How many planets do we need?

“On an average, a normal Google Search emits about 7 grams of Carbon dioxide into the atmosphere” – claimed my friend, 'S', in her presentation on ‘Green IT’. A prominent hand shot up in our class with a question. It was my friend 'G'.

“I have performed so many searches through Google and I’ve never seen any fumes coming out of my system. Can you explain the logic behind your statement?” - He queried with his ever-present ‘innocent’ expression, triggering a ripple of laughter across the class.

'S' and her team went on explain how the servers and components working on our search query use up huge amounts of electricity. This in turn necessitates greater power production resulting in larger quantities of carbon dioxide emissions.

“In that case, how can you cite increased Google searches and such operations as the cause of emissions? Shouldn’t you be looking at the manner in which the electricity is produced? If electricity is generated from renewable sources, then increased Google searches will not lead to global warming.” – shot back, 'G'

Greendex

Today morning, I was as usual browsing through the online edition of 'The Hindu' when the following words captured my attention: "Indians are world’s greenest consumers". So, I opened the article which starts like this, "Consumers in India care the most for the environment in terms of their day-to-day behaviour with those in the U.S. coming at the bottom, according to National Geographic.".

National geographic has conducted a survey on how much the consumers care for the environment. 14 countries were studied and 1000 people were surveyed in each country. They've come up with a score called 'Greendex'. Apparently India and Brazil have come out on top, thus earning the reputation of being the "world's" greenest.
I feel that this survey does not give an accurate picture of the reality. It might be true that some of the practices of people in India and China are more environmentally sustainable. But that does not make them more environmentally caring - Actually I feel not many actually understand what all these terms even mean.

First of all, I feel that a sample population of 1000 "internet-enabled" citizens in each country is an extremely miniscule sample size to give any meaningful data especially in countries like China and India with more than a billion people each. Second, in developing countries like India and China, people are forced to go in for smaller homes, rely on public transport and save on water & electricity. In these places, demand outstrips supply and hence consumers are forced to make the best use of whatever is available. This should not be compared with places like US and Canada where most people do not know the meaning of the word 'scarcity'.

NGC specifies the following as some environmentally friendly practices -

1. Live in smaller residences
2. Prefer green products and own relatively few appliances or expensive electronic devices
3. Walk, cycle, or use public transportation, and choose to live close to their most common destination

Do Indians do all these by choice? They have no other choice.

1. In most areas, housing is in great demand. The real estate sales and rental costs are so high and there are millions of people competing to grab every suqare feet of available space. We simply can't afford to have huge expansive houses.
2. Same is the case of water and electricity. The majority of the population will have memories of runnig behind tanker lorries or standing in line at the water pump to get a few pots of water.Most states face an energy shortage and there are wide fluctuations in the power supply. so, we have to make th most of what is available.
3. Similarly, the roads are all clogged and we've not yet reached a stage where each individual can afford their own vehicle. But it remains one of the ultimate aims of the majority.

Now compare this with the scenario in US and Canada. The results for this country are probably more accurate. In most cases, they do not have any resource crunch. Lots and lots of land is available to serve a comparatively small population. There is no problem of water or electricity. All commodities are available in plenty. They have these huge warehouse style supermarkets that usually sell items in bulk. It is very very difficult to find a store that would sell a single pen or a single A-4 size paper. You have to buy a box of pens and a whole bundle of paper. So, if I'm going to have 10 pens lying around the house while I just need one, why am I going to really bother saving them all properly? People really do not see the need to save on anything.

Now, in the recent years, the Indian economy is booming and the country has a huge middle class population. The result - more and more people are opting for personal transport like cars & bikes, buying expensive air-conditioners, video/audio systems etc. I don't see any environmentally caring practices among this rising population. how many people actually care or even know about source segregation? How many care about the dumping of the untreated sewage and garbage in the Pallikaranai marshland in Chennai which continues despite the area being declared as a protected wetland. How many even understand the value of the marshland? Most people just view it as wasteland fit to be filled and built upon.

What is needed is a mass environmental educational program. It should start right from the cradle. Children should be taught to care for their environment and make it a part of their lifestyle, not something that is done outside the everyday life. Above all, a major improvement in the livelihood of the common man is needed in the developing countries. Only if they are economically and socially secure, are they going to think about caring for the environment.

A full report of NGC's greendex survey is available here

Animal welfare vs conservation

This is a environment conservationist's main question. Where do we draw the line between conservation and over-protection ?With increased human activities, the ecosystems of this world are rapidly deteriorating. This has also given rise to various conservation programs around the world trying to save this planet. In our zeal to preserve the environment, we sometimes also try to stop the natural forces of change that has been responsible for life in this planet. There is always a debate among the environmentalists on this.

One good case is the conservation effort of South Chinese tigers. There are very few tigers in the wild. There are few others that have been bred in captivity. Now they're making an effort to teach these captive tigers, the basics of hunting in the wild. For this, these tigers have been loose on a ranch and have been allowed to hunt blesbok, a kind of antelope. Now other conservationists have objected to this saying that this is cruel to the blesbok. They say that it is not acceptable they are deliberately made the hunted in a simulated environment.

http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2008/03/13/animal-welfare-vs-conservation-the-case-of-chinas-tigers/

Now what is right and what is wrong here?

• Can the tigers be kept in captivity all through their lives? This will totally remove the tiger population from the wild. Or can we just release the tigers into the wild? They do not have the instinct to hunt as they're bred in captivity. So, they cannot survive and even if they do, they cannot pass on the hunting instincts to their offspring.
• Is it right to introduce the blesbok into the controlled habitat of these tigers? They may not have some of the advantages that they have in the wild. So their chance of evading predator becomes slim.

There are some questions where there are no Black/white answers? There are only shades of Grey.

Energy quest - Where will it take us ?

http://www.scragged.com/articles/energy-conservation-in-india-and-in-china.aspx

I recently came across this article in Scragged.com. The article talks about how India and China are moving in the same path taken by countries like US and Japan. It talks about our preference for personal transport and the increasing energy demand resulting out of it. The author then advocates fresh research on better, energy effecient automobiles. He lays particular emphasis on using hydrogen to fuel our vehicles.

He gives a couple of links that describe how a hydrogen based technology would work. On the outset, whatever he proposes seems very promising - A clean, efficient, low cost alternative to fossil fuels. But after reading the comments posted by few others, I'm not so sure anymore. They point out the inefficiencies of hydrogen based technologies and emphasize that a battery based technology is more efficient.

We hear of so many new alternatives every other day. But none of them seem to have been successful enough for mass production. The combustion engine based on fossil fuels seem to have been the last major breakthrough here. So far, nothing has come close to challenging their dominance. Hopefully something comes up soon. As the author specifies, the world does not have the capacity to accomodate the energy demands of the two great asian neighbours.