Ecological News

Amidst all the raging controversy and debates over wasted grains and hungry people, the Supreme Court has certainly created quite a flutter by asking the government to provide foodgrains free to the poor than to allow it to rot. This verdict, although not practically implementable, did show the urgency and in many ways reflected what an average citizen would say looking at the TV reports of rotting foodgrains in storage.

So much so that it sent a Group of Ministers (GoM) into a huddle to immediately spell out what they intend to do. Since the Supreme Court wanted a definite answer by Monday Sept 5, the GoM has come out with the promise of revamping the rotten Public Distribution System (PDS) and has also promised to make an additional allocation of 2.5 million tonnes of grains at below the poverty line price to States. This will be done in the next six months.

I only hope that the Supreme Court keeps up the pressure to force the government to act. It is criminal to let grains rot while millions go to bed hungry. This can happen only in a democracy.

The nation is still not sure as to what to do to ensure household food security. I find the Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council (NAC) still grappling with a way out while the Ministry for Food and Agriculture insisting that providing a monthly ration of 35 kg to 37.2 per cent of the population computed to be below the poverty line is the answer. The issue has got so polarised that the NAC goes on harping on the need to ensure a universal right to food just because it has taken a position which suits its constituency.

The Supreme Court has questioned the justification of a universal PDS. I agree. There is no need for a universal PDS as it would provide a license for the grain traders to make a killing. The Supreme Court would do well to consider the more plausible approach by raising the upper limit of the beneficiaries in the sense that instead of 37.2 per cent, it needs to include 55 per cent of the population (which means following the UNDP estimate of poverty in India) as beneficiaries. This will automatically include all those cases which are on the border line. At the same time, it will also ensure that the National Food Security Act is not a half-hearted attempt.

However, providing 35 kg of grain to the BPL population is simply nothing more than food entitlement. When we use the term Food Security, as in the proposed National Food Security Act, we surely have to look beyond entitlements. And that is where the NAC fails, and so does the Ministry for Food and Agriculture. 

Unfortunately, the proposed National Food Security Act is a stand alone programme. It fails to go beyond the quota of ration each family needs to receive. It fails to integrate agriculture with food security. Unless we make a sincere attempt to make a historical correction about our perception of food security in the long-term I fear sooner than later the Supreme Court may have to step in again.

Perhaps one way of looking at food security is to follow what Chhatisgarh has done in the past four years. It is running a right-to-food programme that has impacted the lives of everyone involved: labourer, small farmer, large farmer, middlemen, mandis and the government. Food Security is just the starting point, says a full page report in the Economic Times (Sept 2, 2010).

M Rajshekhar reports under the title New Food Rules: "The myriad ways in which such a welfare programme touches lives and other aspects of the economy have shaped -- and accelerated -- several ongoing trends. These might well be replicated, in varying degrees, as and when the Centre rolls out a national food security programme on similar lines." 

The problem is that since Chhatisgarh is a State under the BJP rule, and the Centre is in the hands of UPA-II government, the political configuration is not allowing due recognition for what appears to be a more practical way to ensure food security. I would have been delighted if the UPA-II had invited Chhatisgarh Chief Minister Raman Singh to actually oversee the country's food security programme. I wonder when will democracy mature to a level when cutting across party lines we begin to respect merit and performance.

Chhatisgarh relies on what is called local production-local procurement-local distribution model. Chhatisgrah bypassed its mandis in paddy procurement, instead buying through cooperative societies and procurement centres at the village level. The mandis, though, are unaffected, as the societies have to pay a procurement tax, the revenues from which go to the mandis.

For four years now, Chhatisgarh has been giving 35 kg of grain -- comprising rice and wheat -- a month at heavily subsidised rates to 3.6 million of its 4.4 million households. The ultra-poor pay Re 1 per kg, while the poor pay Rs 2 per kg, against the market price of Rs 12-17 a kg. The ration card is the document that enables this subsidised transfer.

You can read the complete article:

New Food Rules
By M Rajshekhar
http://bit.ly/9BPa3e

Since we’ve been on a bit of sun kick lately (hey, it’s August), here’s a solar-powered gadget that’s going to multi-task today. First, it’s going to thrill you with its ingenuity and get you thinking about how quickly personal solar-powered charging is coming along. It’s going make you think about all the times you looked down at your laptop, saw the “7 percent charged” note blinking on menu bar and thought, “Wouldn’t be nice if I could just plug this thing into something and keeping working?”

Yes, the Voltaic Generator Solar Laptop Charger is a solar-powered carrying case powerful enough to charge a laptop. We first showed it to you a few month’s ago in a solar-powered gadget round-up, but here are some details on what’s in the bag:

The case does its thing with high-efficiency monocrystalline cells and a battery pack that stores and converts electricity generated by a 15-watt, 20-volt panel. It’s being billed as more of a “mobile office” deal, as the case will also charge cell phones and most other handheld electronics.

The Lilon (lithium ion) battery has a capacity similar to a typical small laptop battery and is stored inside the bag, so it’s good to go whenever you need it (as in, “Hello! Hello! Still there?! Damn!”). When the bags not in the sun (with direct sun, a full charge takes five hours), the battery can be juiced using an AC travel charger. An Indicator light inside the handle shows it working.

The bag itself (shell, webbing, mesh and lining) is comprised of fabrics made from recycled PET (soda bottles). It’s strong. It’s water-resistant. It has an aluminum frame and a silicon handle, and weighs in at 4.5 pounds, including the solar panel and battery. It’ll hold something as large as a 17-inch MacBook Pro and comes in four colors.

Cost for packing sunshine: about 500 bucks.

And now, this case is going to serve its second solar-related purpose of the day. Writing about the Voltaic Generator Solar Laptop Charger requires no more from me. Nope, no 1,000-word tome today on Darwin, global warming or the evils of The Man. I’m outta here. It’s gonna be a scorcher and I’m hitting the chaise lounge that’s screaming at me from my balcony. Lates.

Sometimes back, questions were raised over the credibility of China's GDP estimates. Not surprising, you will say. Even at that time I had said that it will be interesting to find out how authentic are India's GDP figures.

Well, I wasn't wrong.

The Economic Times (Sept 1, 2010) has pointed to certain discrepancies in the GDP data. Accordingly, the GDP data put out by the government have raised some serious credibility issues. Now, these are the gaps:

Divergence in Growth Numbers:

From the supply side, or as measured from output in agriculture industry and services, GDP grew at 8.8 per cent. But demand side growth, based on private and govt expenditure, investments and net exports, was 3.7 percent. The difference between the two is net direct taxes. Data suggests, taxes have fallen while subsidies have risen. This is at odds with improvement in govt finances.

Expenditure Numbers show a Dismal Picture

Private consumption growth has slumped to 0.3 per cent in Q1 from 2.6 per cent in Q4 of last fiscal. Growth in investments has plummeted to 3.7 per cent. Government consumption growth is negative. The data is at odds with strong anecdotal evidence of consumer demand. Car sales were up over 35 per cent in July. 

I am sure there are a lot many people like me who cannot make a head and tail of what has been written above. Here is what Mridul Sagger, Chief Economist, Kotak Securities, has been quoted as saying: "This would erode the credibility of Indian statistical system, hitherto acknowledged as superior to that of China. GDP numbers for latter are always questioned, but that would pale in comparison to our Q1 numbers."

The Economic Times says: The robust 8.8 per cent growth figures was not corroborated by the 'demand side' of the equation based on transactions in the market place. The demand number -- calculated from private and government consumption, investment and net exports -- showed that the economy grew as low as 3.7 per cent during the first quarter  of the current year. On an average, the divergence is well below 0.5 per cent though on a few occasions it has touched 2-3 per cent.

Within 32 hours, the government made some correction. It has brought down the GDP to 8.5 per cent. But I am still not sure whether even that figure is a correct estimate. Let me explain why.

1. Growth is manufacturing has slowed down. The share of fixed capital formation in the GDP has slipped below 30 per cent.

2. Exports have slowed down, grew by 13.2 per cent in July as compared to 30 per cent in June.

3. Industrial output growth in June has also moderated. Other signs of slowing growth are the low cargo handling at major ports, and low freight movement by railways.

If Industry, manufacturing, exports, and agriculture (the figures are mere variation, and not reflective of growth) are not looking up, I wonder how can we say that the economy grew by 8.5 per cent. It is simply a fictitious figure.

If growth has to be measured in terms of the number of cars sold or the number of mobile phones sold, I think the entire system of calculating GDP needs to be revamped. A better way to compute growth would be to know how many more people have got employment, and how many more hungry mouths have been fed.

Moreover, treating annual variation in farm output (I don't know how you can measure agriculture growth every quarter??) as growth is grossly misleading. If in 2008-09, for instance, the production is low because of drought/floods, and therefore even if India achieves its normal projections in foodgrain output in 2009-2010, it cannot be construed as growth. This is merely an annual variation in production figures.

Economist must measure agriculture growth looking at the performance in production spread over at least 5 years. Anything less than that is simply not correct.

The weather this summer in the Bay Area has been nothing short of awful. And with me being what my friend calls a “High Priest of Ra,” it’s been posited that my missing a sacrifice or committing some other ungodly affront has resulted in this madness. We’re talking stretches of frigid weeks in July, a sunless, cold anti-summer, followed by sudden August temperature spikes reaching 104 degrees and literally melting the candles in my apartment. 104? I mean, this is San Francisco. Are you kidding me? Dear Lord, could it really be my fault? Do the weather gods care about us humans and what we do here on earth?

Evidently they do care. A lot. Human-induced global warming and our fossil fuel mission/vision of burn ‘em if we got ‘em has someone or something pissed off. Big.

We’ve all had the conversations that start with “How many hurricanes was it this year?” or “The summers have never been like this before!” or “When I was a kid we’d have snow days where we couldn’t even leave the house! What happened to those?”

Invariably, these openers are followed by, “Yeah, right, and there’s no global warming.” Indeed, for general weather phenomena like these, science has been emerging that shows connections between human activity and broad brush climatic change.

But take the conversation a step further to speak about a certain climatic event – the Russian heat wave, say, or Pakistan flooding – and it becomes more challenging to point to a particular culprit. While we all seem to instinctively know there’s a connection between specific weather events and what we’re up to on the ground, the science hasn’t been there to make absolute links, as in “that flood came from that weather pattern which came from those countries burning this much fossil fuel back in these years.” Capiche?

Scientists are beginning to capiche.

Earlier this month, white coats from all over the world gathered in Broomfield, Colorado, at a National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and International Group on Attribution of Climate-Related Events (ACE) workshop series on the “science, application, and communication of climate attribution information.” As defined by the NOAA, climate attribution is “a scientific process for establishing the principal causes or physical explanation for observed climate conditions and phenomena.” This includes attribution for variations “for which great public interest exists because they produce profound societal impacts.”

In other words, what’s behind the mega-weather headlines.

Not too long ago, our ability to address such questions would have been dismissed, says an article in New Scientist. “Many scientists at the time [a decade ago] said that you can never blame an individual weather event on climate change,” says Myles Allen of the University of Oxford.

But attempts to assign blame for such events goes back to 2004, when Allen and others “showed to a high level of confidence that human greenhouse gas emissions had at least doubled the risk of the European heatwave of 2003.” Their research approach required them to “run thousands of simulations of the climate as it is and as it would have been without human influences, then compare the number of times a given event occurs in each scenario.” Today, technological adavances will enable to such analyses to be much more accurate.

One of the worlshop’s attendees, Dr. Claudia Tebaldi, of Stanford’s Carnegie Institution, says that research already has been able to attribute causes of  trends in continental scale temperatures, large area-averaged precipitation trends, ocean temperature trends, long-term changes in atmospheric humidity and more to, well, us.

“Using sophisticated computer modeling and high quality observations,” she writes, “we are able to say with great confidence that in these changing aspects of our climate system, the fingerprint of human causes is already evident.”

Now the the goal is use new methods to get even more specific regarding particular events and their causes. And while forecasting is of primary importance, right now there’s a lot of buzz around the legal implications of pointing accurate fingers. For example, can one country sue another for activity that can be proven to be responsible for something as devastating as a flood, heat wave or famine?

In 2005, Katrina victims filed a lawsuit against some oil companies, saying their activity in the Gulf contributed to the power of the hurricane. The case was recently dismissed due to a legal glitch, but you get the idea. Big implications here.

Connecting weather events with their causes is going to be a huge undertaking in upcoming years. As climate changes have increasingly profound effects on the lives of millions, people are going to want to know the whys and whos and hows and, hopefully, how to predict and prevent catastrophes going forward. And leaving it up to the gods just ain’t going to cut it. (Sorry, oh dear and powerful Ra. Can I have some more summer please? Just a little? What do you want? A dead goat?)

Image: crowt59

Dongaria Kondh tribes are not grass-eaters. Pic by Amnesty International
A day before I had talked about Supreme Court's numerous verdicts (and some suggestions) about rotting foodgrains. The day the Supreme Court suggested that foodgrains should be distributed to the poor than allowed to rot, I was asked by Rajdeep Sardesai on CNN-IBN as to what I thought of it. I had said that I am not much enthused by Supreme Court's suggestion because it has never pulled up the State government's for not complying with its earlier orders on ensuring that no one goes to bed hungry. 

Merely making such statements does not make any difference. Unless of course His Lordship hauls up the Chief Secretary of a defaulting State, and sends him/her to judicial custody for not complying with its orders, things will not change.

Having said that I was pleasantly surprised when I read a Times of India article today (Aug 29, 2010) wherein it said: The Lanjigarh refinery shows how the Supreme Court played havoc with the ecologically sensitive Niyamgiri hills, which are home to 8,000 Dongaria Kondh tribals. This to my mind is the first time I am seeing such a clear analysis of Supreme Court's role in a controversial mining deal. Going through the article I must say I felt like raising my hands to offer my salute to the writer, Manoj Mitta.

Lanjigarh alumina refinery was to draw bauxite from Niyamgiri hills in Orissa. "In a bizarre reversal of roles, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh all but over-ruled Kapadia's decision to grant bauxite mining project the right to clear forests in the Niyamgiri hills, where the 8,000 Dongaria Kondhs live."

Justice S H Kapadia is now the Chief Justice of India.

Manoj Mitta goes on to write: "Clearly, the lapses that have come to light go beyond Vedanta and the Central and State governments. They extend to the Supreme Court as well." Accordingly, the author of the Vedanta verdict -- Justice S H Kapadia -- had made it clear how he saw the Dongaria Kondhs, who are officially classified as 'primitive tribal group'. Kapadia, now chief justice of India, described this tribe from Orissa as a people "living on grass."

Following the widespread criticism of the dilution of charges by the former Chief Justice of India A H Ahmadi against the Union Carbide in the Bhopal gas tragedy case, I feel the nation is now becoming mature enough to evaluate, analyse and scrutinise the meaning and implications of court judgements. This is a welcome sign, and indicates the evolution of a healthy and vibrant democracy.

Kapadia did not call the Dongaria Kondhs grass-eaters in either of his orders he wrote in the Vedanta case, the article goes on to say, but the fact that he did so in a public lecture, which was reproduced full in a law journal, may underline all that was wrong with the basis of his judgement. In the modern idiom, he might have seemed to have shown where he was coming from? 

At a time when the government itself is considering making it obligatory for the mining companies to pay an enhanced royalty of 26 per cent, I am surprised to learn that Justice Kapadia had come up with an economic formula -- 5 per cent of the project profits would go to tribal welfare -- ostensibly to balance the conflicting interests of development and environment.  

You can read the complete article here: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-toi/special-report/Who-will-save-our-Navis/articleshow/6453608.cms
 
Now before I end, I would like to draw your attention to another interesting analysis in the same newspaper, and also about the same issue. Senior journalist M J Akbar in his column Out of Turn (Aug 29, 2010) looked into Rahul Gandhi's support of the tribals and farmers. He says that it has always been clear to Delhi insiders that Digvijay Singh opened a front against  P Chidambaram with Rahul Gandhi's permission. Outsiders now have confirmation.

I found this particular para not only very interesting, but also reflecting the ground realities. The Congress has set out to be the party of the poor in daytime, and of the rich at night. Its sunlight politics will fetch votes, its twilight policies will enable it to govern. This is an extremely clever act whose opening scenes are being played out for a new generation that is vague about Indira Gandhi and amnesiac about Nehru. The hero of this drama must have the christma to dazzle the poor and the flexibility to keep the rich onside. That is the challenge before Rahul Gandhi. His avowed role is to be the guardian of the poor in Delhi, which means that the poor need protection from Delhi. He is at home with the elite in the evening and is now making the effort to capture the sunshine hours. 

Oh, dear ! Have we really evolved as a healthy and vibrant democracy?

[The Hindi version of this article is published in the four page pullout Hatskshep in Rashtriya Sahara of Aug 28, 2010. http://rashtriyasahara.samaylive.com/epapermain.aspx?queryed=17]

Food and Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar has turned down the Supreme Court’s suggestion asking the government to ensure free distribution of food grains to the hungry poor instead of allowing it to rot in the godowns of the Food Corporation of India.

"Give it to the hungry poor instead of it (grains) going down the drain," a bench of justice Dalveer Bhandari and justice Deepak Verma said while listening to a petition on the rampant corruption in public distribution system (PDS). This suggestion came almost ten years after the Supreme Court had directed six-hunger prone States – Orissa, Chattisgarh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh – to reopen closed PDS shops and that too within a week so as the address the problem of mounting hunger.

This was in August 2001. Seven years later, the Supreme Court gave another directive to the government: “devise a scheme where no person goes hungry when the granaries are full and lots being wasted due to non-availability of storage space,” hasn’t had the desired impact. Except for statistical jugglery, the government we all know remains non-committal on its role in eradicating hunger.

As I wrote sometimes back, not only the Supreme Court, even successive Prime Ministers time and again paid a mere lip-sympathy to the poor and hungry. In April 2001, the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had said in his inaugural address to a national consultation on “Towards a Hunger Free India” in New Delhi: “Democracy and hunger cannot go together. A hungry stomach questions and censures the system’s failure to meet what is a basic biological need of every human being. There can be no place for hunger and poverty in a modern world in which science and technology have created conditions for abundance and equitable development.”

He said the nation is guided by the commandment of the Upanishads: Annam Bahu Kurvita, literally meaning "multiply food production many fold. Ensure an abundance of food all around." How pious. And yet, all his government did was merely rename and ‘strengthen’ the public distribution system so as to ‘use food stocks in an imaginative and purposeful way’ to stabilise prices and boost exports.

The shocking paradox of the number of people living in hunger multiplying amidst overflowing food godowns has put the nation to shame. India ranks abysmally low – at ranking 66th among 88 countries -- in the Global Hunger Index.

Howsoever the governments swear in the name of hungry and the poor, the fact remains that it is not a national priority. Amidst the talk of bringing in a National Food Security Act, politicians of all political parties, without exception, have been busy talking about disinvestment and land acquisitions. Policy makers spend more time with industrialists and business houses, or hobnobbing with the diplomats in the cocktail circuits.

The debate on the National Food Security Act has not moved beyond the quantity of grains to be made available to each household falling under the category of ‘below the poverty line’ (BPL). While the Ministry of Food and Agriculture has expressed its inability to provide subsidised grain to those living above the poverty line, the National Advisory Council headed by Sonia Gandhi too is at a loss to find a suitable pathway to address hunger.

Unfortunately, what is not being understood is that hunger, agriculture and food security are related. These cannot be viewed separately. The National Food Security Act in reality does not look beyond food entitlements, the monthly ration quota that the poor needs to be given at a subsidised rate. Food Security on the other hand cannot be viewed without sustainable agriculture and it is here that the National Food Security Act fails miserably to draw a linkage.

In fact, I find there is a terrible confusion on the food security front. On the one hand the government is thinking of encouraging the private sector to cultivate oilseeds and pulses in neighbouring countries like Myanmar, and also in Latin America and then import it into India; and on the other it has launched a Rs 4,883-crore National Food Security Mission to bolster production of wheat, rice, oilseeds and pulses.

Strangely, the National Food Security Mission has nothing to do with the proposed National Food Security Act. Not many experts who swear in the name of food security ever relate it to the National Food Security Mission.

In fact, setting up a time-bound National Food Security Mission by enhancing production of wheat, rice, pulses and edible oils comes at a time when the UPA-II government itself is lowering the custom tariff thereby allowing cheaper imports. Take the case of edible oils. India was almost self-sufficient in edible oils in 1993-94. Ever since the government began lowering the tariffs, edible oil imports have multiplied turning the country into the biggest importer. Small farmers growing oilseeds and that too in the rainfed areas of the country had to abandon production in the light of cheaper imports.

I think there is something terribly wrong somewhere. The government has been steadily reducing the import tariffs on edible oils to make it cheaper for the domestic consumers thereby destroying the production capacity within the country. At the same time, it intends to pump in resources to improve productivity of oilseeds in the hope that the imports of edible oils can be reduced in the years to come. How can this be possible? Does it not mean that the government programmes in reality work at a cross-purpose?

On another front, land acquisition has become a politically motivated issue. While all kinds of options are being thrown up regarding how to make land acquisition economically worthwhile for the displaced, no one is talking of its impact on food security. If the land continues to be gobbled up at the prevailing rate, where will the country produce food for its growing population?

Who cares?

Don't worry. The National Food Security Act hai naa, goes the common refrain.

I happened to listen to All-India Congress Committee general secretary Rahul Gandhi live on the TV when he addressed tribals in Lanjigarh in western Orissa yesterday. His combative speech, short and crisp, delivered the underlying message loud and clear. Development cannot be at the cost of people. He said he believed in development that did not ignore the voices of people. "In my religion, all are equal -- whether it is rich or poor, Dalits or Adivasis. Wherever as individual's voice is being stifled, that is against my religion."

Two days ago, Environment and Forests Minister Jairam Ramesh had rejected environment clearance for the London-based Vedanta bauxite mining project in Orissa.

Meanwhile, against the backdrop of the continuing protests against acquisition of land for Yamuna Expressway in Uttar Pradesh, farmers protest reached the out gates of Indian Parliament in New Delhi yesterday. Backed by political parties of all hues -- Congress, BJP, CPM/CPI, JD(U), TDP, BJP and Akali Dal -- and led by Ajit Singh of Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD), the demand for a new law for land acquisition gained political strength.

Speaking at the impressive rally, Ajit Singh said: "Yesterday, the prime minister announced that such a law will be introduced in the next session after a meeting with Rahul Gandhi. He should understand that he is not the prime minister for just Rahul Gandhi. He is my prime minister, your prime minister."

Is he people's prime minister? I very much doubt.

In my understanding, Manmohan Singh is the prime minister only of the industry and for the industry. He is a victim of the illusion created by GDP growth. Rahul Gandhi on the other hand has made him see the ground reality a number of times, and I appreciate his (Rahul Gandhi's) role in making the prime minister do certain things that he would otherwise never do.

Rahul Gandhi has often highlighted the real divide between the 'rich India and the poor India.' As he said in Orissa yesterday: "There are two India's -- Ameeron ka Hindustan (India of the rich) whose voices reach everywhere, and the Garibon ka Hindustan (India of the poor) whose voices are seldom heard.... Two years ago, you had come to me saying the Niyamgiri hill is your god. I told you I would be your soldier in Delhi. I am happy that I have helped you in whatever way I could. What is important is that your voice was heard without violence."

This is not the first time he has emphasised on the great divide. As the Indian Express says today (Aug 27, 2010) in a front page box:

------------------------------------------
His 2-India Refrain 

Parliament, Budget Debate, 2008-09: There are two distinct voices among India's people today. The louder of these voices comes from an India that is empowered .. the other voice is yet to be empowered. The two Indias are fundamentally inseparable. 

Kolkata, April 2009: it angers me when I think that there are people who have more money than anyone else in the world. And there are people who don't have food. 

Ranchi, October 2009: Two Indias have been created. One India is yours and my India, the India of opportunity...the other is of villages where opportunities are very rare.

Kanker (Chattisgarh), July 2010: There are two parts of India. One part is the part you see in urban areas, growing very fast. There is another part of India, a forgotten part of India, and tribals, Adivasis and Dalits are part of it.

-------------------------------

I have often been asked whether the sympathy that Rahul Gandhi for the poor and marginalised is only for winning elections. I am not sure what he has in his mind or why is he doing it but what is quite visible is that here is someone who is making the effort to not only reach out to the children of the lesser gods but also trying to understand them. Knowing his political future, the safe pathway that he has in front of him, it wasn't necessary for him to venture out into the countryside.

Having said that, I think Rahul Gandhi's actions and pronouncements (ostensibly backed by his mother Sonia Gandhi) are indicative of two faces within Congress party. One is the more visible and exploitative Corporate face -- led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Home Minister P Chidambaram and the deputy chairman of the Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia -- and with most of the Cabinet ministers lending support, and for obvious reasons; the other is more sensitive to the existing ground realities, and is led by Congress president Sonia Gandhi, supported by Rahul Gandhi, Digvijay Singh, Jairam Ramesh and Mani Shanker Aiyer.

After being mesmerised by the growth figures for quite long, I think Sonia Gandhi has now begun to realise that all is not well. Growth is not only leading to widening of inequalities, but is also at the foundation for the growing socio-economic unrest. I am aware that if it were not for Sonia Gandhi, the UPA would have never approved NREGA, the Rs 71,000-crore farm loan waiver, refusing permission for a series of small dams on Ganga, and striking down the Vedanta mining project. The moratorium on India's first poisonous food crop -- Bt brinjal -- also was backed by 10 Janpath.

Now this does not in any way undermine the historic role played by tribal communities and people's movements across the country. I think behind the political realisation of the importance of environmental protection is the non-violent struggle by the masses for several years and in several parts of the country. They have succeeded somewhere, but have failed at most places. But slowly and steadily the world is beginning to realise that the poor are not merely an obstruction in development. They are the losers, and they need to be heard.

I for one would continue to support the mass struggles, and be part of the great awakening that emanates from Garibon ka Hindustan. This is where the future of any great country lies.

I happened to listen to All-India Congress Committee general secretary Rahul Gandhi live on the TV when he addressed tribals in Lanjigarh in western Orissa yesterday. His combative speech, short and crisp, delivered the underlying message loud and clear. Development cannot be at the cost of people. He said he believed in development that did not ignore the voices of people. "In my religion, all are equal -- whether it is rich or poor, Dalits or Adivasis. Wherever as individual's voice is being stifled, that is against my religion."

Two days ago, Environment and Forests Minister Jairam Ramesh had rejected environment clearance for the London-based Vedanta bauxite mining project in Orissa.

Meanwhile, against the backdrop of the continuing protests against acquisition of land for Yamuna Expressway in Uttar Pradesh, farmers protest reached the out gates of Indian Parliament in New Delhi yesterday. Backed by political parties of all hues -- Congress, BJP, CPM/CPI, JD(U), TDP, BJP and Akali Dal -- and led by Ajit Singh of Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD), the demand for a new law for land acquisition gained political strength.

Speaking at the impressive rally, Ajit Singh said: "Yesterday, the prime minister announced that such a law will be introduced in the next session after a meeting with Rahul Gandhi. He should understand that he is not the prime minister for just Rahul Gandhi. He is my prime minister, your prime minister."

Is he people's prime minister? I very much doubt.

In my understanding, Manmohan Singh is the prime minister only of the industry and for the industry. He is a victim of the illusion created by GDP growth. Rahul Gandhi on the bother hand has made him see the ground reality a number of times, and I appreciate his (Rahul Gandhi's) role in making the prime minister do certain things that he would otherwise never do.

Rahul Gandhi has often highlighted the real divide between the rich India and the poor India.' As he said in Orissa yesterday: "There are two India's -- Ameeron ka Hindustan (India of the rich) whose voices reach everywhere, and the Garibon ka Hindustan (India of the poor) whose voices are seldom heard.... Two years ago, you had come to me saying the Niyamgiri hill is your god. I told you I would be your soldier in Delhi. I am happy that I have helped you in whatever way I could. What is important is that your voice was heard without violence."  

This is not the first time he has emphasised on the great divide. As the Indian Express says today (Aug 27, 2010) in a front page box:

------------------------------------------
His 2-India Refrain 

Parliament, Budget Debate, 2008-09: There are two distinct voices among India's people today. The louder of these voices comes from an India that is empowered .. the other voice is yet to be empowered. The two Indias are fundamentally inseparable. 

Kolkata, April 2009: it angers me when I think that there are people who have more money than anyone else in the world. And there are people who don't have food. 

Ranchi, October 2009: Two Indias have been created. One India is yours and my India, the India of opportunity...the other is of villages where opportunities are very rare.

Kanker (Chattisgarh), July 2010: There are two parts of India. One part is the part you see in urban areas, growing very fast. There is another part of India, a forgotten part of India, and tribals, Adivasis and Dalits are part of it.

-------------------------------

I have often been asked whether the sympathy that Rahul Gandhi for the poor and marginalised is only for winning elections. I am not sure what he has in his mind or why is he doing it but what is quite visible is that here is someone who is making the effort to not only reach out to the children of the lesser gods but also trying to understand them. Knowing his political future, the safe pathway that he has in front of him, it wasn't necessary for him to venture out into the countryside.

Having said that, I think Rahul Gandhi's actions and pronouncements (ostensibly backed by his mother Sonia Gandhi) are indicative of two faces within Congress party. One of the more visible and exploitative Corporate face -- led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Home Minister P Chidambaram and the deputy chairman of the Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia -- and with most of the Cabinet ministers lending support, and for obvious reasons; the other is more sensitive to the existing ground realities, and is led by Congress president Sonia Gandhi; supported by Rahul Gandhi, Digvijay Singh, Jairam Ramesh and Mani Shanker Aiyer.

After being mesmerised by the growth figures for quite long, I think Sonia Gandhi has now begun to realise that all is not well. Growth is not only leading to widening inequalities, but is also at the base of growing socio-economic unrest. I am aware that if it were not for Sonia Gandhi, the UPA would have never approved NREGA, Rs 71,000-crore farm loan waiver, refusing permission for a series of small dams on Ganga, and striking down the Vedanta mining project. The moratorium on India's first poisonous food crop -- Bt brinjal -- also was backed by 10 Janpath.

Now this does not in any way undermine the historic role played by tribal communities and people's movements across the country. I think behind the political realisation of the importance of environmental protection is the non-violent struggle by the masses for several years and in several parts of the country. They have succeeded somewhere, but have failed at most places. But slowly and steadily the world is beginning to realise that the poor are not merely an obstruction in development. They are the losers, and they need to be heard.

I for one would continue to support the mass struggles, and be part of the great awakening that emanates from Garibon ka Hindustan. This is where the future of any great country lies.

To me, Charles Darwin was always one of the good guys. Growing up, the knowledge of evolution offered all the creative wonder I needed, thank you very much, and in conversation with pals I’d play Clarence Darrow to anyone’s William Jennings Bryan. In my little heathen mind, I naturally most often won the day. (Some kids liked cowboys and Indians. I liked Inherit the Wind. Go figure.)

As I got older, however, I was dismayed to discover how robber barons, past and present, had used the “survival of the fittest” argument to justify all kinds of vile behavior. From turn-of-the-century monopolists to today’s slum-lording real estate magnates, the Great Man’s concepts have been co-opted for evil purposes. (And I use the word “evil” advisedly. We are, in fact, talking Evil here.) Would Darwin see these thieves, oligarchs and social criminals as part of a natural order? Is it simply an evolutionary principle that the weak are taken advantage of and are, as they say, weeded out?

Then one day, someone added a phrase to my lexicon: “It’s just as much ‘survival of the luckiest.’” This explains how “acts of god” (so to speak) could wipe out otherwise “fit” populations. An asteroid? A political or economic system gone awry? Take your pick. Yes, the fittest survive – sometimes. And yes, the not-necessarily-more-fit-than-anyone-else take advantage of situations. Often.

Now, a new study offers another angle (or perhaps layer) to Darwin’s original theory. It not only helps put the Rockefellers in their evolutionary place, but should also give us all pause to think again about how we view our world, and how we use it.

Here’s the headline (from the BBC this past Monday): “Space is the final frontier for evolution, study claims – Charles Darwin may have been wrong when he argued that competition was the major driving force of evolution.”

Aw, those Brits and their headlines. Indeed, “wrong” is the wrong word here, but this certainly is interesting news. Here’s the rub: Recent research from the University of Bristol shows “the availability of ‘living space,’” along with competition, as centrally important to evolution.

Studying patterns and fossil records covering more than 400 million years of land-animal biological history, the scientists, says the story, “showed that the amount of biodiversity closely matched the availability of ‘living space’ through time.”

Living space – that’s the area where an animal and its species survive in a fairly comfortable way. What this study shows, say the researchers, is that important evolutionary advancements occur when a group gets more elbow room that’s free from predators and competitors.

Two examples they provide are birds and mammals. The former, once they took to the unoccupied air, made explosive strides. The latter waited for the Dinosaurs to get out of the way before making their evolutionary move. “This concept,” notes the story, “challenges the idea that intense competition for resources in overcrowded habitats is the major driving force of evolution.”

Now whether or not the study’s more radical conclusions hold up over time remains to be seen. (Co-author Professor Mike Benton goes so far as to say that “competition did not play a big role in the overall pattern of evolution.”)

Of course, there are already those who question those conclusions, including Yale Professor and evolutionary biologist Stephen Stearns who says he “found the patterns interesting, but the interpretation problematic,” and asks, “What is the impetus to occupy new portions of ecological space if not to avoid competition with the species in the space already occupied?”

But the point is made that living space rocks a species’ world and the lack thereof can keep (or bring) it down.

I’m left with two thoughts from this bit of news. First, it offers a rebuttal to the Trump-esque, entitled egos of the world who gloat over their gets and glories. Consider their “living space” – an environment cleared of true competition, where skids are greased, incumbents bought, arenas cleared of threat or responsibility. Maybe that’s a stretch, but what the hell, there is surely more at play in these folks’ “landscapes” than pure smarts and fitness.

The second takeaway, I think, is something to consider as we gobble up habitats and witness subsequent extinctions. We ought to note that we’re not immune from gobbling up our own living space, whether we poison it with chemicals, rip open its arteries of oil or simply pave it over at every opportunity in the name of “development.” This might be a study to remember if we truly want to make sure our ultra-fit species will ultimately have a place to live.

Says Darwin: “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” Try adapting to having no place to go.

Images: Simon Welsh and shehal

Professor Dinesh Mohan of the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) New Delhi was right on the mark. Speaking in New Delhi last week, his understanding of the socio-economic reasons behind the so-called neo-liberal assault on higher education made me think. He is so right.

He said if you look around your circle of friends and extended families you will find that most people who are even less than mediocre are doing so well. They have been 'educated' in foreign universities or have degrees from some private education institutes in India and yet we know they fall in the category of stupid. They are there because they could afford to be 'educated', even if they didn't deserve it.

Well, I immediately let my mind wander, and gosh he was so right. Many of my close friends and relatives certainly do not deserve to be where they are. They wouldn't have gone beyond the graduation level if higher education was not available for a price. Because they got those degrees, they managed to meet the essential qualification that landed them with plush jobs. These jobs should have actually gone to more aspiring and deserving candidates who were left behind because they could not 'afford' higher education.

Estimating the middle class to be around 250 million, Prof Dinesh Mohan said this means we have roughly 40 million families which fall in that category. They have children, some of them of course are bright, but a majority are stupid. Every parent makes the best of efforts to see that his children, howsoever stupid they may be, acquire the best of education (read degrees). Now, this wouldn't be possible unless he/she overcomes the competition from youngsters who come from the poor strata of life.

Since this stupid generation is unable to compete on merit, the next best option is to remove merit. Therefore, while the middle class talks of merit and talent, it actually hates competition based on merit. Private schools, colleges and universities have come in handy to rescue this stupid generation, and ofcourse generations after generation.

I found this argument very appealing, and of course true. 

If money couldn't buy education, and deprive the poor but bright students from higher education, we wouldn't have a majority of the politicians, and scions of the business families, coming back with degrees from Harvard, Cambridge and even some obscure university hidden in a street corner somewhere in Liverpool or Melbourne. Just think. Anil and Mukesh Ambani wouldn't have been heading the Empire if they were not the children of Dhirubhai? They certainly couldn't have managed higher education in the US since they were not meritorius enough. At best, they would have been upper division clerks somewhere if they were born to lesser mortals.

If you look around, you will find the same story everywhere. Your neighbour's son/daughter would have found it difficult to strike a better deal in matrimony since even there education qualification counts.

No wonder, more than 300 members of Parliament own colleges/universities. They are catering to a class of society that can only 'buy' education.

To hasten this process, the government is planning to introduce in Parliament the following four bills:

1. The Foreign Educational Institutional Institutions (Regulation of Entry and Operation) Bill, 2010.

2. The Educational Tribunals Bill, 2010.

3. The Prohibition of Unfair Practices in Technical Educational Institutions, Medical Educational Institutions and Universities Bill, 20101.

4. The National Accreditation Regulatory Authority for Higher Educational Institutions Bill, 2010.

At least, two more Bills in the same vein, including one on establishing the much-hyped National Commission for Higher Education and Research for facilitating single-window clearance for private/foreign universities, are reportedly in the offing, says Anil Sadgopal. And let us not forget the Indo-US Knowledge Initiative in Agricultural Research, Education and Marketing (KIA) that UPA-I had introduced.

This is a subject which needs a lot of debate and discussion, which unfortunately is not happening. Although the Prime Minister says that he is not working for the US, the fact remains that his government is in a tearing hurry to corporatise all sectors of the Indian economy, including education. And as James Petras, author of Globalisation Unmasked, had said: "The inevitability of globalisation and the adjustment or submission of people all over the world to free market capitalism depend upon the capacity of dominant and ruling classes to bend people to their own will and make them see the interest of capital as their own."

[If you want to know more about what the government is doing to destroy education,  suggest you try to get hold of a small publication: "Neo-liberal assault on Higher Education" edited by Anil Sadgopal. His email is: anilsadgopal@yahoo.com]

The Swedish right-wing government has won the yearly greenwash award in Sweden! The greenwash award is given to a company or a person who have done the best job to avoid real environmental action, and instead put effort into creating a fake green image. Friends of the Earth has, after a period of public online voting, given this award to Andreas Carlgren, the Swedish Environment Minister.

What is a bit surprising (or not) is that Andreas Carlgren won the award by far even though he was up against other heavy greenwash opponents such as Carl-Henrik Svanberg from BP and Shell. A reason for his crushing victory must be his involvement in the controversial new Swedish motorway project Bypass Stockholm which he is working hard to brand as an "environmentally friendly" solution to the traffic problems in Stockholm.

In September 2009 the government gave permission for the largest and most expensive highway project ever, the so-called bypass Stockholm. The motorway will increase road traffic and get in the way for emission reductions. Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren defended the bypass by claiming that it is an "environmental and climate friendly option for Stockholm", "a major investment in trams and buses", and a motorway "for the future of environmentally friendly cars," said Ellie Cijvat, chairman of the Friends of the Earth in Sweden.

Read more about the Swedish government and its climate-wrecking efforts:
- The Swedish government is bad for the environment
- The Swedish government completes its climate wrecking track record with a pro-nuclear vote

On the subject of e-cars: We’ve had back to back to back news, so I thought it good to let the topic bake for a bit while we wait for the public reception of the Chevy Volt, Nissan Leaf, and others.

But…

This is way too cool to pass up. Just in from the Great Green North: an e-car made of pot! (Well, hemp, but you know the drill. Hemp, pot, same diff when it comes to headlines!)

Says CBC News (and, of course, 420 Magazine), the car, which will be made into a prototype this month by Calgary-based Motive Industries, is called the Kestrel and is doubling down on the green factor. Its body will be comprised of “impact-resistant composite material” made from mats of hemp – which, by the way, will be locally harvested in Vegreville, Alberta. (Gotta love the homegrown.) The car will be a compact designed for four dudes/dudettes, including the driver, and will top out at just over 55 mph. Its range will vary from 25 miles to 100 miles, depending on the type of battery.

The Kestrel is part of Project Eve, a Canadian non-profit collaboration aimed at increasing that country’s production of electric vehicles and components. And guess who’s gonna be helping out with the pot car? College kids! Students at polytechnic schools in Alberta, Quebec and Toronto will help roll these babies out the door and into the hands of parktakers sometime next year when the first twenty are due to be dealt.

Using hemp to build a car is “not an original idea,” says Motive Industries President Nathan Armstrong. Henry Ford, in fact, experimented with the not-so-evil weed in 1941 when he created a hemp-bodied car. The vehicle – pictured below – was fueled on the stuff, too. CarDomain has a video of the indestructo-prototype.

Today, however, with a renewed emphasis on reducing weight while not giving up on strength, hemp makes sense. It doesn’t take a lot of energy to make (sunshine, soil and a little love, bra) and isn’t as fancy pants as fibreglass and carbon-fiber-based racecar material, which requires all kinds of heat and chemical wizardry to produce.

“As a structural material, hemp is about the best,” says Armstrong. The CBC notes: “It [hemp] has about twice the strength of other plant fibres. It doesn’t require much water or pesticide use, and grows well in Canada, providing a high yield per hectare.”

“Plus,” says Armstrong, showing some true patriot love, “it’s illegal to grow it in the U.S., so it actually gives Canada a bit of a market advantage!”

Yeah, well, I live in Northern Cali, man. You wanna talk advantage?

Images: dwhartwig and Hugo90

Urban sprawl, pollution, over-consumption, deforestation…like it or not, U.S. taxpayers are still paying for all of these things to occur in America and beyond. Despite recent investments in green jobs and technology, an array of government subsidies pay big dirty industries like oil, coal and factory farms to destroy the environment in every way possible while greener, healthier industries like solar power and vegetable farms get a pittance.

10. Highways

When gas prices rose dramatically in 2008, Americans began flocking to mass transit in droves, resulting in declining revenues for the Federal Highway Trust Fund. Naturally, the Bush Administration’s response was to take money from already underfunded mass transit and use it to pay for highways that are already, as Slate put it, “paved with gold”. Billions of dollars are pumped into the highway system every year, which encourages the polluting car culture and leads to further sprawl, while mass transit continues to fall by the wayside.

9. SUVs

In case you aren’t already taking optimal advantage of the polluting power of our nation’s sprawling web of highways, the government would like to make your impact even greater by setting you up in a nice gas-guzzling subsidized SUV. A portion of the tax code revised in 2003 gives business owners a huge deduction for up to 30% of a large vehicle’s cost, which can add up to $25,000 in the case of a Hummer – far more than the credit given to individual purchasers of energy-efficient vehicles. Attempts to axe this provision in 2007 failed.

You only get the credit if it seats more than 9 passengers or weighs more than 14,000 pounds, but they don’t really care whether your business actually requires such a vehicle. So, by all means, get the Escalade.

8. Paper Mills

Paper mills cut down trees while sucking up massive amounts of fossil fuels and get big money from the government to do it – all through a loophole in a law that was supposed to benefit renewable energy. A law enacted in 2005 contains a section that gives businesses an incentive to mix alternative energy sources with fossil fuels. To qualify for the tax credit, paper companies started adding diesel fuel to “black liquor”, a pulp-making byproduct that they were already using to generate electricity on its own.

But time might be running out for this egregious misuse of taxpayer money: the unemployment extension bill approved by the Senate and on its way to the House would eliminate this loophole and use the funds for health care. (Editor’s note: We’ve contacted both the editor and writer of this story at BusinessWeek to confirm that this loophole will still be closed in the bill just passed by the Senate, and will update if more information becomes available. In the meantime, there’s this resource which seems to confirm the loophole is in fact being closed.)

7. Commercial Fishing

About half of the $713 million in subsidies given to the U.S. fishing industry directly contributes to overfishing, according to a new study by the Environmental Working Group. The subsidies – which equal about a fifth of the value of the catch itself – lower overhead costs and promote increased fishing capacity, meaning more fish are caught than can be naturally replaced.

Overfishing is a huge environmental problem – up to 25% of the world’s fishery stocks are overexploited or depleted, according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization.  But that’s not the only result of the subsidies; because roughly half of the money goes toward fuel costs, other consequences include wasteful fuel consumption as well as air and water pollution.

6. Nuclear Power

The nuclear industry’s decade-long, $600 million lobbying effort finally paid off as President Obama agreed to grant loan guarantees for nuclear power plants.  Obama has been promising since the early days of his campaign that he would find a way to “safely harness nuclear power”, but the $55 billion taxpayer-backed loan guarantees are going forward despite continued reservations about uranium mining and the storage of radioactive waste.

5. Factory Farming

American factory farms are literally filthy cesspools of their own making, and who else is cleaning up all that shit but American taxpayers? Giant factory farms make up just 2% of the livestock farms in the U.S. yet raise 40% of all animals in the U.S., and they do it using practices that are not only harmful to workers and the animals themselves, but to the environment.

The government heavily subsidizes factory farms so they can provide über-cheap meat and dairy, raising as many animals as possible in the shortest amount of time with the least amount of care. And why should they care about finding better ways to manage manure when the government hands them $125 million annually to “deal” with the consequences, and then doesn’t bother to check up on them?

Despite the backwards funding given to clean them up, gaping lagoons of livestock waste packed with pollutants continue to be one of the biggest environmental problems in America, fouling our water and causing those depressing dead zones in our oceans.

4.  Corn Ethanol

In the quest to beat back fossil fuels, cleaner fuels that we can grow seemed like a good idea – until we realized that some, like corn, make a huge dent in the world’s food supply. But that isn’t stopping the U.S. government from giving billions in subsidies to the corn industry in general, and corn ethanol in particular.

Corn-based ethanol gobbled up 76% of federal government renewable energy subsidies in 2007, leaving little for more environmentally sound renewable energy sources like wind and solar. Worse yet, it’s a huge drain on water resources, gulping down up to 2,138 liters of water per liter of ethanol.

This isn’t just an unwise investment – it’s also destroying the rainforest. As American farmers have abandoned soy for subsidized corn, soy prices have risen worldwide – and led to an increase in Amazon deforestation. Brazil is the world’s second-largest producer of soy next to the U.S., and growing demand has meant more clear-cutting for soy plantations.

3. Processed Foods

Ethanol isn’t the only product that comes to us courtesy of U.S. corn subsidies. There’s also plenty of craptastic processed “food” products packed with multiple subsidized ingredients: wheat, sugar, soy and of course, corn. Gee, could the obesity epidemic have anything to do with the fact that our government makes junk food cheap, and encourages its consumption through the food stamp program?

It’s a sad state of affairs when a Twinkie costs less, calorically speaking, than a carrot. Meanwhile, farmers who produce fruits and vegetables (aside from corn), don’t get a dime in government subsidies. While the government is considering junk food taxes, a change to the Farm Bill might be more efficient.

2. Coal

You would think that the coal industry’s long-held dominance of the American energy market would have eliminated the need for subsidies. After all, the industry spent $47 million last year on PR alone. But the fact is, coal companies are milking the government for all it’s worth while continuing to pump greenhouse gases and carcinogens into the air and turn the Appalachian Mountains into post-apocalyptic hellholes.

Coal subsidies have survived this long because of the industry’s staggering influence on lawmakers, and because constituents in coal states often fear the economic repercussions of a scaled-back coal industry more than they fear the harm to their health and homes. And on top of the federal coal subsidies lumped in under ‘fossil fuels’, the industry gets untold breaks on a state and local level in places like Kentucky, where the coal industry netted $115 million in subsidies in 2006.

1. Oil

Climate change: brought to you by the U.S. government! According to a study by the Environmental Law Institute, fossil fuels received over $70 billion in subsidies between 2002 and 2008, while traditional sources of renewable energy were given just $12.2 billion.

But the oil industry won’t even admit that the direct spending and tax breaks they get are subsidies – they prefer to call them “incentives”, and claim that attempts to roll back some of those subsidies are actually “new taxes”.

As Grist notes, the ELI report is actually pretty conservative – it didn’t include things like military spending to defend oil in the Middle East or infrastructure spending. But the fossil fuel industry’s free ride is almost over: President Obama’s new federal budget proposal wipes out these breaks and increases funding for clean energy research (and, unfortunately, nuclear power).

Photo credits: The following photos are from Flickr and licensed for commercial use under Creative Commons: “Freeway” by Payton Chung; ”SUV” by The Car Spy; ”Paper mill in Washington State” by Jan Tik; ”Fish face” by Andy Welsh; ”Nuclear reactor” by Intamin10; ”Factory farm protest sign” by johnnyalive; ”Corn” by normanack;  ”Coal” by Duncan Harris; ”Oil rig” by kenhodge13.

Dubai, Kwait, Qatar, et al: a Disneyworld of senseless “innovation.” Don’t they have the world’s tallest buildings over there now? Or was it the largest? Neon aquatic hotels? Indoor skiing in the outdoor desert? I suppose the fact Kuwait is about to get a new restaurant that grows its own produce in its dining room shouldn’t be mind-blowing news. But it is a delightful idea, sitting down on the farm in the Arabian Desert, dining in an organic oasis. (Is it also not absurdly ironic that the world’s largest oil-producing countries are leaders in so many things green?)

Dubai-based restaurant consultancy, Thomas Klein International and its Chicago architectural office, PS Studio, have been contracted by Prime & Toast to adapt the vertical farming concept for its new outlet in Kuwait. The release attributes the idea to American professor Dr. Dickson Despommier, who has brought some cred to the idea of farming in crowded urban areas (see our story, “Encouraging City Growth: Urban Farming Grows Up“).

The Prime and Toast’s farm is pretty green for its desert venue. It will be watered with condensation from the restaurant’s air conditioning system. (I suppose if you require a cooling system that has to be fired up pretty much around the clock, you might as well get some offset benefit.) The hyperlocal organic herbs and vegetables will be used to feed what’s promised to be a healthy menu “based on the fresh produce available on a particular day.”

The “farming section” (and the kitchen, as well) will do more than actually feed patrons; it will also be designed into the place so that diners will have a true eating out experience with “direct views into the production area.” In keeping with the sustainable approach, all wood used the restaurant’s furniture will come from sustainable forests.

While hardly a true urban farm benefiting a local community, or a back-to-the-land movement for desert dwellers, the restaurant is good example of how the approach’s novelty can actually fit into a marketing scheme. Says Daniel During, TKI Managing Partner, “The main feature of the restaurant is … the vertical farming section, and the rest of the restaurant was designed around this unique and innovative concept.”

Indian villagers attack a policeman during a protest by farmers demanding better compensation for their land acquired by the state government for an upcoming expressway project near Agra, 17 Aug 2010 -- AP photo
India is fast becoming landless. Or should I say that majority Indians are being deprived of their ownership over land. I think in the years to come, let us say by the end of 11th Plan period, close to 90 per cent of the land will be owned by about 15 per cent of the population, with bulk of the ownership slipping into the hands of not more than 10 per cent of the population comprising essentially the elite.

At present about 70 per cent of the country's land is owned by close to 26 per cent of the population.

It isn't however coming in easy. For several years now, since the time economists/planners began telling us that land is an economic asset and it is unfortunately in hands of people who are inefficient, there has been literally a scramble by business and industry (driven by real estate) to procure as much as possible. The World Bank is backing this strategy, and if you have read the World Development Report 2008, you would know what I mean. It calls for land rentals, and setting up a network of training centres to train the displaced farmers to become industrial labour.

No wonder, the UPA government has made budgetary provisions for setting up 1,000 Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs). Prime Minister himself has been calling for a population shift, moving out 70 per cent of the farming community into urban centres.

Pitched battles are being fought across the country by the poor and deprived, who fear further marginalisation when their land is literally grabbed by the government on behalf of the industry. Over the years agriculture has been deliberately turned into a losing proposition as a result of which farmers, in most places, are keen to move out provided they get a better price for their land.

State governments across the country are facilitating the process of takeover. Whether it is for the Special Economic Zones (SEZ) or IT parks or nuclear reactors or airports or building a new capital or even for biofuel plantations, the battle for land has become fierce.

In fact, it will not be wrong to assume that many Chief Ministers have for all practical purposes become property dealers.

Gone are the days when a worried Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first Prime Minister, while addressing the nation on Aug 15, 1955 from the ramparts of the Red Fort in New Delhi said: "It is very humiliating for any country to import food. So everything else can wait, but not agriculture." That was in 1955. Fifty-five years later, in 2010, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh thinks that food security can be addressed by importing food. Land must be acquired for the industry, because the industrial sector alone will be the vehicle for higher growth.

Successive governments have used the Land Acquisition Act 1894, framed by the British during the days of the Raj, to forcibly evict landowners in the name of public good. It is only lately that landowners have realised the economic worth of their land, and have begun to demand a higher price. But still, government prefer to buy land at a throwaway price, and then sell it to the industry at exorbitant rates. The Real Estate and the industry then sells it to prospective buyers at a phenomenal price.

No one wants to throw away the stale law into the dustbin of history. Political parties are willing to accept it with a few changes. Political pressure is therefore mounting on the government to bring back the Land Acquisition (Amendment) bill 2007, along with the accompanying Resettlement and Rehabilitation Bill, 2009 which were introduced in Parliament on Feb 25, 2009, but was allowed to lapse in view of the strong opposition from Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee.

I am not getting into the nitty-gritty of the two bills introduced earlier. I want to draw your attention to another significant Supreme Court judgement which the industry does not like (and therefore the government is not talking about). A bench comprising Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Anil R Dave has held that not only the present market value but also future potential value, and the purpose for which the land is to be used, must be taken into account for arriving at just compensation.

The Hindu (Aug 22, 2010) reports: For providing Adi Dravidas with house sites, the Tamil Nadu government acquired 3.90 acres at Palangudi in Tiruchi district in September 1992. The land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs 1.72 a square foot. At the instance of appellant A Natesan Pillai the reference court fixed the market value of the land at Rs 17 a sq foot. On  the State's appeal, the Madras High Court fixed the value at Rs 9. Hearing this case, the Supreme Court said: It cannot be disputed that the acquired land, being in the heart of the city and having excellent prospects of being used as residential site, definitely has an edge regarding potential value.."

Meanwhile, here is a report from Voice of America on the continuing fight for land In India.

India Witnesses Growing Conflict Over Land

Anjana Pasricha

New Delhi 23 August 2010:

In India, protests by farmers about land acquisition in the country's most populated state have focused attention on the growing conflict about land, as the economy modernizes. The growing resistance by rural communities about giving up their land for industrial expansion is throwing up new challenges for India.

The violent protests in the northern state, Uttar Pradesh, earlier this month were sparked by demands by farmers for higher compensation for land taken from them to build a highway connecting New Delhi with the tourist hub, Agra, home to the Taj Mahal. Three farmers were killed in the demonstration.

The clashes are the latest in a series of protests which have erupted in many parts of the country about efforts to acquire farmland for infrastructure projects or industry.

As India industrializes, businesses are in search of more land to build factories. The government is under pressure to quickly improve rickety infrastructure and build more highways, power stations and railways to meet the needs of an expanding economy.

The only free land available is populated, fertile farm land across rural India. Moving farmers and tribal communities off the land is not always proving to be easy.

Farmers complain

Some farmers complain that compensation given for their land is too low. And, they worry about loss of their livelihood in a country where two thirds of the billion-plus people live off the land.

Devinder Sharma of the Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security in New Delhi says promises of employment in the new industries do not materialize for the bulk of the farmers whose land is taken away. He says many of them are driven to an uncertain future in cities.

He says the new economy cannot sustain the kind of employment which farming provides in a populous country.

"No industry or group of industries can provide the kind of jobs or the scale of jobs India needs," Sharma said. "In a country which has 600 million farmers including their families, I don't think any industry has the capability or even industrial sector has the capability to provide even jobs to even one-tenth of that population."

Read the full report at: http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/asia/India-Witnesses-Growing-Conflict-Over-Land-101293609.html

A new report released by the Met Office and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has come to the conclusion that there is "unmistakable signs" that "the world is warming".

The report is based on 10 different indicators of temperature changes. According to the Met Office each indicator "proved consistent with a warming world". According to the report the air temperature over land, the sea-surface and marine air temperature has all increased. Our oceans are also heating and the humidity is getting higher. Tropospheric temperature in the ‘active-weather’ layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface has also increased. The Met Office also notes that sea-levels has increased while glaciers, spring snow cover in the northern hemisphere and arctic sea-ice are all in decline.

“The temperature increase of one degree Fahrenheit over the past 50 years may seem small, but it has already altered our planet,” said Deke Arndt, co-editor of the report and chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.

“Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are more common. And, as the new report tells us, there is now evidence that more than 90 percent of warming over the past 50 years has gone into our oceans.”

You can read a short summary of the report here. The electronic version of the full report can be found on the NOAA website.

Only a few days back the Minister of State for Industries Jyotiraditya Scindia had made a strong plea to allow FDI in multi-brand retail. He told Parliament that his ministry has formed a five-member committee which will talk to stake-holders and take a final decision. The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion had earlier come up with a discussion paper, which ostensibly was written by Wal-Mart.

The Business TV channels had gone ga-ga over it. They have a task to perform on behalf of the businesses which controls them, and since they thrive on advertisements they have a clear vested interest. That is where their 'national interest' as well as 'economic analysis' ends. Aamir Khan's Peepli Live has already brought out the sordid truth behind media motives.    

The ongoing debate is therefore heavily backed in favour of the commercial interests of the retail industry. More worrying is the way the private business schools (and you have a large number of them) have been teaching this subject, more in line with the DIPP discussion paper, without any fruitful discussion. Of course, there have been exceptions.

This did not dampen my efforts to bring the realities to the fore. I am sure you have seen my analysis, a part of which had also appeared in one of my blog posts. In case you missed it, here it is: FDI in retail: Importing a failed model (http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.com/2010/07/fdi-in-retail-importing-failed-model.html). I am aware that the UPA-II government is under pressure from G-20 to open up to FDI in multi-brand retail, and all these justifications are simply to hoodwink the masses to believe all is well.

At last, after long I came across an analysis that really measures up to what should be dubbed as 'academic excellence'. Prof Janat Shah (along with an independent researcher M G Subramaniam) of the Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Bangalore, have come out with an analysis that should serve as an eye-opener. Every college/university and the plethora of business schools should prescribe this as part of the curriculum. Every business journalist worth the name should read this.

I am not expecting the five-member team to follow this analysis. The poor chaps have a mandate, and despite the public face they will put up, they will eventually sign on the dotted line. But you and me have a responsibility. We do not want our farmers and  consumers to suffer. Let us therefore stand up and try to show the mirror to the people who govern us (and never get tired of telling us about the virtues of governance), but in reality are working for business and industry.

Mythical benefits of retail FDI
http://bit.ly/akJPFC

By Janat Shah and M G Subramanian

Popular business press articles today vehemently support FDI in retail often leaving readers with this perception that once FDI is allowed in multi-brand retail, the Wal-Marts and Tescos of the world would enter India and revolutionise the agricultural practices and supply chains for food products.

It is further assumed that our farmers would receive higher share of the retail price and consumers would enjoy food products at lower prices. Such similar notions have often been supported through discussion papers produced by the department of industrial policy and promotion as well as studies in organised retail by IFPRI and ICRIER.

The entire debate is often based on certain assumptions (‘ myths’ ) which need to be questioned. We outline these major myths and question their validity by looking at experience from the US and Europe.

Myth 1. Farmers would get higher share of retail income with the entry of global organised retail chains: Empirical studies in both the US and Europe have shown that farmers share of retail income has steadily declined over time. In an empirical study using US data it has been shown that farm value share of consumer expenditure for domestically produced farm foods has steadily declined from 33% to 21% from 1970 to 1994. According to a European study, the real farm producer price index of total farm production fell by 27% over the period 1990-2002.

Myth 2. Increase in share of global organised retail would lower prices in food articles : This is a major argument used by most of the studies which strongly favour entry of FDI in retail. However, trends in the BLS (Bureau of Labour studies) food price index in US from 1950 to 2007 tend to somewhat mirror the general Consumer Price Index, with no steady decrease or increase. So expecting the retail price in food products to decline with entry of global retail chains is like chasing a mirage.

Myth 3. Global retail chains would procure directly from farmers: This is not simply true. Currently Wal-Mart procures only 20% (mainly non-food category) of goods directly from manufacturers. Most of the organised retailers procure from large wholesalers and other intermediaries.

Myth 4. Global retail chains would invest in cold chain and we would see immediate benefits in terms of reduction in wastages in fruits and vegetable sector: As has been seen world over, organised retail usually starts with non-food items and slowly moves to dry food category and over a period of time enters into fresh food category. In general, perishables are difficult to manage world over and it is unlikely that it would receive too much attention from global retail chains in the initial stages.

Myth 5. Models and practices followed by global retailers like Wal-Mart represent the best supply chain practices and same models and practices would continue to be valid/optimal in future for world in general and India in particular: The current global model of organised retail was established when crude prices were relatively low and one was not worried about carbon footprint in the supply chain deployed in the process. This model worked with hub and spoke model involving concentrated production and storage systems. The current model is highly energy and carbon intensive in nature. We believe this is neither desirable nor sustainable in long run.

Myth 6. Entry of organised retail would result in higher jobs: This seems to be wishful thinking. Of course higher growth of Indian economy would result in more jobs in retail in general but there is no reason to believe that capital-intensive global retail chains would relatively create more jobs compared to the unorganised sector.

Myth 7. There is level playing field between organised and unorganised retailers: One of the major components of cost in retail is the cost of financing working capital. Unfortunately unorganised retail does not have easy access to finance. Most of the retailers end up borrowing money from informal money markets and with a result we are dealing an uneven playing field loaded against the unorganised sector.

The war as we believe is not between ideologies . What worries one is the wishful thinking on the part of public in general and industry and policymakers in particular who assume that FDI in organised retail in India is the one stop solution to all problems . Yes, we have problems for which we do not have ready-made solutions. Yes, we need to improve productivity in agriculture and reduce wastage in supply chains.

But, it would be naive for us to assume that global organised retail chains would do the tough task of solving these complex set of problems in agriculture production and distribution . We need to look at FDI in retail as just another approach and not look at it as panacea for all our problems in agriculture. #

Read this article in sync with my analysis (the blog link has been posted above) and you will get a true picture of what FDI in retail actually means, and who it stands to benefit.

An enchanting view of the Himalayan valley -- photo by S Roy Biswas
After the moratorium on Bt Brinjal -- which could have been India's first poisonous GM food crop -- the scrapping of the 600 MW Loharinag Pala hydroelectric project on Bhagirithi river in the lap of the Himalayas (in Uttarakhand State) is another firm but major decision that has been swayed by public opinion.

Faced with a wave of religious sentiments, opposition from environmentalists (spearheaded by the respected environmentalist Prof G D Agarwal who sat on a 31-day fast on the banks of the river), academicians and local villagers, a three-member Group of Ministers (GoM) -- headed by Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee and comprising Power Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde and Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh -- reversed its earlier decision of continuing with the construction of the hydel dam project in view of the financial implications involved.

This decision assumes terrible importance, and may actually serve as a precedent, since Rs 650-crore had already been spent on the controversial project, and another Rs 2000-crore is locked in supplies and future orders. Also, this decision is not going to evoke any strong reaction from the industry because the project was being laid out by the public sector National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC). But if it was, for instance, being pursued by Reliance Industries, I am sure the Finance Minister would have dug his heels, and the media would have cried hoarse.

"The decision to shut down the hydel project comes after the Congress leadership showed it was ready to lend more political credence to environmental concerns," writes Nitin Sethi in a front page dispatch in The Times of India (Aug 21, 2010). Now, this in my understanding is the reason why the UPA-II has actually been forced to reverse its own decision taken a few months back.

We all know that with the Congress high command intervening, the GoM reversed its decision. It does evoke a curiosity to know who do we mean when we say Congress high command. After all, the government itself had given a go-ahead in June, and then who in the Congress party could have over-ruled that decision. Well, when the newspapers say Congress high command they actually mean the UPA President Sonia Gandhi.

Sonia Gandhi has very rightly donned the robe of an environmental watchdog.

While the decision also means that the mighty Ganga would not be tamed for 135-km stretch from Gomukh to Uttarakashi, and as Jairam Ramesh stated: "It will be a no-dam area and the government will declare it an ecologically sensitive zone in the next four to five week." This is an important decision, and will go a long way to protect the fragile ecology of the Himalayas. More and more such ecologically important decision need to be taken to ensure that we do play havoc with the environment any further.

You would have noticed that environment protection has suddenly taken a hot seat. It also tells us that the instrument of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) if used properly can be really helpful in balancing the needs of development vis a vis environment protection and conservation. At times when the world is confronted with the grave implications of global warming, and the destruction of the natural habitat, I feel Jairam Ramesh has single-handedly taken upon himself the role of protector of India's environment. He has very effectively used EIA to bring out the concerns, and is also ensuring that the companies are made to behave.

The UPA-II cabinet (also a section of the media) wouldn't have allowed Jairam Ramesh to function if it was not for the unequivocal support he is receiving from the Congress president Sonia Gandhi. I was particularly impressed by her take more recently on illegal mining: "It is a menace with profound political, economic and social implications...What is most worrying is the high degree of convergence between areas that are mineral and forest-rich and areas that are arenas of tribal deprivation and Left-wing extremist violence."

Very well said indeed. As she rightly added: "Dealing with the Naxalite challenge will call for fundamental innovations in the manner in which the mineral resources are exploited and forests are managed." I hope the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the Home Minister P Chidambaram, as well as the BJP leadership is listening.

Photo credit: Jesse Kruger

Does the individualization of environmentalism have any merits? Can it successfully co-exist with collective action? Environmental advertising (or “green” advertising) assures consumers that they can evoke positive environmental change by adopting simple habits and by purchasing green goods provided by companies (Maniates, 2001). These include wearing clothing made from sustainable fibres, consuming local and organic food, purchasing hybrid cars or choosing cosmetics made with natural ingredients. However, some environmental scholars such as Michael Maniates have criticized these actions as greenwashing which individualizes environmental problems.

The tension at the heart of consumer culture is that it is a fragile system that cannot sustain itself indefinitely (Varey, 2001). The resources needed to extract, produce, transport, and advertise the products that consumers take for granted are being used up at an alarming rate, with devastating environmental costs. We all know this. Consumer culture has received ever-increasing blame for the environmental crisis, which marketing responds to with “green advertising”.

Michael Maniates’ research (2001) provides an insightful critique of this individualization associated with green marketing. Green advertising, he argues, coyly sidesteps the underlying issues of overconsumption and individualization, in the attempt to preserve familiar, comfortable patterns of consumption. According to Maniates, true environmental action would involve long term solutions such as collective public policy that reduces our consumption patterns and breaks our reliance on fossil fuels. This perspective argues that within green advertising, larger social patterns and powers are ignored and civic action is disregarded as a viable solution. Instead, individualization places all blame (as well as all responsibility for action) on individual consumers. In reality, however, green advertising is sustained through a capitalist system that is innately un-environmental in its need for constant growth and the development of new markets. Goldman and Papson (1996) share these sentiments, claiming that the entire purpose of advertising is to create demand for products, and therefore advertising is inherently un-environmental.

Citizenship vs Consumption

But maybe green advertising has benefits that cannot be disregarded. First, in order to fully grasp the complexities of contemporary culture, it is necessary to broaden the traditional definitions of “consumption” and “citizenship”. Maniates asserts that “the individualization of responsibility, because it characterizes environmental problems as the consequence of destructive consumer choice, asks that individuals imagine themselves as consumers first and citizens second” (2001, p. 34). However, I wish to counter this idea and maintain an alternative view of the coupling of the “citizen-consumer”. Trentmann agrees that this phenomenon leaves social change to the realm of consumption, but argues that this new form cannot be overlooked. Thus, the conventional definitions are no longer satisfactory. Citizenship –too often see as irrelevant and stuffy– is being transformed. As Trentmann asserts, “the political is back” (2007, p. 147). Consumption and citizenship do not have to be viewed as a zero-sum game. In fact, consumers are increasingly concerned about political ideas within their consumption habits—consumer boycotts, Fair Trade Certified alternatives and concerns over sweatshops are all examples of this.

Muldoon’s research draws on the concept of the citizen-consumer in the realm of environmentalism. For instance, as Muldoon argues (2006), people have different ways of being politically active, and the marketplace may be an arena for individuals who shy away from politics to be active in environmentalism. Others argue that it is often easier for voices to be heard within the marketplace than within politics. Since companies are afraid of losing business, they may be more likely to respond to public opinion. Here, green marketing has a useful purpose and can fill the voids in collective public action (Muldoon, 2006).

Although Maniates (2001) argues that environmental change is not possible in the realm of the individual consumer, the fact remains that in several cases, (such as some food and personal hygiene products) consumption may be inevitable—so why not offer environmentally-friendly alternatives? Perhaps, green advertising offers consumers a reminder and an opportunity to engage with their environmental values on an ongoing basis. Seyfang also arrives at the conclusion that individual environmentally-conscious consumption is a “necessary complement” to more radical action—necessary because people require some purchased goods (2005, p. 302).

Empowering the Individual?

A second argument claims that green advertising’s individualization is not detrimental because it acts as an empowering force for individuals. As previously mentioned, there was a high level of concern for the environment among Americans in the 90s. However, citizens’ actions do not reflect this level of concern. This is a situation that is still extremely relevant. The authors believe that environmental advertising can be remarkably effective at empowering individuals to act on their environmental concerns. Cobb-Walgren, Ellen and Wiener’s telephone survey measured perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) and environmental concern. Perceived consumer effectiveness is defined as the “belief that the efforts of an individual can make a difference in the solution to a problem” (1991, p. 103).

However, not all advertising is equally effective in empowering consumers. Interestingly, it appears that the more “lighthearted” advertising (advertising which serious environmentalists may critique) is more effective. The authors suggest that marketing may wish to avoid discussing how dire a situation is (what they call the “sick baby” appeal), or else individuals will be completely overwhelmed and will not feel that there is anything they can do. As they argue, “one can think he or she is guilty of contributing to the problem without thinking he or she has the power to solve the problem” (p. 105).

What is suggested instead of the “sick baby” approach is marketing campaigns that show how individuals are making an impact through their daily decisions. For instance, Encorp (a Canadian recycling company) regularly features advertising that mentions the positive impact of individuals’ decisions. One of their newspaper ads proudly declares: “Just by recycling your beverage containers you help keep the equivalent of 126,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases out of BC’s atmosphere” (Encorp, 2009). This way, people will be inspired to do more. The authors believe that this can be done without minimizing the importance of the issue at hand. In effect, the authors do not dismiss green advertising as a marketing campaign. Instead, they see it as a valuable tactic in warding off sentiments of hopelessness. As they argue, “both public and private policymakers who seek to encourage voluntary behavior on behalf of the environment should try to enhance consumer perceptions that their own actions will improve the environment” (1991, p. 111).

Therefore, these findings suggest that green advertising’s individualization of environmental action is not wholly detrimental. Green advertising may help to raise an individual’s personal sense of control in the problems of environmental destruction, causing more action to be taken. This is a key point that Maniates may have overlooked. Although collective action is perhaps the key element in positive change, individual empowerment may be the important precursor to collective action. In this way, individual action and collective action are not at odds.

Greater Effects: Voluntary Simplicity

Finally, there is some evidence to suggest that individual green consumption can actually lead to more significant action. Voluntary simplicity (VS) refers to the trend of adopting a lifestyle with little consumption and material goods (Kumju et al., 2006). This decision is noteworthy because it is born out of personal choice rather than economic necessity such as poverty or war. Voluntary simplicity is not necessarily new, but the researchers have uncovered a significant new element to add to the theory: beginner voluntary simplicity (BVS). Beginner voluntary simplifiers are not true voluntary simplifiers yet, but are important precursors in the process. They may not reduce their overall consumption, but have taken measures to purchase environmentally-friendly options (Kumju et al., 2006). Because of this, beginner voluntary simplifiers are a crucial target market for green advertising.

Essentially, consumption can be seen as a continuum rather than a binary, with voluntary simplicity on one side, and extreme consumerism on the other. This allows for the possibility of change. The authors decided to study this unique group to decide what steps they were taking, and what motivated them to take part in BVS. The authors determine that although advancement from BVS to VS is certainly not inevitable, there is a group of beginner voluntary simplifiers named “apprentice simplifiers” who will eventually become true voluntary simplifiers (Kumju et al., 2006). The role of green advertising is quite high for this group, the authors suggest, as they may “rely on more accessible and mainstream media, as well as actual product information on packaging” (Kumju et al., 2006, p. 526). Green advertising has educational appeal to this group of BVS.

What do you think?

After weighing the different arguments, Muldoon explains, “the game of sustainable living begins when more people can play. And anything that encourages greater contemplation of, and participation in, green issues is worth examining” (2006, para. 46). Here, I believe Muldoon is correct. Collective environmental groups are made up of individuals—empowered individuals who believe real change can be made. For this reason, it is simply not possible to altogether discount green advertising, and the individual action that stems from it. Green advertising and green consumerism can provide a place for the union of individual and collective action.

Therefore, I believe that individual action, though not sufficient, can be beneficial and may even strengthen areas of collective action. This is not to say that the greenwashing of products is a valuable advertising practice. Rather, I wish to avoid discounting the companies who have invested effort in the hopes of truly supplying a more environmentally-conscious product. I also want to recognize that individuals can be powerful agents of social change.

But I should open this conversation to you, the readers. You’re consumers of environmental media, and most likely buy environmentally-friendly products. What do you think? Is individual action sufficient? Is it important? Or is it just a way to continue destructive consumer culture?

Reference List

Cobb-Walgren, C., Ellen, P. & Wiener, J. (1991). The Role of Perceived Consumer Effectiveness in Motivating Environmentally Conscious Behaviors. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10 (2), 102-117. Retrieved July 15, 2010, from Communication & Mass Media Complete database.

Encorp. (2009). Beverage Containers [print ad]. Retrieved August 2, 2010, from http://www.encorp.ca/cfm/index.cfm?It=914&Id=1&Se=38,58

Kumju, H., McDonald, S., Oates, C. & Young, C. W. (2006). Toward Sustainable Consumption: Researching Voluntary Simplifiers. Psychology & Marketing, 23(6), 515–534. Retrieved July 16, 2010, from Communication & Mass Media Complete database.

Goldman & Papson. (1996). Green Marketing and the Commodity Self, Sign Wars, pp. 187-215. NY, New York: Guilford Press.

Maniates, Michael. (2001). Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World? Global Environmental Politics 1(3), 31-52.

Muldoon, Annie. (2006). Where the Green is: Examining the Paradox of Environmentally Conscious Consumption. Electronic Green Journal, 23. Retrieved July 15, 2010, from Academic Search Premier database.

Seyfang, Gill. (2005). Shopping for Sustainability: Can Sustainable Consumption Promote Ecological Citizenship? Environmental Politics 14(2), 290-306. Retrieved August 1, 2010, from Google Scholar database.

Trentmann, F. (2007). Citizenship and Consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 7(2), 147-158.

Here is a quick quote from Tom Toles, a pulitzer prize-winning political cartoonist at the Washington Post, about the ongoing “climate debate”:

“We are apparently going to let the debate on the science run until hell freezes over. If you can’t accept the conclusions of 98 percent of the scientists whose FIELD IT IS, then why even bother with science? If that high a percentage of field of study is to be discounted ENTIRELY, then we are in deep trouble, which, of course, we are. It would be so simple if it were just a matter of ignoring the yelping commenters hereabouts: “Move on, Mr. Cartoonist! Chill out Tommy! There are more important things to worry about!”

Really? Which would those things be? This may be the only political issue whose results could be catastrophic PERMANENTLY. But the deliberate dust storm thrown up by fossil-fuel-centric interests has succeeded in contaminating and paralyzing the American response. Quite a victory for the deniers! It looks like mass-suicide to me.”

You can read his whole rant about climate deniers here.