India Should Build Intelligently, And Maintain A Low Ecological And Carbon Footprint, Says Environmentalist Bharati Chaturvedi

Environmentalist and writer Bharati Chaturvedi says that urbanisation in India has its share of ups and downs.

Chaturvedi, who is the director of the Chintan Environmental Research and Action Group, has studied Masters in International Public Policy from the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Johns Hopkins University. She is a Senior Fellow of the Synergos Institute in New York, and has won the Knowledge for the World Award in 2009 from the Johns Hopkins Alumni Association.

In this interview with Shanu Athiparambath of PropGuide, she explains why reforestation is not the same as original forests:

Athiparambath: Why does urbanisation have many downsides in India? Is this because the society is not prosperous enough? For example, life expectancy in New York was lower than in the rest of the US in 1900, but today New Yorkers live longer lives. Is that likely to happen here?

Chaturvedi: Urbanisation has many upsides in India, too. It enables many women, for example, to exercise agency in how they would like to live, and to be financially more secure. Rural and urban India both have many downsides. Urbanisation in India is because of factors both ecological and economical. Rural population is forced to migrate, or is excited to migrate to urban areas, because they think there are more opportunities and less tyranny (such as caste) in cities.

Athiparambath: How can we prevent deforestation in Indian cities? Isn't the world being more reforested in general?

Chaturvedi:  Reforestation is not the same as the original forest. The forest at Gurgaon, Mangar Bani, is the result of hundreds of years of natural growth. How can you replace it with a bunch of newly planted trees? I believe we have to have all the green areas in our masterplan managed as inviolate, i.e., no cutting and no tourism except recreation that requires pathways and washrooms. No cafes, for example, and no boating and swings. People in India like the outdoors for its beauty, and they go to parks if they want to play ball. I am very impressed with “I am Gurgaon” and other citizens groups in Gurgaon that have worked to make Gurgaon's forests everyone's business and many people's love. 

Athiparambath: Is it possible to privatise environmental protection? Many economists argue that people are less likely to cut down trees and more likely to take counter measures when they cut down trees if forests are privately owned.

Chaturvedi: Where is the evidence? I don't think so. The forests, rivers, and air are the commons — they belong to you and me, and everyone else. Why give off our common wealth to the rich people, because the state is incompetent? I see no evidence that private players are responsible: Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) has dumped mercury in the environment. The Okhla Waste to Energy plant is poisoning the neighbourhood and the city every day. They have not been brought to book. So no, I don't think privatisation has helped. 

Athiparambath: If animal rights matter, is killing bugs wrong?

Chaturvedi: That is deep. We have to take a line based on the damage caused to both people and the planet bugs. If bugs are giving everyone Chikungunya, and if we have not managed to prevent their birth, we will have to kill them. If you have a rabid dog that is biting people and could infect other dogs, you will have to kill it. From what I am seeing in the Himalayas, farmers are abandoning farming in part because of their inability to handle the man-animal conflict over crops raiding by wild boar, nilgai etc. What is to be done about that? 

Athiparambath:  Edward Glaeser thinks that high-rise living leads to lower carbon emissions. What do you think?

Chaturvedi:  Well, I am not Edward Glaeser. But I think this depends on the context. Many Indians in rural India lead low carbon emission lives, and the high-rises we see can consume huge electricity and other resources. Morphogenesis is a firm, which is into sustainable architecture and design, and their work is really about India. I so admire them for this. Those are the kinds of examples we need. The point is that India should build intelligently and consciously keep a low ecological and carbon footprint. Overall, the middle class has to learn to live with less. 

Athiparambath:  Cities of the past were a lot more polluted and crowded and road congestion was a problem even in the Roman Empire. Wouldn't pollution come down with greater vehicle ownership and better technology?

Chaturvedi: No. Cities of the past that were polluted were using ghastly old technology to live, such as burning firewood to cook and using no pollution prevention device while manufacturing. Much has changed now. We have the Metro, we have buses, and we use them more. Safe and reliable public transportation that is partly driven by technology is the way forward. I do not think they were more crowded, though there may have been more people per square foot because urban people lived differently then.