[Reader-list] Farewell to our Humid Weimar

[Amit Basole]

The debate over consumption norms and whether "everyone" will be able to
drive a car, cool off with a A/C, own a laptop and cell phone, and where the
energy for all this will come from cannot be divorced from the political
economy of development. The pressing question is not whether in some
distant, or not so distant future, everyone can enjoy the same material
comforts without eroding the basic conditions of our existence. That worry
sounds (at least to me) like the worry of the already privileged who are
concerned that as their consumption patterns get generalized, the very
process of emulation and generalization will rob them of the life they have
grown used to.

Rather what to me is far more pressing is, in the present, what costs are
winners of the development game, who are securing automobiles, A/Cs, and
laptops, able to enforce on the losers?  Who is bearing the costs of
development, in what proportion? Nandigram, Plachimada, Kalinganagar, God
knows how many Nandigrams in China, this long and unfortunate list provides
the answer. And going further back into the history of the colonized nations
as well as Western Europe, many more examples can be piled on.

That previously oppressed groups can later be counted among the oppressors,
that the person with a bicycle graduates to a scooter and then a car, does
not detract from the continuity of the capitalist accumulation process
itself. It will be a long time before the world runs out of the underclass
that disproportionately bears the cost of development and during this time,
"benefits" in the form of cars etc, will undoubtedly trickle down further to
the hitherto underprivileged.

So rather than debating the long-term sustainability of the present advanced
industrial lifestyle, we should with all the resources at our command, be
striving to expose its continued obscene present day costs. Incidentally,
there is no doubt in my mind that it is unsustainable, but "proving" it is
another matter, it involves making a claim about the future that makes one
vulnerable to charges of pessimism and lack of faith in human ingenuity.
This debate is unnecessary, the immense suffering of beings today weighs
more heavily with me than the destruction of the entire human species a
hundred years in the future.

Apologies for the strident tone. It is not directed at any one individual,
except perhaps my own self.

Amit

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Dear Tapas
>
> Enjoyed reading your posting.
>
> The philosophy and parameters (with examples) of 'new framework' for a
> 'technological civilization' is very ennobling and sincere towards finding a
> solution for the 'energy crunch'.
>
> In this, one of the main problems perhaps is what you yourself have hinted
> at. One where those who 'do not have' aspire to 'have' all of that which the
> "haves have" and that are seen as the comforts and convieniences of
> 'technological advancement' that they currently find unaffordable.
>
> As an example, the graduation from walking (as a neccessity and not for
> relaxation) to a bicycle to a moped to a scooter (or bullock cart and then
> tractor)  and finally a car is aspirational. With justifiable
> reasons. Endless number of other scenarios as examples.
>
> It also has at  different levels of 'accquisitions' the 'status symbol
> superiority'  of one product over the other; 'dekha dekhi'
> (oneupmanship). Humans 'desire' and 'want' much more than what might simply
> fulfill their 'need'.
>
> There are also the aspects of 'convieience' and 'comfort'. It might not be
> 'the Law' but a fair hypothesis would be that those most willing to 'give
> up' products of 'convienience' and 'comfort' are the ones for whom such
> products are affordable.
>
> Those who can afford 'airconditioning' can speak about shutting it down and
> opening the windows to get fresh air. The ones trying to cool down under the
> hot air blast circulated by a 'fan' would prefer a 'cooler' and then a A/C.
> Endless number of other scenarios as examples
>
> In SARAI itself a few weeks back there was derision at the TATA NANO and
> the merits lauded of 'biking'. Would the person who can afford only a
> bicycle want to be able to buy a scooter (and balance spouse and children on
> it)? I think yes. Would he/she be satisfied with that? I think not. He/she
> would next aspire to own a NANO; an Airconditioned one. Why not?
>
> "Biking" might be 'hot' in a cold Oslo and Helisinki but might get a 'cold'
> shoulder if offered as the choice in hot Ajmer and Ahmedabad.
>
> What we also seem to disregard is that there is no limit to the instinct of
> humans to question, investigate, experiment, innovate, design and
> manufacture new products. Who is to decide that there should be a 'stop
> here, it is enough'? Dictate of the State?
>
> One area where the "State" does need to "Dictate" (by common parliamentary
> approval) and at the very least to "Regulate" (by common parliamentary
> consent) is in rationalising both  the 'consumption heads of Energy' and the
> 'generating modes' of Energy. A lot can be achieved by  financial /
> taxation "carrots and sticks" especially in cities and larger towns.
>
> - Shifting timings of work establishments to utilise 'daylight saving'. It
> kills me to acknowledge that Pakistan has taken a lead in this by adjusting
> their clocks for 'daylight saving'
>
> - Limiting the work hours of 'retail establishments' to reduce
> evening/night Energy consumption.
>
> - Mandatory 5 day work week for all (hmmmn what about housewives) to save
> "1 Energy day" and enable families to shop during daylight hours. 24x7
> Process Industries are exempt from closure but the manpower has a staggered
> 5 day week.
>
> - Convienient Public transportation. "Convienient" is the critical word.
> (what happens to the aspirational 'I want my own car'? Infrequent usage of
> personal transport perhaps)
>
> - Incentivise 'free to harness' Energy sources like Solar, Hydel and Wind.
> (Specific problems associated with Solar and Hydel acknowledged.)
>
> - etc ..... etc ... etc.
>
> Developing a practicable Vision or Philosophy is not always the hinderance,
> but the "common parliamentary consent/approval".
>
>
> Kshmendra
>
>
> --- On Tue, 7/15/08, Tapas Ray <tapasrayx at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Tapas Ray <tapasrayx at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Farewell to our Humid Weimar
> To: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 6:47 PM
>
> Partha,
>
> Although you were writing in response to Kshemendra's reply to
> Radhikarajen, I hope you won't mind if I butt in, because your post is
> on an issue I wrote about yesterday, and also earlier.
>
> Your question is straightforward, but I am afraid the answer cannot be
> simple or straightforward, and any solution to the problem cannot be a
> quick one. Not simple because it lies outside the framework within which
> your question has meaning. Not quick, because adopting a new framework
> is not something the world can do quickly. The situation we see today
> has not developed in a year or a decade. The way of thinking that has
> led to it, has matured over centuries. So, it wouldn't be reasonable to
> expect a solution that would work in a couple of years or a decade.
>
> The framework I am talking about is the "technological civilization"
> of
> the modern world. "Technological" here is broader than what we
> usually
> mean by technological, which is something that has to do with the
> practical application of scientific knowledge. Here it means a
> civilization of fixes.
>
> This is how it works. You encounter problem A, and you find a solution.
> You come up against another problem. So you find another fix. So on, ad
> infinitum. Your response to problems B, C, D, etc., go the same way. The
> problems are treated as discrete, and the solutions you look for are
> discrete. You may find links between C and D, and work out a solution
> that take care of both, but your overall approach is the above.
>
> Take an example. Air pollution is too bad in Delhi. So they got
> autorickshaws, taxis and buses to switch from diesel to LNG, and autos
> from two-stroke to four-stroke engines. Then researchers saw that
> pollutants A and B went down, but C and D went up. So the government has
> to look for another fix. Then a fix for the unintended consequences of
> that second fix, etc.
>
> At the same time, you notice that the ever-growing number of vehicles is
> canceling out your gains from all these fixes. So you switch to
> electric. Then you notice you need huge amounts of electricity to charge
> all those batteries. But oil, coal, hydel, etc. are scarce resources.
> You turn to nuclear power, which is fundamentally, by its very nature,
> an unsafe technology. You devise safety measures. Then, when you face
> new problems that you hadn't foreseen, you find more solutions. One
> cannot blame the technologists, because nobody can anticipate every new
> type of problem that may arise, or even every kind of failure your
> safety mechanisms may be susceptible to.
>
> In the meantime, the demand for power hasn't remained constant. You need
> more and more nuclear plants until other technologies, such as hydrogen,
> wind, and solar become economically viable on the scale we are talking
> about. That could take a long time. Even if it doesn't, once those are
> used on the scale we need, maybe earlier, you may find problems that you
> had not, or could not have anticipated. Etc.
>
> To find an answer to your question that goes beyond a fix-to-fix
> existence, we need to come out of this way of thinking, and adopt a new
> way, in which energy shortage would not be the problem. It is the way we
> think about comfort, necessity, etc. That would be the "problem" we
> need
> to "solve". If we had continued to beat the heat in the way our
> ancestors had learned to do from thousands of years of living in hot
> climates, we would have seen our relationship to the weather in a
> different way. Hot weather would not be a problem to be fixed or an
> enemy to be conquered with airconditioners, but something to be lived
> with as a normal part of life, and to accommodate ourselves within.
>
> That would not be difficult: over hundreds of thousands of years of
> evolution (from apes and earlier), the human body has constantly adapted
> itself to its habitat - even in extreme climates like the Sahara and the
> Arctic region. But by changing its habitat in fundamental ways over the
> last few centuries, it has interrupted that adaptive process and turned
> it in a new direction, away from harmony with our natural habitat. On
> the evolutionary time scale, this has happened what would probably be a
> few minutes ago or less on our human time scale. So it is not too late
> to turn back.
>
> As for the ways of keeping cool that people have learned over thousands
> of years, one is the simple way of the ancient Roman civilization. They
> would keep their windows closed during the day and open them wide in the
> evening. I have personally seen that it's very effective. But then,
> partly out of necessity, I live with heat, not eliminate it - a better
> word would be expel - from my life. And the Roman method is not the only
> one. Other methods have evolved in different regions and continents.
> Those are being used, as we speak, by the vast majority of the global
> population, which cannot afford airconditioners.
>
> If we were to start thinking in this way - I mean, look at our
> relationship with nature not as a matter of conquest or problem solving
> but as a matter of integration and harmony - the energy crunch would be
> a thing of the past.
>
> What I have said so far is nothing new, and many people have been
> thinking this way for a long time. But it's not individuals who count
> for such a fundamental change. It's the entire human civilization.
> Obviously, this cannot happen in a matter of years. Even if every human
> being were to start today, it would still take decades, maybe a century
> or more, to change the direction, given the momentum human civilization
> as a whole has picked up over centuries.
>
> But we need to start the process now, because every day lost is one more
> day in the wrong direction and a little more momentum in that direction.
> In practical terms, the immediate thing to do is to contain and then
> reduce levels of consumption, and at the same time bring about some kind
> of redistributive justice so that the poor, who have to live in harsh
> conditions, can get some degree of comfort. Apart from the moral and
> ethical side, this also has a practical side.
>
> If the poor do not see an improvement in their standard of living, which
> comes to at least some of them through the trickle-down effect, they
> will say, logically enough, that the new direction is not acceptable
> because it prevents them from even aspiring to even a small fraction of
> the comforts the rich have been enjoying for quite a while. That is what
> India and China have been saying when rich countries press for an
> across-the-board limit in greenhouse gas emissions.
>
> I know this is not a complete answer and there are many complexities of
> the issue that I haven't touched upon. I wish I could write more, but
> I really cannot spend more time over this. Maybe later.
>
> Tapas
>
>
>
>
>
>
> parthaekka at gmail.com wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think we forgot to look at another issue as well.
> >
> > With the growing requirement for power generation which is well below
> > par as well as the fact that the hydro power generation is facing
> > issues of lessened water flow, and solar and wind powered generation
> > not viable for a large volume, what are the alternatives India has to
> > generate power for a growing population - given the fact that we do
> > not have enough power for current requirement.
> >
> > With oil prices going the way they are, oil based generation does not
> > seem a sensible route either, as doesn't coal - both non sustainable
> > in any case.
> >
> > Doesn't seem to be much of an alternative barring the nuclear power
> route.
> >
> > Rgds, Partha
> > ..............................................
> >
> > On 7/14/08, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Dear Radhikarajen
> >>
> >> You are lecturing me on everything else but not addressing the simpler
> >> issues that would put things in perspective with regards to approaches
> to
> >> IAEA and subsequently the NSG.
> >>
> >> I repeat, going through the IAEA and NSG routines are stand-alone
> issues and
> >> not connected with or to be clubbed with any "deal with the
> USA". If the USA
> >> helps us with IAEA and NSG, they are to be thanked. Thankfulness is
> not sale
> >> of "National Interest".
> >>
> >> The (relative) HONESTY or DISHONESTY of Manmohan Singh is also
> >> inconsequential to the much more important issue of negotiations with
> IAEA
> >> and NSG being satisfactorily concluded.
> >>
> >> Kshmendra
> >>
>
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in
> the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>




-- 
Amit Basole
Department of Economics
Thompson Hall
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
Phone: 413-665-2463
http://www.people.umass.edu/abasole/
blog: http://www.mehr-e-niimroz.org/