Environmental
Sustainability gets the required priority and impetus not when the academia and
media make it a central focus but when the governments decide to do so.
The democratic world
represents the majority and power in todays world, making it unipolar.
In a democracy the
priorities of issues are decided by the impact these issues will have if they
were addressed to. The timeframe plays a critical part as well because on an
average a democratically elected government has 4 to 5 years on the podium to win
hearts of audience for the next election. This is also the time when they have
to stave off the daggers of the opposition.
In the non-democratic
part of the world, things get more complex. The withering part of the world,
due to its insecurity and hunger for power, stresses more on immediate growth
of the nation. Issues concerning public such as health and environment always
take a back seat. Any action, if done at all on these fronts is just
pettifogging to leverage the reputation at the world stage.
I do not think anyone
finds himself astonished to see that issues such as environment sustainability
and climate change are plunged at a position which one may term, “Nugatory”.
The issues such as
health and poverty always take a center stage for the governments. The
overarching theme for governance is always public welfare. Issues such as
environment are critical but a hamlet dying of famine or even slightest
increase in inflation are issues which lead to grave threats to the very
existence of the ruling party’s majority in the house.
Achieving environmental
sustainability will take a dedicated battle which will require both efforts as
well as capital. Ability to deal with issues of poverty and environment
sustainability together at the same time with equal and effective efficiency is
a utopian thought. That which cannot be implemented should be avoided to
refrain from wasting time. On a personal note I think the above statement is
extremely pessimistic but having worked with the government at the field level
I know that governments are always interested in schemes and policies which
show an immediate impact. A quick look on government’s expenditure on schemes
such as food bill and on National action plan on climate change will give a
very clear idea of the ground reality.
I t is indeed clear
that till the time we are facing problem of poverty and stunted development,
steps towards environmental sustainability will be reticent.
Governments may be
worng not to address poverty and environment together but with the Lion’s share
going towards poverty alleviation, it is clear that poverty is the greatest
threat towards environmental sustainability.
Even though we have an
overwhelming evidence of the threat we face if we cross the biophysical limit
of the society, what we need to see is that what prevented governments to stand
up and give the attention this issue deserved?
It is the overwhelming
demand of people to curb poverty and their demand for immediately visible
results. Imposing, would be a better word to describe the public’s stance.
Often while dealing
with subject of Poverty and Environment , researchers show that carbon
footprint of “Rich” nations such as USA, Japan is way higher than that of Developing
nations such as India. Using this statistic it is argued that if Poverty was a
threat to environment, this would not be the statistic we would have in front
of us.
We need to be very
careful about analyzing this data. This data tells us that Poverty and
environmental “Degradation” are not related in a direct proportion. However, we
need to look at the budget which developed countries such as USA, Germany and
Japan have spent on sustainable practices such renewable energy. The figures in
case of developing countries battling poverty fall from Olympian heights.
When it comes to
environmentally sustainable practices, developed countries have fared to be
exceptionally better in terms of policies and nation wide expenditures.
Governments in
developing nations still believe subsidies to be the Noah’s ark to rescue those
languishing in poverty. Over the years almost all economists and research
institutes have pointed out the failure of direct subsidies towards poverty
alleviation, however if we see election manifesto of any political party we
will see promises of more subsidies.
In the thirst of rapid
development the south countries became the industrial address for the developed
world. China stands out as an example.
China’s population
living under international poverty line decreased from 85% in 1981 to 27 % in
2004. In terms of numbers, China is attributed to greater than 95% reduction in
global poverty over the period of last 20 years.
This comes at a price.
China’s environment has a miasma of neglect in it. Miasma in every sense of the
word. China is world’s largest source of carbon emissions and has 16 of the
world’s most polluted cities.
As the developed world
signed the Kyoto protocol, it simply shifted it’s industrial base to the
developing and poor nations. These nations, in their frenzy to break the chains
of poverty and hunger, willingly became the pit of the rich.
China had 1.2 million
deaths due to air pollution last year. A price which is not only acceptable to
the world but even applauded by development economists and the north because
every grave represents the phenomenal fall of poverty.
Citing one example can
be brushed off as a correlation but even a glimpse of any data comparing the
fall of poverty and condition of environment in that country would give an idea
of how the fervor for poverty reduction costs the environment.
To the more than 1
billion people subsisting on less than $1.25 a day, worrying about
environmental issues is a distant luxury. If your family is freezing, you will
cut down the last tree for fuel; if they are starving, you will strip the land
bare to feed them. And if you have no certainty about the future, you will
provide for it in the only way possible: by having more children to care for
you in your old age, regardless of how much they will add to humanity’s demands
on the planet.
Poverty means entire
disadvantaged communities have less to eat, get less education, and are more
exposed to infectious disease. Allowing them to get richer enables them to
satisfy their families’ immediate needs like food, clean water, and education.
And then they can afford to start caring about the environment. Recent history
suggests that when living standards go up, people and societies reduce their
pollution, stop cutting down forests, and stop dying from dirty air and bad
water.
The governments are
driven by people’s demands. They will act on environmental issue when it people
make it a core demand.
In short, helping people
to emerge from poverty is one of the best things we can do for the environment.
Untill then, it is and will remain the biggest obstacle on the road to
environmental sustainability.
