Among my new year resolutions for 2011, was “to strive to be more- (since I make this solemn promise pretty much every Jan 1st)-eco-friendly.”
It’s hip, going green. You would think it’s a cake walk. I lived in that dream world too, till i learnt better. I was excited by the thought of buying those ‘hot ‘green’ products on the shelf: herbal cosmetics (says who). And if they were authentic herbal stuff: Where were the herbs harvested? Was it sustainable harvesting? Who monitored if it was sustainable? Let’s say the herb in question is amla. Though grown commercially, it is also harvested by local communities from forests. Maybe a tiger’s forest. Of course, this provides livelihood, but the flip side is that human presence and disturbance in the forests disturbs wild animals like tigers. And such harvesting needs to be done in a sustainable manner. The same logic applied to the bamboo furniture I was eyeing.
Cotton was another fantasy:Natural fibre, I thought. How wrong I was. Cotton is the world's most pesticide intensive crop-in India it uses up half of the country’s pesticide. A cotton T-shirt uses upto 7,000 lts of water. The Bhopal Union Carbide plant manufactured ‘carabaryl,’ a pesticide used mainly for cotton. Oh My God..
Next thing I tackled was food. I bought organic dal, bran atta, spices, jam, pickle, oil (note-no meat, therefore no cruelty. Another thought: Is there organic meat. How? ) and sat down-with a clear conscience to enjoy my meal. But the label that caught my eye ruined my appetite. My meal had travelled well over a thousand miles. The carbon trail, so said the damn green calculator nullified the no (I assume) pesticide, fertilisers etc. Currently I am looking for organically, locally grown-and certified stuff. I am not looking at the electricity (web search) and fuel (physical hunt) spent in the process.
My friends—those that remain—call me a bore.
I don’t do Mac Donald’s. Mac is not only cruel to the cows, but is raising ‘beef’ for burgers has cleared thousands of acres of prime rainforests. Malls, currently the place to hang out, are a prime grouse—they guzzle energy and water; and represent the consumerist culture that is majorly damaging our environment and ecology. Worse, one in the capital was built over my favourite wetland where I watched migratory birds every winter, and another luxury mall stands over the graveyard of the Delhi Ridge. I crib at weddings-not because of the relatives overdose and matchmaking aunts-but the gross waste. Quickie parties or picnics are a no-no, it just means Styrofoam cups and plates. While we are at it-why is everything disposable these days-be it razors or cameras or undies--for that matter. Why is it that nothing gets repaired-if your refrigerator goes wrong, out it goes to the dump. Ditto comp, washing machine..you get the drift? The durables aren’t durable.
Back to the entertainment scenario: Films. That’s what I like to do. I usually enjoy ‘em. Most of ‘em. Some leave me cold, unknowest to us a seemingly innocent film leaves a trail of devastation. Finding Nemo, wonderful animation of clown fish wanting to get out of its glass bowl and back into the freedom of vas seas-had little boys and girls –wanting their own Nemo, in their own glass bowl—and fishing them down to toilet to grant them freedom. I will not get into how that shot up the demand for this coral fish, and how many died in the process.
I loved Three Idiots, but I knew the devastation it caused to the wetland where the climax scene was shot.
You don’t want to go shopping with me. Really. Try looking at a simple bar of soap through the green scope. Is it organic? Locally made? Vegan? Pesticide free? Does not have pal oil (primary culprits in destruction of rainforests) ...
Mobiles are a nightmare. I am attracted to the new, younger models, but my lust died when I learnt that creating cellphones was killing gorillas-by destroying their forests. It goes like this: Tantalum, a mineral in your mobile phone is mainly sourced from Congo, which is home to one of the most endangered species on the planet, and our close relative--The Mountain Gorilla.
Damn.
Diamonds are not my best friend. The bitter truth is I can’t afford them-but as I virtuously intone, neither can the planet. Mining for diamonds-and gold has destroyed prime forests. Some of the best tiger’s forests are being pillaged for diamonds-an example is near Panna and big diamond companies are snooping around reserves in Chhattisgarh. The greed for gold is clearing the world’s largest tiger reserve in Burma.
Point is, everything has a footprint, a rather large, grimy, toxic footprint, how do you know which is a wiser choice. You must have heard this one: Paper bag or polythene. The latter refuses to disintegrate and chokes the soil and drains, kills cows and marine animals; while paper is pulped trees. I use cotton (I know, I know) bags. Neither have I come up with a solution for Toilet paper or Water.
I follow all--ok, almost all--that The List (Ten Simple things YOU can do to Save Planet Earth) advises: Switch off appliances, lights, CFL bulbs, use low-flow water, no flowing taps. This bit is easy. But try telling your Help, “no flowing water while doing the dishes, or the clothes. I also gave her excess water from the bath tub (filled to a tenth of the potential) for swabbing. No polytenes, and waste veggies to be dumped in the garden. She left. And spread the word that Madam is stingy, she saves water-and uses rotten vegetables!
I am ashamed to say I saved the Help, not the planet.
published in The Sunday Gaurdian, Jan 30, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
DEATH OF A WETLAND
Okhla, a wetland transcending Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, is a Wildlife Sanctuary and an Important Bird Area with nearly 400 bird species—a little under a fourth of the total number of birds in India. It counts amongst its residents the critically endangered white-backed and long-billed vulture besides the threatened Pallas Fishing Eagle, Sarus Crane, Bristled Grass Warbler. At the barrage you could—if you were fortunate—watch the attractive Indian Skimmer skimming the water to snap up fish, or the mating dance of the black necked stork as it cranes it glossy neck to meet its mate. Or listen to the lilting song of the golden oriel. Come winter, and the wetland welcomes waders, geese, ducks, poachards, gulls, teals, gadwells. Surrounding the fecund wetland were open spaces—parks with trees where birds perched and nested; and residents strolled.
The wetland served another purpose, replenishing the soil and the water table in the areas around.
Not that any of it mattered. In our scheme of things, lifeless statues paying abeyance to past and present leaders (no offence meant) matter more than mere birds who have no voice or vote. Which is why it was seen fit to chop down over 6,000 trees and pour concrete over slush and soil to construct a Rs 700 crore Memorial Park honouring Dalit icons bordering the bird sanctuary.
It has been a protracted battle to save the wetland ever since the Uttar Pradesh government started the project in 2008. It’s curtains for the park now, and the birds. On December 3, the Supreme Court gave the park the green signal stating that “the project is not so calamitous to the (Okhla) bird sanctuary.”
It did not matter that the project violated every green law in the book: the Forest Conservation Act (FCA), The Environment Protection Act (EPA). The project also skipped approval from the Standing Committee of the National Board of Wildlife as is mandated for a project that falls within ten km of a national park or a sanctuary, even though this was pointed out in an affidavit of the MoEF in October this year.
It is apparently of little consequence that UP has failed in following the Supreme Court order that mandates states to identify and declare Eco-Sensitive Zones around PAs which would regulate such projects which grievously harm the ecology.
The Ministry of Environment and Forests played a dubious role going around in circles, failing to take a firm stand--flip-flopping from an initial recognition that the park would be in violation of both the FCA & the EPA, to turning turtle two months later. In response to a PIL filed in the Supreme Court in August-end the MoEF said that, "The project's construction work does not seem to violate any Act/Law… it did not attract provisions of the EIA notification or the Forest (Conservation) Act."
Then again, in September 2009 the MoEF told a SC panel that the memorial park would have an adverse impact on the sanctuary and surrounding ecosystems, though there was no mention of the illegality of the construction at the sanctuary’s doorstep.
Admittedly, the court has given safeguards—trees closer to the sanctuary and reduction in the construction area. But where is the mechanism to ensure, and monitor, the safeguards?
I went to Okhla, the day after the ruling, watched the vast expanse of marsh and water, the storks and the cranes silhouetted against the smog and the concrete. Heard the song of the birds, fighting to rise above the roar of the traffic. The Okhla sanctuary clings on tenuously amidst the sprawl of urbanisation and we have added the proverbial last straw on the camel’s back by signing away its green buffer to columns and plazas and pedestal. As I watched the sunset (symbolic, I thought) dipping slowly into the horizon I wondered: Are we worshipping false Gods? Why do we fail to respect urban forests and wetlands, that serve as our green lungs and recharge ground water.
First published in The Sunday Guardian, December 19, 2010
The wetland served another purpose, replenishing the soil and the water table in the areas around.
Not that any of it mattered. In our scheme of things, lifeless statues paying abeyance to past and present leaders (no offence meant) matter more than mere birds who have no voice or vote. Which is why it was seen fit to chop down over 6,000 trees and pour concrete over slush and soil to construct a Rs 700 crore Memorial Park honouring Dalit icons bordering the bird sanctuary.
It has been a protracted battle to save the wetland ever since the Uttar Pradesh government started the project in 2008. It’s curtains for the park now, and the birds. On December 3, the Supreme Court gave the park the green signal stating that “the project is not so calamitous to the (Okhla) bird sanctuary.”
It did not matter that the project violated every green law in the book: the Forest Conservation Act (FCA), The Environment Protection Act (EPA). The project also skipped approval from the Standing Committee of the National Board of Wildlife as is mandated for a project that falls within ten km of a national park or a sanctuary, even though this was pointed out in an affidavit of the MoEF in October this year.
It is apparently of little consequence that UP has failed in following the Supreme Court order that mandates states to identify and declare Eco-Sensitive Zones around PAs which would regulate such projects which grievously harm the ecology.
The Ministry of Environment and Forests played a dubious role going around in circles, failing to take a firm stand--flip-flopping from an initial recognition that the park would be in violation of both the FCA & the EPA, to turning turtle two months later. In response to a PIL filed in the Supreme Court in August-end the MoEF said that, "The project's construction work does not seem to violate any Act/Law… it did not attract provisions of the EIA notification or the Forest (Conservation) Act."
Then again, in September 2009 the MoEF told a SC panel that the memorial park would have an adverse impact on the sanctuary and surrounding ecosystems, though there was no mention of the illegality of the construction at the sanctuary’s doorstep.
Admittedly, the court has given safeguards—trees closer to the sanctuary and reduction in the construction area. But where is the mechanism to ensure, and monitor, the safeguards?
I went to Okhla, the day after the ruling, watched the vast expanse of marsh and water, the storks and the cranes silhouetted against the smog and the concrete. Heard the song of the birds, fighting to rise above the roar of the traffic. The Okhla sanctuary clings on tenuously amidst the sprawl of urbanisation and we have added the proverbial last straw on the camel’s back by signing away its green buffer to columns and plazas and pedestal. As I watched the sunset (symbolic, I thought) dipping slowly into the horizon I wondered: Are we worshipping false Gods? Why do we fail to respect urban forests and wetlands, that serve as our green lungs and recharge ground water.
First published in The Sunday Guardian, December 19, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)