Environmentalism is largely believed to be a virtuous movement. The reason is that it is pro humanity, though that concept is lost to some by now.
The earth began as a seething mass broken off the sun and cooled down, it’s noxious gases carried traces of life, which, scientists tell us, evolved into life as we know it on planet earth. The earth is still changing, continuously eliminating one life while giving birth to another.
By environmentalism, if we mean that we aspire to save the ‘earth’, it is similar to the fancy of the frog who thought he owned the moon that was reflected from the night sky into his pond. The earth is not what we are saving, because our lives are a blink of an eye to the history of the earth, and what we do are scratches on its great surface.
If by environmentalism, we mean saving that environment which is the best for human life, then, yes, we have a valid goal to aspire for. After we ‘destroy’ the earth, as some extremist environmentalists like to put it, this earth will still rotate on its axis, day and night, but whether there will be human beings populating it is a question.
The Bhutanese national Philosophy of Gross National Happiness understands this fact, underlining that for human beings to be happy on this earth, we must cultivate that environment that best lets us live in peace.
Or, in other words, we must protect the environment as it is in order for us to be happy, mostly because the process of life is too complex to be understood even now, and we know that the natural world, now, is optimum for our survival, but we are not sure what drastic changes either due to human activities or natural phenomena will do to life for human beings on earth.
It is necessary that we move forward in every environmental decision and issue with this understanding.
Climate Change, our scientists say, is happening. It is happening fast, and humans on earth are causing it. The rapid change in climate will be dangerous to humans in many ways, the delicate balance of our ecosystem turned haywire with what we do.
That we need to act to reverse the changing climate, is not a question anymore. The debate has reached beyond that, into who must act, and just how much.
It is also a known fact that any person living a modern life adds to the carbon emissions. The more complex the modernity of their existence, the more the emission. The standard of living of an individual is directly proportional to the size of their carbon footprint.
The Bhutanese live in heterogeneous societies too. While some of us drive, eat and drink a lot, smoke, build, heat up our homes with wood, own factories and use products upon products, others live in abject poverty, in villages, still ploughing their fields with the help of oxen, and emit next to nothing.
While our per capita emission is a negative value, thanks to those people who emit nothing and the huge forest cover that sequesters carbon, it would not hurt to limit our excesses, or change our habits so that we emit less. Setting an example is always good, especially when we are told that we are one of the countries with the most to lose.
But while every country is fighting hard to keep emitting as much as possible, saying their economies will collapse if they stop, are we bending over backwards in our conservation attempts? Why protect our environment if it comes at the cost of economic development, if we are keeping our poor people who could gain from the forests from achieving their GNH?
Between humans and the environment, humans must always be the priority. That is the point in environmentalism in the first place.
Either we increase our emissions, because, clearly, we cannot stop an increase without also stopping progress, or we demand that the western world gives us new ways to develop without adding more carbon to the atmosphere.
9 comments:
Again, a point that is made for the sake of making it.
You ask why protect our environment if it comes at the cost of economic development?
I don't think the Bhutanese government's policies are designed to keep the people poor and from achieving GNH by protecting its forests. In other words that the govt is giving priority to forests over people.
I worked with the National Environmental Commission and I am fully aware that if it had not been for Bhutan's conservation efforts from early on (committing to keeping over 60 percent of the country under forest cover, committing to set aside protected areas so that indigenous people's habitat as well as biodiversity are preserved) we would have long ended up like our neighbouring countries that have suffered immensely from deforestation.
It might be better if you specified how people are being affected and how it is that people are becoming poorer by conserving the environment that will make us believe in your argument.
I think our forests are overprotected. but the point is that while we do not have much space in the negotiations for additional emissions, these are obviously going to follow along with development. Roads to rural areas, more construction, more cars...all will add to emissions. but we are not negotiating that we also want some space to increase our emissions. which will mean that, we stop progress or dishonour international deals on emissions. Already, it is beginning, with the government coming up with plans to stop cheap cars from coming in and making important cars more expensive. Lets face it, our economy is taking a beating, our per capita debt is accumulating, and it is something that must be taken seriously.
Think about the whole tsamdro sogshing issues, where people feel that forests that they cared for are no longer their right. But again, i am reasonably happy with the government's efforts, its the 'environmentalists' that get me worried. Take the cordyceps example, allowing people to collect and sell them has benefited households immensely. people who lived hand to mouth actually see money now. similar initiatives could be taken with charcoal production, i am told, as charcoal is used in industries but imported from India, whereas it could be easily produced in small industries here, enough to meet the domestic need.
I like the debate going on here.
Kudos to NEC and similar agencies in Bhutan on devising policies which ensured the conservation of our forests and the biodiversity - but the more relevant question to ask here is - have our policies and approaches been optimal?
A bit of rationality in managing and using our natural resources will not only ensure that our environment is protected but also immensely benefit our economy and the majority of our rural people.
For evidences you needn't look beyond the construction industry or the way firewood is supplied.
I don't agree with this argument that it has to be either economic development or conservation. If given a free hand, we are bound to become a country prone to more flash floods, dried up water sources and landslides, and a whole bunch of other problems. Even with this level of protection, we are facing many problems - e.g. even with the existing forests, elephants are marauding villages, wild pigs eating up the crops etc. Imagine if they are further squeezed out of their habitat! People always look for easy answers, and quickfix solutions.
We are a people that depend heavily on our forests. Most of our farmers don't own industries, or work in them. Why can't we have development without growth, or one without greed. Economic growth is not the only answer. Making society and communities more resilient is. Looking at how the global "economy" is in crisis, this ought to teach us that it should not always be the economy that is accorded priority. It shudders to make me think of all the GNH gurus that can only think of economic growth as the way forward for Bhutan. We do not have to be this way. And that is why we have GNH, or so I thought! Maybe I am wrong.
Too lazy, u are right, we need to conserve our forests. I am not saying cut them all down. Environmentalism is good, as long as the main goal is to improve lives of human beings. Pollution, deforestation, destroying natural habitat, climate change, why are they all so bad? because the earth will go on even after that, but our lives will be on the line.
The animal people conflict is something yet to be resolved, and i dont know of any evidence that our people are crowding the animals out of their forests. What is really happening is something that should not be assumed, but studied.
"economy' does not mean one single thing, and i am surprised that you think we don't need to grow economically. The global economic crisis proves that 'economic development is bad?' If economy was not such a big deal, the crisis would not have had such an impact.
The system of the world now is such that everyone cannot produce everything that they need, thus the need for money to exchange goods and services. The idea is to be able to produce goods or services that will enable us to then buy those goods and services that we require but cannot produce on our own. To me, strength in economic terms means enabling our people to not depend so much on others for goods and services, but be able to produce more of those items that we need, and be able to buy those that we cant. I don't see how that can be a bad thing.
The real question I throw up is, could we ease up our policies, so that instead of blindly 'conserving', we conserve smartly.
Let me put a environment VS development question to you now- Take the increasing number of vehicles in Bhutan. Almost all Thimphu residents own a car. Rural people, too, with roads and facilities that the government promises should be able to use them. Cars mean pollution, because as of now, we are not in a position to afford the non polluting ones. So what do we do? Our emissions will surely increase, with the increase in cars. We stop more people from getting cars? What is the solution here?
As i said, even though we are emitting negative, our commitments to various protocols don't allow us to increase emissions, and we are not raising these issues during negotiations.
Kaali. People are not getting any poorer because of conservation. you are right. But my point is that they are not getting any richer, either.They are staying the same, they are not getting opportunities to earn money and come out of poverty.
Let me try to answer your questions below:
With thousands of livestock roaming the forests untended, don't you think a predator will kill some? This is what our farmers have lived with all along, for centuries. No one is feeding the wild animals. If you look at the figures carefully, you'll find that they lose more livestock to disease and other causes, such as a severe winter, for yaks. How are we not squeezing them out when everything that grows inside the forests are wanted by humans, either for consumption or sale? Only difficult to reach places are spared.
Yes, I know what economy encompasses, but I beg to differ that we have to grow. Development can occur without growth. If only people stop thinking that economic growth is the only solution - shouldn't it be about making societies more coherent and resilient? IT, connectivity and MSE's should prosper so that the economy has a broad base. We can have more revenue, but also spend more on essential services and infrastructure. What good is all the hydropower revenue and tourism dollars if the children in villages have to walk hours to go to school.
What I was trying to say about the global economy - when an economy is hinged to the global economy it is more beyond our control. And you are not insulated from external crises. Who said we have to produce everything? All I am saying is let's not think money and the economy is everything.
I don't understand how we are blindly conserving?? I don't think we are conserving wisely, for sure. Look at all the industries cropping up in the broadleaf belt. We are losing them fast.
Good example with the cars - don't prevent people from buying cars, but give them few reasons to. Improve public transport, mass transit and change opinions and lifestyles. Also ensure that what is imported is clean.
How will we emit more?? By our cows? We are allowed to emit, but emit what? There is no carbon cap for Bhutan, and we cannot use this as an excuse. But why do we have to try to do that, though? I don't see how climate change negotiations have disfavored Bhutan. There is no negotiation binding Bhutan.
Lazy again, you throw up good issues. I agree with most of what you have to say on poverty, focus on infrastructure, better alternatives to a situation of every family or worse every person owning a car. What good is the dollar and the hydropower revenue?????? How long are we going to survive on donations and aid? Everytime I go with a question to the Health or Education ministry, they say they have budgetary issues, problem with finance. Why don't we have road connectivity to every village, why don't we have electricity in every village, why don't all these places have computers and phones, why don't they have schools, hospitals, markets? No Money!!! Why isn't education for all made compulsory in Bhutan? No money. Why wouldn't they build for schools for the disabled? No money. Why do the village people live with terrible disabilities, impairments, when they CAN BE TREATED? No money. Why do the deaf children in Paro not have a proper curriculum even now, when in other parts of the world they get an education that makes them equal to any other person of equal education? U know the answer...no money. I am not saying that the government need to up its revenue to distribute among the owners of industries, or to have a good number at the RMA. Its about carrying out development activities. How are we going to carry out all these activities when we have no money, when indeed we are sinking in debt? Lets face it. Money buys things. Better Public transport, better information, education, you say? Money Money Money. Better technology, green imports? Even more money.
That said, I do believe that the real backbone of Bhutan's economy lies not in its power plants and tourism, but in the small and medium enterprises. Let people earn their own money, let them do it smartly, lets conserve in the process. Ideal situation. We are not there yet, though. our people are not all educated. they still don't have access to water, health in a country where these are basic amenities provided for free.
Conservation in Bhutan is Blind, you prove me right with your examples of industries cropping up in places they shouldn't. I still think we need to make the best use of our natural resources, while trying to keep what we have for as long as possible. We cant move out because our animals need space.
I say development means more emission. I stick to that too. I do not know a highly developed country which doesn't emit so much Per Capita. Do you? If you have great ideas on how to achieve this, you just made history. That is what everyone wants today. But clean technologies are expensive. We need money to buy them, too. :(
It is not about money, if you will look beyond the obvious. How can we afford 9.1 million USD to hire consultants to tell us the obvious if we really have a budget crunch??? Doesn't matter whether the money comes from aid or the national treasury. Sinking in debt, you say. One of the richest countries in the world, the US, is trillions of dollars in debt. IMHO, it is management and efficiency that matter, not money. We have a lot of waste on mediocre things! We have too many useless study tours and training that really don't build capacity. What are our road engineers doing - building good roads and easing traffic flow is not something they have to do from scratch. Just see how others are doing - here, I don't mean India and Nepal, but beyond.
How can people afford to buy new landcruisers if there is no money? You may say villagers don't have money. Well, how can they afford to buy a 50,000 Nu. bow if they don't have money. You will say, well, not everyone can do that. YES, that is the point. Wealth creation will not develop a country if distribution is unbalanced. Materialism in Bhutan is very high, and it increases with "development." Yet we claim to be pundits and implementers of GNH.
C'mon let's face it. Bhutan will never be the manufacturing giant. Clean technology is not always expensive - I disagree. Again, this is an excuse people use for not changing. Clean technologies are proving to be more cost efficient, and also cuts down costs to society (health care costs etc.). I don't want to go into details, but you get my point. There are many European countries that do not emit as much carbon - Switzerland, Denmark etc. But this is not a competition on emitting. Emission does not always equate with economic development. Your argument is flawed that Bhutan has to emit to develop. If we are a carbon negative country, that's a good thing for our people (and the world). Why don't we use that to pay for many goods and services? Let the global community pay for it then. That is not aid, but smart negotiation. But we have to stop thinking in 5-year plans alone. We need 50-100 year vision for our society.
Bottom line is, I prefer economic development without growth and greed. Bhutan has enormous potential for clean technologies and will profit from them. I agree with you that people should benefit from conservation, but society at large, not a few individuals. Current conservation policies are great, but implementation isn't. Bhutan will stand to gain from this. We don't always need to work hard, but work smart.
TooLazyToRegister
Post a Comment