourselves have promulgated?’

It is sad but necessary to admit to certain degree of laxity on our part. We seem to be satisfied to live by the letter and not by the spirit, if that. Practical considerations of the short-term have come to dominate our thinking. I really do not need to cite specific examples in this regard, as we all are aware. But these would help.

We have regulations for transporting sand for construction in trucks under cover of a tarpaulin. This is recognized more often in the breech than in compliance. What are we doing to the environment? River beds are mined for sand with no blip registering in the conscience. Forests are being denuded for immediate profit (sandalwood and Veerappan come to mind but it is much more than that – clear cutting of forests, for one). Constriction of bio-diversity is an inescapable reality of clear-cutting of forests. If we persist with clear-cutting, we have to realize we are severing our own limbs.

Shrimps are globally an annual $7 billion industry. So, now shrimps are ‘farmed’ in shrimp farms and only about 20% of the total catch is from the seas. While tales of environment pollution – release of industrial effluents [industrial wastes from a farming activity – shades of pesticides in agriculture] are galore from the Central American region, it in our own backyard we find the most immediately resonating examples. In Orissa, there are reports of shrimp farming affecting the mangroves. There are also reports of conflicts between local population and developers. Can we not trace these events to a misunderstanding of environment, with the dominant view that humans are apart from environment? This is not to advocate stopping shrimp farming. It is in fact a call to merge the thinking on environment with the one on development.

Just a thought. In the aftermath of the tsunami there have been voices that degradation of mangroves along the coast led to enhanced destruction from the event. We are right to question such claims. Yes, of course. But at the same time, we have the responsibility to look into the matter more seriously and not brush it aside as a concern of the environmental fringe. I do not know what the proposed protection wall would do to the seascape, not of the visual kind, but of the living. Let us move cautiously. We do not need to seek technological solutions for every circumstance.

Let us come a little closer, to West Bengal. Arsenic in groundwater above the WHO maximum permissible limit has been found in six districts of West Bengal covering an area of 34 000 km² with a population of 30 million. The source of the arsenic is geological. To that extent it is, in itself, a part of the environment not taking into consideration human beings. However, when major water demands of human settlements are met from groundwater, arsenic leaching from the source is a distinct possibility. In this aspect, the environment has broadened to include human beings. And, it now becomes our immediate concern because of health effects. What do we do? We have to fight on many fronts. Contain the population explosion. Consumerism is OK, if only the imposition on natural resources, including water, is controlled. Try to give back to environment what we take from it. There is no way you can remove humans from environmental equations.   

Even in simple things, we have to be pushed, kicking and screaming it appears, to implement even simple measures of safety, like requiring hardhats for workers in construction sites. I have seen workers standing on a river well cap underneath a 145 m tall transmission tower under construction without hardhats! You ask the construction agency why so, the double-quick reply is workers are resistant. The supervisor is unashamed to admit that he did not try to persuade the workers. How is this an environmental issue, you ask. Just remember, each one of us is a part of humanity, which is a part of environment as proved earlier. The unprotected worker dies and so does a part of you. The gene pool gets impoverished.

Waste disposal, not just of the nuclear kind, is a major concern. We still see garbage being hauled in open trucks. For the moment forget about the stink and think of what happens to the air. Where do the zillions of trash-feeding microbes go? Into the air and very slowly but surely into our lungs. It is the biggest Yuk! Yuk!! you can say to yourselves. But, do something. Demand that trash be moved in closed containers. But demanding itself is insufficient. Be willing to contribute towards achieving your demands. You are part of the environment and also a part of the government. Bring them close together.

This leads us to quality of life. A vast expanse of golf course greenery is unfolding in front of you in the brochure selling a condominium. That is not a serene environment as the poster makers would have you believe. Such greens consume water like nothing else can and spoil the soil with pesticides/herbicides. While you are enjoying the green expanse, you are subtracting from your own quality of life which may have been masked by your money. Thailand went on a golf course building binge, with a short-term view of attracting tourists and they faced immense water problem in short order. Yes, we need golf courses. That is part of our life. But, recognize the limits, hear the warning signals. Do trade-offs – so many golf courses for so many low income housing schemes and water supply for these?

I have a pet issue – noise pollution in our cities, big or small, Kolkata or Siliguri. It is an unavoidably noisy situation, our roads. It is also an egg or chicken question. Did we start beeping our horns to get cattle/people/motors out of our way or they demand loud warnings to let us pass. Which came first? The answer is our disinclination to live by rules. Our systems do not promote self-correcting actions. We would have to do something quickly, if we want any improvement in our quality of life.

I have seen in Delhi police sirens, VIP sirens (not the authorized ones) blaring away just crawling with the traffic at snails pace in a traffic jam. I just do not understand why they would not shut down the sirens. Noise has lost its ability to inform us. This is a loss in our quality of life and that cannot be reclaimed unless acted upon immediately and strongly. And, please understand what all this urban noise is doing to our fellow lives on this planet. It is a major ecological concern too.

This has been a long piece. I would like it end it with an extract from an article of creative writing, “Interview with A Fungus”, that earned the top prize from the shelleconomistprize competition in 2003. A fungus is being interviewed and in its response to a question we hear, “…we are drivers of the carbon cycle, elite teams of detritivores whose mission is to digest organic matter and return the component parts to the ecological system. Without our work, life on earth would long since have ground to a halt for lack of raw materials.” This is fantastic.

A mere fungus is claiming that it supports us, the much evolved humans, and we cannot rebut the claim. On the other hand, what are we supporting? We are perhaps straying away from the path of supporting our own progenies, let alone other species. Sustainable Development has degraded into cliché with no perceptive action. What are we returning to earth – indestructible plastics that cannot sustain any life! Pollutants to sea and air that may spawn many species but are harmful to the existing ones!

Unless we acknowledge that we are an integral part of the ecosystem there is no salvation for our species. This is not a doomsday scenario. Take this as a dire warning from a layman on such issues.

Raghuram Ekambaram