Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been ‘Aladdinising’ India since 2014. The global recognition that he has brought to this country has given many Indians a spring in their steps.&nbsp;

The world’s tallest statue, International Yoga Day, the hug-fest with leaders, are all reasons for this. Added to it are his many master-stroke surgical strikes within the country, the most recent one being abrogating Article 370. These purportedly manifest the decisiveness of his leadership, which many claim India has lacked since independence.

However, behind this sheen, there are challenges that are beginning to pile up. It is not the unemployment at 6.1 &nbsp;per cent, a 45-year-high, or economic growth at 5 per cent which is a 6-year-low that is digging a deep grave for the $5 trillion vision.&nbsp;

The Prime Minister and his Cabinet, need to do the math and appreciate the impact climate change can have on the economy.&nbsp;

Sure, there has been a sea change in Modi’s understanding of climate change — from claiming, “Climate has not changed. We have changed. Our habits have changed,...” to creating the International Solar Alliance with France and other countries to facilitate the implementation of solar energy projects, to now being recognised as a stalwart of environmental protection with the UN Environment Award.

But the question remains — Is India climate change-proof? The answer can be found in the following examples. Responding on February 15, 2019, to an unstarred question No. 310, Minister of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare stated, “Climate change is projected to reduce the timely sown irrigated wheat yields by about 6 per cent in 2020 scenario from existing levels.”&nbsp;

When late and very late sown wheat also were taken into consideration, the impact is projected to be about 18 per cent in 2020 and 23 per cent in 2050.&nbsp;

Further, the Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture has identified 151 out of 572 rural districts to be highly susceptible to climate change.&nbsp;

According to the 2018 Economic Survey of India, annual farm incomes could decrease 15-18 per cent because of Climate Change, which could go up to 20-25 per cent in unirrigated areas.&nbsp;

As per the National Initiative on Climate Change Resilient Agriculture (NICRA), “Since agriculture makes up roughly 15 per cent of India’s GDP, a 4.5 to 9.0 per cent negative impact on production implies a cost of climate change to be roughly at 1.5 per cent of GDP per year.”

But that is not all. According to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), between 2013-17, water shortages caused 61 coal plants to be shut down.&nbsp;

This resulted in a loss of 17,000 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity. However, it is not only that Indian coal-fired thermal power plants have low Plant Load Factors and are polluting, but they are also huge guzzlers of water - beyond permissible limits in many cases, &nbsp;as per the IEEFA report. In fact, 87.8 per cent of industrial water consumption is by these plants.

Will India see a fight between different water consumers — from agriculture to industry and households? Given their dependence on water and the pollution generated from them, one would imagine that coal-fired thermal power plants would be seen less kindly.&nbsp;

However, from 2014-15 to 2018-19, gross electricity generation from coal has increased from 835,838 GWh to 1,021,997 GWh.&nbsp;

In the same period, solar increased from 4,600 GWh to 39,268 GWh. Though the growth in Solar seems to be high 88 per cent versus 18 per cent in coal, the overall contribution of solar to the electricity sector is just 2 per cent.&nbsp;

According to a research paper, India’s economy is 31 per cent smaller than it would have been in a climate change-free scenario.&nbsp;

Already, as per government figures, climate change is costing India $10 billion annually. By 2050 it can cost the country 2.8 per cent of her GDP.&nbsp;

A more recent study claims that climate change may shrink the Indian economy by 10 per cent. So the two main engines of growth in India - agriculture to feed and nourish Indians and electricity to power Indian industry are susceptible to climate change.&nbsp;

In such a scenario, whither the $5 trillion dream? One has not spoken about the fallout from the increase in disease incidence or from extreme weather events etc. So, what has India been doing to adapt to, and prevent climate change?&nbsp;

According to ‘Towards Climate Resilient Agriculture Through Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies’, a NICRA publication, 10 activities have been initiated at the village level.&nbsp;

These vary from building resilience in the soil to projects such as mini weather observatories in villages.&nbsp;

However, because of the unpredictability of climate change, one is not sure whether these efforts will be enough especially when the government is still investing in climate-destroying coal-fired thermal plants and busy cutting 1.09 crore trees in the last five years.&nbsp;

The government has incentivised e-vehicles, but this makes sense only if solar or wind is used to charge their batteries.&nbsp;

That being said, at an individual level there is enough reason to worry and many options available to help the country become climate change resilient.&nbsp;

For example, up to 45 litres per capita of water is wasted per day in India. This is also a waste of electricity because power is needed to pump the water.&nbsp;

Further, 40 per cent of food is wasted in India. This is not only a drain on resources but is a nutritional loss.

If one can reduce wastage, it has a ripple effect that goes far beyond the individual. A stimuli to the economy with a tax bonanza or getting the LIC to prop up failing PSU’s or taking Rs 1.76 lakh crore from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) reserves may not be enough to catapult the economy into the big league if climate change is ignored.&nbsp; 
 
(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/after-tax-boost-companies-need-to-stimulate-indian-economy-251704">original article</a>) 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
 
&nbsp;

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been ‘Aladdinising’ India since 2014. The global recognition that he has brought to this country has given many Indians a spring in their steps.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been ‘Aladdinising’ India since 2014. The global recognition that he has brought to this country has given many Indians a spring in their steps. The world’s tallest statue, International Yoga Day, the hug-fest with leaders, are all reasons for this. Added to it are his many master-stroke surgical strikes within the country, the most recent one being abrogating Article 370. These purportedly manifest the decisiveness of his leadership, which many claim India has lacked since independence. However, behind this sheen, there are challenges that are beginning to pile up. It is not the unemployment at 6.1 per cent, a 45-year-high, or economic growth at 5 per cent which is a 6-year-low that is digging a deep grave for the $5 trillion vision. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet, need to do the math and appreciate the impact climate change can have on the economy. Sure, there has been a sea change in Modi’s understanding of climate change — from claiming, “Climate has not changed. We have changed. Our habits have changed,...” to creating the International Solar Alliance with France and other countries to facilitate the implementation of solar energy projects, to now being recognised as a stalwart of environmental protection with the UN Environment Award. But the question remains — Is India climate change-proof? The answer can be found in the following examples. Responding on February 15, 2019, to an unstarred question No. 310, Minister of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare stated, “Climate change is projected to reduce the timely sown irrigated wheat yields by about 6 per cent in 2020 scenario from existing levels.” When late and very late sown wheat also were taken into consideration, the impact is projected to be about 18 per cent in 2020 and 23 per cent in 2050. Further, the Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture has identified 151 out of 572 rural districts to be highly susceptible to climate change. According to the 2018 Economic Survey of India, annual farm incomes could decrease 15-18 per cent because of Climate Change, which could go up to 20-25 per cent in unirrigated areas. As per the National Initiative on Climate Change Resilient Agriculture (NICRA), “Since agriculture makes up roughly 15 per cent of India’s GDP, a 4.5 to 9.0 per cent negative impact on production implies a cost of climate change to be roughly at 1.5 per cent of GDP per year.” But that is not all. According to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), between 2013-17, water shortages caused 61 coal plants to be shut down. This resulted in a loss of 17,000 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity. However, it is not only that Indian coal-fired thermal power plants have low Plant Load Factors and are polluting, but they are also huge guzzlers of water - beyond permissible limits in many cases, as per the IEEFA report. In fact, 87.8 per cent of industrial water consumption is by these plants. Will India see a fight between different water consumers — from agriculture to industry and households? Given their dependence on water and the pollution generated from them, one would imagine that coal-fired thermal power plants would be seen less kindly. However, from 2014-15 to 2018-19, gross electricity generation from coal has increased from 835,838 GWh to 1,021,997 GWh. In the same period, solar increased from 4,600 GWh to 39,268 GWh. Though the growth in Solar seems to be high 88 per cent versus 18 per cent in coal, the overall contribution of solar to the electricity sector is just 2 per cent. According to a research paper, India’s economy is 31 per cent smaller than it would have been in a climate change-free scenario. Already, as per government figures, climate change is costing India $10 billion annually. By 2050 it can cost the country 2.8 per cent of her GDP. A more recent study claims that climate change may shrink the Indian economy by 10 per cent. So the two main engines of growth in India - agriculture to feed and nourish Indians and electricity to power Indian industry are susceptible to climate change. In such a scenario, whither the $5 trillion dream? One has not spoken about the fallout from the increase in disease incidence or from extreme weather events etc. So, what has India been doing to adapt to, and prevent climate change? According to ‘Towards Climate Resilient Agriculture Through Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies’, a NICRA publication, 10 activities have been initiated at the village level. These vary from building resilience in the soil to projects such as mini weather observatories in villages. However, because of the unpredictability of climate change, one is not sure whether these efforts will be enough especially when the government is still investing in climate-destroying coal-fired thermal plants and busy cutting 1.09 crore trees in the last five years. The government has incentivised e-vehicles, but this makes sense only if solar or wind is used to charge their batteries. That being said, at an individual level there is enough reason to worry and many options available to help the country become climate change resilient. For example, up to 45 litres per capita of water is wasted per day in India. This is also a waste of electricity because power is needed to pump the water. Further, 40 per cent of food is wasted in India. This is not only a drain on resources but is a nutritional loss. If one can reduce wastage, it has a ripple effect that goes far beyond the individual. A stimuli to the economy with a tax bonanza or getting the LIC to prop up failing PSU’s or taking Rs 1.76 lakh crore from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) reserves may not be enough to catapult the economy into the big league if climate change is ignored. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Climate change: PM Narendra Modi realises the danger

For them, this parliamentary measure has taken a long time coming and is a redressal for the injustice done to them. Their being driven out of their homes overnight, the loss of family, property and livelihoods remains a festering open wound that continues to debilitate them. Past discussions on Kashmir have not always spoken about their losses and the need for restitution. 
 
So, undoubtedly, the Kashmiri Pandits have a reason to rejoice. But why are other Indians rejoicing? It surely is not for the good fortune that is knocking on the Kashmiri Pandit’s door. I know this for a fact because the torrent of messages flooding social media on the abrogation of Article 370 do not mention Kashmiri Pandits. What they do mention is praise for Narendra Modi and Amit Shah; they mock Naseeruddin Shah and Owaisi, they speak about ‘Akhand Bharat’, they denigrate Nehru and the Congress and the Abdullahs. But nothing suggests a shared happiness for the Kashmiri Pandits.&nbsp;

Interestingly, many believe the BJP government’s move is also a salute to the soldiers killed in Kashmir. It is only the Kashmiri Pandits who remain clear on the reason for celebrations - an opportunity to return home.

From the ensuing news, debate and analysis on the BJP government’s move on Kashmir, one sees a four-way split in the country. A section of India, marked as pseudo-intellectuals and anti-national, worry about the unconstitutionality of the government’s decision and it’s repercussions. Another section - the Muslims in Kashmir - worry about their status, the Kashmiri Pandits rejoice, and finally, there are those who celebrate the move as a decisive step towards consolidating the country - towards the Hindutva dream of an Akhand Bharat - while undoing the perceived outrages of the past. &nbsp;

The unfortunate truth is that by ignoring the plight of the Kashmiri Pandits, the issue morphed from one about Kashmir per se to one with religious and nationalistic overtones.&nbsp;

One needs to ask whether the pain of the Kashmiri Pandits is being abused to further an agenda. One can see similarities between abrogation of Article 370 and the Triple Talaq Bill. In both instances, the BJP government argued that they were trying to enhance the status of people.&nbsp;

In the instance of the Triple Talaq, known as the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, PM Modi tweeted “An archaic and medieval practice has finally been confined to the dustbin of history! Parliament abolishes triple talaq and corrects a historical wrong done to Muslim women. This is a victory of gender justice and will further equality in society. India rejoices today!”&nbsp;

While in the instance of Article 370, he tweeted “People of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh would be proud that MPs overcame differences and discussed the future of these regions as well as ensuring peace, progress and prosperity there......’ &nbsp;

In each of these two instances, the focus is supposedly on ameliorating a narrow issue. Truth be told, discrimination against women is not the sole proprietorship of one religion - Islam- especially in India. If the BJP was really interested in gender justice, they would have focused on Indian women. But by claiming a victory for women with the passage of the talaq bill, they have used morality to couch their insidiousness. The BJP applied the same ethically mutant method to obfuscate their intentions with the passage of the bill abrogating Article 370. They claim it is for the benefit of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, but their supporters cannot help but crow the truth. &nbsp;

Would it be remiss to ask whether the BJP and their supporters would be applying the same empathy for the victims in Myanmar, Israel and China too? Do farmers and tribals in India who have lost their land and livelihood to big projects hope their government will use the parliamentary process to return their land to them?&nbsp;

Of course in a democracy, not everybody can be given what they want and therefore not everyone can be made happy. But democracy is supposed to be the promise of a leadership implementing an open and fair process where the opportunity for happiness does not necessitate another’ unhappiness or fear. &nbsp;This is how the colour of happiness begins to change. 
 
(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-the-changing-colour-of-happiness-in-the-indian-republic-2781278">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

For them, this parliamentary measure has taken a long time coming and is a redressal for the injustice done to them. Their being driven out of their homes overnight, the loss of family, property and livelihoods remains a festering open wound that continues to debilitate them.

For them, this parliamentary measure has taken a long time coming and is a redressal for the injustice done to them. Their being driven out of their homes overnight, the loss of family, property and livelihoods remains a festering open wound that continues to debilitate them. Past discussions on Kashmir have not always spoken about their losses and the need for restitution. So, undoubtedly, the Kashmiri Pandits have a reason to rejoice. But why are other Indians rejoicing? It surely is not for the good fortune that is knocking on the Kashmiri Pandit’s door. I know this for a fact because the torrent of messages flooding social media on the abrogation of Article 370 do not mention Kashmiri Pandits. What they do mention is praise for Narendra Modi and Amit Shah; they mock Naseeruddin Shah and Owaisi, they speak about ‘Akhand Bharat’, they denigrate Nehru and the Congress and the Abdullahs. But nothing suggests a shared happiness for the Kashmiri Pandits. Interestingly, many believe the BJP government’s move is also a salute to the soldiers killed in Kashmir. It is only the Kashmiri Pandits who remain clear on the reason for celebrations - an opportunity to return home. From the ensuing news, debate and analysis on the BJP government’s move on Kashmir, one sees a four-way split in the country. A section of India, marked as pseudo-intellectuals and anti-national, worry about the unconstitutionality of the government’s decision and it’s repercussions. Another section - the Muslims in Kashmir - worry about their status, the Kashmiri Pandits rejoice, and finally, there are those who celebrate the move as a decisive step towards consolidating the country - towards the Hindutva dream of an Akhand Bharat - while undoing the perceived outrages of the past. The unfortunate truth is that by ignoring the plight of the Kashmiri Pandits, the issue morphed from one about Kashmir per se to one with religious and nationalistic overtones. One needs to ask whether the pain of the Kashmiri Pandits is being abused to further an agenda. One can see similarities between abrogation of Article 370 and the Triple Talaq Bill. In both instances, the BJP government argued that they were trying to enhance the status of people. In the instance of the Triple Talaq, known as the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, PM Modi tweeted “An archaic and medieval practice has finally been confined to the dustbin of history! Parliament abolishes triple talaq and corrects a historical wrong done to Muslim women. This is a victory of gender justice and will further equality in society. India rejoices today!” While in the instance of Article 370, he tweeted “People of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh would be proud that MPs overcame differences and discussed the future of these regions as well as ensuring peace, progress and prosperity there......’ In each of these two instances, the focus is supposedly on ameliorating a narrow issue. Truth be told, discrimination against women is not the sole proprietorship of one religion - Islam- especially in India. If the BJP was really interested in gender justice, they would have focused on Indian women. But by claiming a victory for women with the passage of the talaq bill, they have used morality to couch their insidiousness. The BJP applied the same ethically mutant method to obfuscate their intentions with the passage of the bill abrogating Article 370. They claim it is for the benefit of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, but their supporters cannot help but crow the truth. Would it be remiss to ask whether the BJP and their supporters would be applying the same empathy for the victims in Myanmar, Israel and China too? Do farmers and tribals in India who have lost their land and livelihood to big projects hope their government will use the parliamentary process to return their land to them? Of course in a democracy, not everybody can be given what they want and therefore not everyone can be made happy. But democracy is supposed to be the promise of a leadership implementing an open and fair process where the opportunity for happiness does not necessitate another’ unhappiness or fear. This is how the colour of happiness begins to change. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Kashmiri Pandits have a clear reason to celebrate - an opportunity to return home

Many argue that climate change is not a recent problem and has been occurring for millions of years, citing examples of the Little Ice Age. What they fail to realise is that humans have much more to lose now than they had then. Further, today humans are in a position to prevent and reduce climate change because they are the ones causing it.

Having said that, humans are not the only species bearing the brunt of climate change. Insects are also feeling the heat. However, the insect, animal and avian world have been bearing the cross of human progress for centuries. Dodo’s, passenger pigeons, the cheetah in India and a host of other species have been squashed underfoot in the march of progress. It is reported that since humans overran the planet after the last ice age, more than 300 mammal species have been wiped out.

Did their disappearance have an impact on human existence? Nobody knows because neither are the consequences immediately visible nor is the connection between the extinction of species and its impact on humans easy to ascertain.

In the modern world, the first impacts of the use of chemical pesticides was documented in Rachel Carsen’s book ‘Silent Spring’. She observed the absence of bird song and related it to the use of pesticides. These chemicals were not only killing weeds and bugs, but also birds and other insects -natural predators of such bugs. Chemicals are very secular, they harm everyone without prejudice.

In time, pests not only became immune to pesticides, but their natural predators also reduced, resulting in more chemicals in the field. Exposure to chemicals also began to affect humans. Skin rashes, breathing problems and lower IQ in children were some of the problems that began to be reported from farms. The war on pests has resulted in collateral damage both on humans and other species.

A study by the Zoological Society of London and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) states that ‘we have wiped out 58 per cent of animal life between 1970 and 2012’. &nbsp;

Recent reports suggest insects are facing mass extinction. A study conducted in the rain forests of Puerto Rico reported a decline, by a factor of four or eight, in the number of insects and invertebrates caught in traps. While the number of insects caught in sticky traps declined by a factor of 60, all caused by chemical-intensive agriculture, climate change and urbanisation.

A global scientific review reported in The Guardian states that the global mass of insects is falling at the rate of 2.5 per cent a year. They could vanish within a century. These are food for other creatures higher up in the food chain. As per researchers, this decline has coincided with the loss of birds, lizards and frogs.

Now, why should this be a worry for us? It can be argued that this should be the least of our worries as we are on top of the food chain, can make babies and meat in the laboratory, and can harness the wind and sun.

We should be concerned and here is why. According to scientists, it would take almost 3 million years for evolution to naturally replace species made extinct by humans.

Insects are pollinators and waste management experts, controlling other insects, keeping the soil healthy while also serving the most important function – being food for those higher up the food chain.

In the absence of pollinators, many plant species will disappear. Sure, the argument can be made that humans will be able to recreate such plants in the laboratory.

Approximately 87 per cent of the over 300,000 species of plants need external pollinators, where would one begin?

There is enough proof to declare that our handling of excreta is not as good as that of the dung beetle. Can human’s copy the magic that the earthworm performs on the soil? That being said, seed companies develop seeds in the laboratories to be sold to farmers along with pesticides and other chemicals. So, some can argue that agriculture will not be affected by insect decline. However, chemical residue in food and water sources links back to pesticide and fertiliser use.

There have been five earlier mass extinctions in the last 4 billion years. These were caused by volcanic eruptions, meteorite impacts and the ice age. Humans did not have much to lose then as they do now. One is not only speaking about death.

The development has inured many of us to a way of life far removed from hardships, money has been invested to ensure that one is not accosted by survival issues that our forefathers faced. The collapse of the insect world will potentially add to other woes destabilising the socio-economic system. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Is the decline of insects an existential threat like climate change? The answer is I don’t know, nor would I like to find out. &nbsp;

Are we equipped to battle a potential second existential threat? The answer is a NO, looking at the way we are handling the climate crisis.

Many in power either refuse to acknowledge the threat of Climate Change or don’t do enough to reduce the impact their economies have on the climate, for example moving to renewables from fossil fuels. Humanity is already paying for this dilly-dallying monetarily. According to a report by Christian Aid, the cost of 10 major climatic events in 2018, including the floods in Kerala, ranged from $1 billion to seven billion each.

Though there are many reports on the decline of insect populations, there is no official acknowledgement of this threat and its potential impacts. But should we wait for that? As individuals, there are many things that can be done. Going organic, using natural pesticides at home, growing home gardens are some of the day-to-day activities that come to mind. If you haven’t started as yet, there is no better time than now. 
&nbsp;

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-bearing-brunt-of-climate-change-2778913">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Many argue that climate change is not a recent problem and has been occurring for millions of years, citing examples of the Little Ice Age. What they fail to realise is that humans have much more to lose now than they had then.

Many argue that climate change is not a recent problem and has been occurring for millions of years, citing examples of the Little Ice Age. What they fail to realise is that humans have much more to lose now than they had then. Further, today humans are in a position to prevent and reduce climate change because they are the ones causing it. Having said that, humans are not the only species bearing the brunt of climate change. Insects are also feeling the heat. However, the insect, animal and avian world have been bearing the cross of human progress for centuries. Dodo’s, passenger pigeons, the cheetah in India and a host of other species have been squashed underfoot in the march of progress. It is reported that since humans overran the planet after the last ice age, more than 300 mammal species have been wiped out. Did their disappearance have an impact on human existence? Nobody knows because neither are the consequences immediately visible nor is the connection between the extinction of species and its impact on humans easy to ascertain. In the modern world, the first impacts of the use of chemical pesticides was documented in Rachel Carsen’s book ‘Silent Spring’. She observed the absence of bird song and related it to the use of pesticides. These chemicals were not only killing weeds and bugs, but also birds and other insects -natural predators of such bugs. Chemicals are very secular, they harm everyone without prejudice. In time, pests not only became immune to pesticides, but their natural predators also reduced, resulting in more chemicals in the field. Exposure to chemicals also began to affect humans. Skin rashes, breathing problems and lower IQ in children were some of the problems that began to be reported from farms. The war on pests has resulted in collateral damage both on humans and other species. A study by the Zoological Society of London and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) states that ‘we have wiped out 58 per cent of animal life between 1970 and 2012’. Recent reports suggest insects are facing mass extinction. A study conducted in the rain forests of Puerto Rico reported a decline, by a factor of four or eight, in the number of insects and invertebrates caught in traps. While the number of insects caught in sticky traps declined by a factor of 60, all caused by chemical-intensive agriculture, climate change and urbanisation. A global scientific review reported in The Guardian states that the global mass of insects is falling at the rate of 2.5 per cent a year. They could vanish within a century. These are food for other creatures higher up in the food chain. As per researchers, this decline has coincided with the loss of birds, lizards and frogs. Now, why should this be a worry for us? It can be argued that this should be the least of our worries as we are on top of the food chain, can make babies and meat in the laboratory, and can harness the wind and sun. We should be concerned and here is why. According to scientists, it would take almost 3 million years for evolution to naturally replace species made extinct by humans. Insects are pollinators and waste management experts, controlling other insects, keeping the soil healthy while also serving the most important function – being food for those higher up the food chain. In the absence of pollinators, many plant species will disappear. Sure, the argument can be made that humans will be able to recreate such plants in the laboratory. Approximately 87 per cent of the over 300,000 species of plants need external pollinators, where would one begin? There is enough proof to declare that our handling of excreta is not as good as that of the dung beetle. Can human’s copy the magic that the earthworm performs on the soil? That being said, seed companies develop seeds in the laboratories to be sold to farmers along with pesticides and other chemicals. So, some can argue that agriculture will not be affected by insect decline. However, chemical residue in food and water sources links back to pesticide and fertiliser use. There have been five earlier mass extinctions in the last 4 billion years. These were caused by volcanic eruptions, meteorite impacts and the ice age. Humans did not have much to lose then as they do now. One is not only speaking about death. The development has inured many of us to a way of life far removed from hardships, money has been invested to ensure that one is not accosted by survival issues that our forefathers faced. The collapse of the insect world will potentially add to other woes destabilising the socio-economic system. Is the decline of insects an existential threat like climate change? The answer is I don’t know, nor would I like to find out. Are we equipped to battle a potential second existential threat? The answer is a NO, looking at the way we are handling the climate crisis. Many in power either refuse to acknowledge the threat of Climate Change or don’t do enough to reduce the impact their economies have on the climate, for example moving to renewables from fossil fuels. Humanity is already paying for this dilly-dallying monetarily. According to a report by Christian Aid, the cost of 10 major climatic events in 2018, including the floods in Kerala, ranged from $1 billion to seven billion each. Though there are many reports on the decline of insect populations, there is no official acknowledgement of this threat and its potential impacts. But should we wait for that? As individuals, there are many things that can be done. Going organic, using natural pesticides at home, growing home gardens are some of the day-to-day activities that come to mind. If you haven’t started as yet, there is no better time than now. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Bearing brunt of climate change

The ubiquitousness of technology is such that it affects individuals, communities, societies and nations. &nbsp;Social media played a major role in the Brexit referendum, while Trump uses it to his benefit in the US.&nbsp;

In India, political parties use it to maximise their reach and impact. National security and international business have also become entwined because of technology; take for example the imbroglio about Huawei’s 5G technology in the UK and the arrest of its CFO in Canada. Every few years, new technology is used in a way that jars society and raises questions around morality. The history of technology is also the history of human and national turpitude.&nbsp;

Commercial farming grew on the sweat of slave labour. The success of the industrial revolution was fueled by inhuman working conditions. Eisenhower’s ‘atoms for peace’ resulted in a nuclear arms race. The feel-goodness of early Facebook has morphed into a medium that causes suicide, induces real rage through false news and broadcasts murder.&nbsp;

One can blame the human mind because technology, on its own, is impotent. Innovation and invention are based on problem-solving and creating or feeding a need. There is usually a utopian ideal that fuels these inventions. For example, Mark Zuckerberg wanted to unify and globalise people. In retrospect, he was delusional to assume everyone would live as per his dream. He, like other fellow innovators and inventors, fail to recognise two things. The first is that people have minds of their own and are capable of finding new uses to technology. The second is what Yuval Noah Harari says in his book Homo Deus — human’s ability to think of the future is limited by their minds being stuck to the present way of thinking. Thus, even if one thinks of the future, it is framed by current conditions.

Creativity is a key survival feature and finding new uses to technology is inherent to progress. Did NASA ever think their Velcro would be used to fasten shoes? Were washing machines designed to whip up lassi? This thinking out-of-the-box has also led to stun guns being used by both the butcher and police and, transport being used by terrorists to mow down people.

Though Intelligent design has no scientific basis to explain evolution, many of man’s endeavours have been based on its literal application. Quite a few pedigree dogs are results of selective breeding programmes carried out a few centuries earlier. Is it such a giant leap to argue that eugenics crept out from the success of such work?

Should human progress be measured by how technology percolates into everyday life? Or when technology use interchanges between human and animal? The dis-assembly line developed in the early slaughterhouses of the US to slaughter and carve beef efficiently and cheaply inspired Henry Ford’s assembly line. &nbsp;The argument for and against genetic manipulation crisscrosses its application on crops and humans. Animals, vegetables and humans are pumped with chemicals and hormones to enhance their performance — whatever that may be. Artificial insemination and in vitro fertilisation has converted livestock into baby making machines while childless couples see these technologies as a last resort on the road to fulfil the desire of becoming parents.

The choice to introduce technology into every day is a slippery slope. It opens the door to its other potential uses by creating precedents which permit its use for circumstances not initially conceived. Such precedents reduce moral hesitance. When one speaks of laws to regulate these technologies, one is actually seeking to curtail the devious part of human imagination. However, these regulations come a bit late in the day when that technology has already got a foothold.&nbsp;

There are ethics committees for scientific experiments and they focus on the condition of experiments and its morality. Government agencies test chemicals for health and environmental impacts. There are no such bodies for social media platforms, which have a major psychological and physical impact on users. &nbsp;

Society has progressed by meeting its desire for better, more, easier and cheaper. These are relative and differ from individual to individual and from group to group. Thus the routes to reach these goals also vary. It is no surprise then that many are unpleasantly surprised, frequently at that, when technology in the hands of another swings the other way. &nbsp;

Technologies inadvertently convert humans into lab rats. There is now concern about the use of pesticides, plastics, coal for energy, the aha moment for appreciating the negative impact of the technologies took time and are still debated. However, the concern is more compelling for social media platforms because the impacts on society and government are immediate and undeniable.&nbsp;

&nbsp;Facebook and others are tweaking their programmes to prevent hate and false information — things not thought of before release. But these tweaks and laws occur only after society has faced the brunt its abuse. &nbsp;The way society use technology is proof that its members are neither prescient nor have 20-20 hindsight. In fact, it would seem that the relationship with technology is nothing but a series of unfortunate incidents.

Innovators conceive of the use of their technology by society in monochrome — based on their limited and, even biased, perception of it. Just as consumer companies conduct market surveys, are innovators carrying out market research to understand the many other ways this technology can be used when released into society?

Society needs to begin a discussion on the idea of progress and technology. Tales from Robert Louis Stevenson and Mary Shelley to Ray Bradbury and others have a note of caution, which we have yet to heed. 
 
(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-things-innovators-must-know-2756186">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The ubiquitousness of technology is such that it affects individuals, communities, societies and nations. Social media played a major role in the Brexit referendum, while Trump uses it to his benefit in the US.

The ubiquitousness of technology is such that it affects individuals, communities, societies and nations. Social media played a major role in the Brexit referendum, while Trump uses it to his benefit in the US. In India, political parties use it to maximise their reach and impact. National security and international business have also become entwined because of technology; take for example the imbroglio about Huawei’s 5G technology in the UK and the arrest of its CFO in Canada. Every few years, new technology is used in a way that jars society and raises questions around morality. The history of technology is also the history of human and national turpitude. Commercial farming grew on the sweat of slave labour. The success of the industrial revolution was fueled by inhuman working conditions. Eisenhower’s ‘atoms for peace’ resulted in a nuclear arms race. The feel-goodness of early Facebook has morphed into a medium that causes suicide, induces real rage through false news and broadcasts murder. One can blame the human mind because technology, on its own, is impotent. Innovation and invention are based on problem-solving and creating or feeding a need. There is usually a utopian ideal that fuels these inventions. For example, Mark Zuckerberg wanted to unify and globalise people. In retrospect, he was delusional to assume everyone would live as per his dream. He, like other fellow innovators and inventors, fail to recognise two things. The first is that people have minds of their own and are capable of finding new uses to technology. The second is what Yuval Noah Harari says in his book Homo Deus — human’s ability to think of the future is limited by their minds being stuck to the present way of thinking. Thus, even if one thinks of the future, it is framed by current conditions. Creativity is a key survival feature and finding new uses to technology is inherent to progress. Did NASA ever think their Velcro would be used to fasten shoes? Were washing machines designed to whip up lassi? This thinking out-of-the-box has also led to stun guns being used by both the butcher and police and, transport being used by terrorists to mow down people. Though Intelligent design has no scientific basis to explain evolution, many of man’s endeavours have been based on its literal application. Quite a few pedigree dogs are results of selective breeding programmes carried out a few centuries earlier. Is it such a giant leap to argue that eugenics crept out from the success of such work? Should human progress be measured by how technology percolates into everyday life? Or when technology use interchanges between human and animal? The dis-assembly line developed in the early slaughterhouses of the US to slaughter and carve beef efficiently and cheaply inspired Henry Ford’s assembly line. The argument for and against genetic manipulation crisscrosses its application on crops and humans. Animals, vegetables and humans are pumped with chemicals and hormones to enhance their performance — whatever that may be. Artificial insemination and in vitro fertilisation has converted livestock into baby making machines while childless couples see these technologies as a last resort on the road to fulfil the desire of becoming parents. The choice to introduce technology into every day is a slippery slope. It opens the door to its other potential uses by creating precedents which permit its use for circumstances not initially conceived. Such precedents reduce moral hesitance. When one speaks of laws to regulate these technologies, one is actually seeking to curtail the devious part of human imagination. However, these regulations come a bit late in the day when that technology has already got a foothold. There are ethics committees for scientific experiments and they focus on the condition of experiments and its morality. Government agencies test chemicals for health and environmental impacts. There are no such bodies for social media platforms, which have a major psychological and physical impact on users. Society has progressed by meeting its desire for better, more, easier and cheaper. These are relative and differ from individual to individual and from group to group. Thus the routes to reach these goals also vary. It is no surprise then that many are unpleasantly surprised, frequently at that, when technology in the hands of another swings the other way. Technologies inadvertently convert humans into lab rats. There is now concern about the use of pesticides, plastics, coal for energy, the aha moment for appreciating the negative impact of the technologies took time and are still debated. However, the concern is more compelling for social media platforms because the impacts on society and government are immediate and undeniable. Facebook and others are tweaking their programmes to prevent hate and false information — things not thought of before release. But these tweaks and laws occur only after society has faced the brunt its abuse. The way society use technology is proof that its members are neither prescient nor have 20-20 hindsight. In fact, it would seem that the relationship with technology is nothing but a series of unfortunate incidents. Innovators conceive of the use of their technology by society in monochrome — based on their limited and, even biased, perception of it. Just as consumer companies conduct market surveys, are innovators carrying out market research to understand the many other ways this technology can be used when released into society? Society needs to begin a discussion on the idea of progress and technology. Tales from Robert Louis Stevenson and Mary Shelley to Ray Bradbury and others have a note of caution, which we have yet to heed. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

National security and international business have become entwined because of technology

Though one hears about air pollution in winter, the air quality is bad throughout the year. In fact, a 2016 study by IIT Kanpur found that PM 2.5 and PM 10 levels were 4-7 times the upper limit irrespective of the time of the year.&nbsp;

Economic growth and pollution: The causes of decrease in air quality are many — exponential increase in the number of vehicles in India from approximately 55 million in 1981 to 230 million in 2016. According to the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers, ‘The sale of Passenger Vehicles grew by 7.89 per cent in April-March 2018 over the same period last year.’ Tail pipe emissions contribute just 2 per cent of PM 10 emissions at the national scale. A source apportionment study carried out by CPCB found road and construction dust contributed between 6-58 per cent of PM 10 particles. However, when PM 2.5 matter is considered, the contribution of the transport sector rises to 31 per cent.

The dependence on conventional energy sources is another factor. According to the Ministry of Power, ‘The electricity generation target of conventional sources for the year 2018-19 has been fixed as 1265 Billion Unit (BU), ie, growth of around 4.87 per cent over actual conventional generation of 1206.306 BU for the previous year (2017-18)’.

There has also been an increase in stubble burning over the years. Improper waste disposal is another big issue.

The Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health in 2017 stated that 2.5 million Indians die prematurely because of air pollution. In 2016, the World Bank and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation calculated that in 2013 air pollution caused 1,403,136 deaths. The country lost $55.39 billion in labour output.&nbsp;

Budgetary allocation for air pollution control: The magnitude of air pollution problem and its far-reaching consequences calls for a response of mammoth proportions from the Centre and the states. That the National Green Tribunal had to recently ask 23 states to come up with plans to bring air quality within prescribed limits is proof of the importance given to this matter at the state and Central levels.&nbsp;

A review of PRS analysed state budgets for 2018-19 and 2017-18 found that only Delhi government made express provisions to combat air pollution — a subsidy of Rs 30,000 for firms to switch from diesel generators to clean fuel based one and another subsidy of Rs 1 lakh to incentivise piped gas. The government will also purchase 1000 electric buses.&nbsp;

A look at state budgets found that some states like Karnataka and Bihar have budgeted for the installation of air pollution monitoring stations in the current budget. Odisha launched a Star Rating system to encourage transparency in compliance of pollution standards within industries. Other states launched apps to keep citizens informed of air quality.

Interestingly, last year’s Delhi budget made provisions for the installation of 20 more air quality monitoring stations while the government of Punjab made a provision of Rs 20 crores to prevent the burning of paddy straw.

However, there was no other nod to air quality amelioration in these two budgets or in other state budgets.

Unfortunately, the 2018-19 central budget only catered to Delhi’s air. The government forgot that there are 13 other cities spread across India that feature in the world’s top 20 cities with deadly air quality.&nbsp;

However, after a presentation from the Environment Secretary, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment recommended a 50 per cent increase in the ministry’s Rs 2675.42 crore budget. The Secretary stated that Rs 250 crore of this additional money would be spent on air pollution abatement.&nbsp;

This year’s central budget exempts ethanol blended petrol and diesel blended with biodiesel from road and infrastructure cess, to promote their use. But will it help our lungs?

Is it the cart before the horse: Here in lies the problem. Air pollution abatement does not prevent air pollution. No amount of expenditure on abatement will suffice if it cannot at least equal the expenditure and investment in polluting sources. Take the example of the oft-abused remedy for air pollution — electric vehicles for public transport and personal use. The use of such vehicles only changes the point of pollution discharge. Further, as almost 64 per cent of electricity is generated from fossil fuels there is going to be a corresponding increase in pollution from these sources. The promotion of electric vehicles should come with the caveat that they be charged through renewable energy. This will not only decrease pollution in the city where such vehicles run, but will also prevent further decline in air quality around power generating sources.&nbsp;

Further, reducing vehicular traffic through schemes such as odd-even days can limit the number of vehicles on the road for a time. With the increase in purchases the efficacy of the scheme will decrease.

There is a need to take a hard look at the sources of pollution, be they the power industry, the construction industry, stubble burning, vehicles etc. It is important to look beyond abatement. 
 
(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-only-four-states-have-limited-allocation-to-fight-pollution-2687620">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

 
&nbsp;

Though one hears about air pollution in winter, the air quality is bad throughout the year. In fact, a 2016 study by IIT Kanpur found that PM 2.5 and PM 10 levels were 4-7 times the upper limit irrespective of the time of the year.

Though one hears about air pollution in winter, the air quality is bad throughout the year. In fact, a 2016 study by IIT Kanpur found that PM 2.5 and PM 10 levels were 4-7 times the upper limit irrespective of the time of the year. Economic growth and pollution: The causes of decrease in air quality are many — exponential increase in the number of vehicles in India from approximately 55 million in 1981 to 230 million in 2016. According to the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers, ‘The sale of Passenger Vehicles grew by 7.89 per cent in April-March 2018 over the same period last year.’ Tail pipe emissions contribute just 2 per cent of PM 10 emissions at the national scale. A source apportionment study carried out by CPCB found road and construction dust contributed between 6-58 per cent of PM 10 particles. However, when PM 2.5 matter is considered, the contribution of the transport sector rises to 31 per cent. The dependence on conventional energy sources is another factor. According to the Ministry of Power, ‘The electricity generation target of conventional sources for the year 2018-19 has been fixed as 1265 Billion Unit (BU), ie, growth of around 4.87 per cent over actual conventional generation of 1206.306 BU for the previous year (2017-18)’. There has also been an increase in stubble burning over the years. Improper waste disposal is another big issue. The Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health in 2017 stated that 2.5 million Indians die prematurely because of air pollution. In 2016, the World Bank and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation calculated that in 2013 air pollution caused 1,403,136 deaths. The country lost $55.39 billion in labour output. Budgetary allocation for air pollution control: The magnitude of air pollution problem and its far-reaching consequences calls for a response of mammoth proportions from the Centre and the states. That the National Green Tribunal had to recently ask 23 states to come up with plans to bring air quality within prescribed limits is proof of the importance given to this matter at the state and Central levels. A review of PRS analysed state budgets for 2018-19 and 2017-18 found that only Delhi government made express provisions to combat air pollution — a subsidy of Rs 30,000 for firms to switch from diesel generators to clean fuel based one and another subsidy of Rs 1 lakh to incentivise piped gas. The government will also purchase 1000 electric buses. A look at state budgets found that some states like Karnataka and Bihar have budgeted for the installation of air pollution monitoring stations in the current budget. Odisha launched a Star Rating system to encourage transparency in compliance of pollution standards within industries. Other states launched apps to keep citizens informed of air quality. Interestingly, last year’s Delhi budget made provisions for the installation of 20 more air quality monitoring stations while the government of Punjab made a provision of Rs 20 crores to prevent the burning of paddy straw. However, there was no other nod to air quality amelioration in these two budgets or in other state budgets. Unfortunately, the 2018-19 central budget only catered to Delhi’s air. The government forgot that there are 13 other cities spread across India that feature in the world’s top 20 cities with deadly air quality. However, after a presentation from the Environment Secretary, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment recommended a 50 per cent increase in the ministry’s Rs 2675.42 crore budget. The Secretary stated that Rs 250 crore of this additional money would be spent on air pollution abatement. This year’s central budget exempts ethanol blended petrol and diesel blended with biodiesel from road and infrastructure cess, to promote their use. But will it help our lungs? Is it the cart before the horse: Here in lies the problem. Air pollution abatement does not prevent air pollution. No amount of expenditure on abatement will suffice if it cannot at least equal the expenditure and investment in polluting sources. Take the example of the oft-abused remedy for air pollution — electric vehicles for public transport and personal use. The use of such vehicles only changes the point of pollution discharge. Further, as almost 64 per cent of electricity is generated from fossil fuels there is going to be a corresponding increase in pollution from these sources. The promotion of electric vehicles should come with the caveat that they be charged through renewable energy. This will not only decrease pollution in the city where such vehicles run, but will also prevent further decline in air quality around power generating sources. Further, reducing vehicular traffic through schemes such as odd-even days can limit the number of vehicles on the road for a time. With the increase in purchases the efficacy of the scheme will decrease. There is a need to take a hard look at the sources of pollution, be they the power industry, the construction industry, stubble burning, vehicles etc. It is important to look beyond abatement. (This article was originally published on DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Only four states have limited allocation to fight pollution

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Samir Nazareth

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.