Re: Discussions so far: Environment

[Parag Bhatt <pbhatt@fmi.fujitsu.com>]

Sanjeev,

I did not read the entire first mail from you as to how to post to
the discussion group.  I have saved that mail in the office and will
read it later.  In the mean time I have this small and humble view.

I agree with what you and Puneet have mentioned about Pollution.  You
cited a couple of examples on Pullution research.  To the best of my
knowledge, Maneka Gandhi (Former minister for Environment) had submitted
a detailed report for environment/pollution in the Indian Context.  If
anyone can get a hold of that, this would give us a good basis to begin
with India in Mind.  Also, we can compare and get the best of Indian
and western Research.

Parag



At 02:32 AM 4/11/98 -0700, Sanjeev Sabhlok wrote:
>SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS SO FAR
>
>TOPIC:  RESTORING ENVIRONMENT
>
>Utkarsh proposed:
>----------------
>· Enact/enforce legislation to protect and expand national parks 
>
>· Pass and enforce Stricter Pollution control legislation for the new
>automobiles
>
>· Enforce existing laws on Industry to Improve Air Quality
>
>· Reward companies limiting air/ water pollution by more than 10% of the
>mandated limits by tax breaks or preference in government contracts
>
>· Introduce air quality index in top 100 cities and legislate goals for
>department of environment to improve on these index by 5% every year for
>next 5 years
>
>· Introduce similar water quality index in top 10 rivers in 100 cities and
>legislate goals for department of environment to improve on these index by
>5% every year for next 5 years
>
>· Encourage State/local Government To Introduce Laws for cities to set
>aside a certain percentage of city area for forestation over next ten
>years
>
>· privatize wood based industries e.g. paper; introduce legislation for
>such companies to plant ten times the trees cut for their business use and
>provide such records to department of environment and independent
>environment groups
>
>· Provide tax Breaks for Private companies to promote Bio Gas concept at
>the village level to produce electricity
>
>· Introduce severe fines on companies / individuals breaking environment
>laws
>
>· Fund department of environment personnel salaries from fine levied on
>companies breaking environment laws · Provide some government funding to
>automobile industry consortium to invest in low or no pollution cars by
>2010
>
>. Open the power generation market to foreign companies to invest in new
>technologies
>
>
>Puneet's response:
>-----------------
>Some of the suggestions here are nice but how about the workability
>of such solutions? For one I would postpone any finer details of how
>we solve huge issues such as pollution and population without a close
>study of the problem and pros and cons of each solution. Some of points
>that come to my mind immediately are:
>
>what causes most of pollution in India today? Air, land/topsoil, water,
>noise etc...
>
>what is the impact of raising cost of one wrt another? eg if autorickshaws
>running on subsidized kerosine is found to cause more pollution than
>say the new ganeration cars? how about the burning of coal? is the 
>planting of 10 times # trees going to hike paper prices to have negative
>impact on other areas? do we need to fund research such as you've
>suggested below when richer countries can and should too? 
>
>I guess what I'm suggesting is a need to do a professional study of the
subject
>giving the responsibility and trust to the best in the field and go by
>thier solution. This I believe should be our principle in general on all
>issues. Let us not make decisions based on our opinions, feelings or
>even desires to see a change in the status quo while losing focus on the
>capability of doing it. Almost all of us agree on this but forget very
>often.
>
>So BDP should make a high level commitment to protecting the environment
>with aggressive implementation of the scientific/economic solution after
>a through study of the subject by the most capable body. In many respects
>this is attempted by a lot of political parties but few carry out what
>they plan on doing, i.e a basic problem also lies in execution. 
>In some respects the execution depends on the system that exists and
>can be a limiting factor too. I notice the word "enforce" in many of
>your suggestions, that I believe is the tougher part.
>
>Government must provide governance, a system, by placing the right
>people to make the right decisions. 
>We can set goals such as you have on some items (reduce pollution and track
>over years with positive feedback for emplyees and companies doing so).
>We can plan on how we will go about pursuing these goals (i.e how if we
>tie back results with promotion/punishment we will get there). Infact
>this model would apply to most of the problems and not just environment,
>basically setting up of a 'system' which is self correcting and 
>self regulatory.
>
>Anyway, I guess my suggestion is we refrain from trying to solve issues
>of population, pollution, poverty at a definitive level beyond a high level
>behavorial description of how to solve them and who we recruit to help
>provide the right answers to these tough questions.
>
>Sanjeev's response:
>-------------------
>My quick take:
>
>I agree with Puneet here. That is what is our goal. What I talking with
>Utkarsh today over phone is the same thing: we have a tremendous amount of
>research avaialable today, and we need to get its best nuggets and
>disseminate the findings. 
>
>In this context, one of the fundamental things that I have to say (based
>on research findings of others) is that the environment is not a critical
>issue at all. I have right now, in front of me, charts which show the
>relative low level of pollution of developinig nations compared with the
>developed ones. In all rich nations, the trend was the following:
>
>Intially there was a great amount of pollution
>With pollution and money came anti-pollution research and technology
>With that came less pollution
>Today Los Angeles has the lowest levels of pollution in the past 3
>decades. The Thames is completely purified, the acid rain problem has
>reduced in Europe, etc.
>
>Julian Simon is an excellent researcher on these and similar areas. 
>
>The best will be to, in my current view, classify our discussions/ agendas
>into category I and category II agendas:
>
>Category I would include things like economic reform, administrative
>reform, educational reform, and urban reform. Banking reform, labor
>reform, tariff reform, etc., etc. This is a huge area in itself.
>
>Category II could take care of environment, population, affirmative
>action, etc.
>
>It would be best to advertize the group through Category I issues, and to
>keep a relatively low profile on Category II - while not ignoring these
>issues.
>
>Just a quick thought. 
>
>Utkarsh's response:
>-------------------
>This is great. My reason to write ten points is not to define an
>agenda but is to open a debate where we as all can bring this issues
>to define this movement. I agree with Sanjeev that we should focus on
>category I issues. But in my personal thought we need to go a bit more
>in detail as what do you prospose to make that change. Like the points
>Puneet brought up. We as a group should encourage experts in the field
>of environment or any other issue we think is important to join us and
>formulate a detailed policy statement. Everyone knows open economy is
>the key, everyone knows polution is becoming a problems in rivers and
>cities. But we have to be able to stand up and say that we have looked
>at the problem in rather detail and can provide solution 1, 2, 3. For
>example if you want to privatise any industry, it will bring massive
>lay-offs. As a political entity BDP has to explain to these people as
>what exactly we will do for people who loose their jobs once we
>privatise steel or banking or any other industry.
>
>That is why I feel the job is two field. One we have to go out and
>tell as many people as possible that here is a group who means
>business and who means to the right thing. But when these people
>approach us we should be able to tell them what we stand for and not
>just superficially but we know the depth of the subject. Secondly
>success of BDP will depend on inviting people from every branch of
>science, philosophy, writers, policy makers, docotors and every
>concerned soul out there for India.
>
>Again my reason to write these are points on some subject is to focus
>groups attention to real issues. 
>
>
>
>