Tall Tales

The past month has brought quite a few changes in my daily schedule, and hence I have been falling behind on my posts. I travelled more than 3000 km in the beginning of the month, attended a wedding near the fabled City of Lakes in Rajasthan and was sicker than a dog for quite some time.   My odyssey on trains is not yet over, as within the next few days I will be again travelling roughly the same distance. I was also filling up quite a number of forms and collating documents and when you do things like  that quite often, the time needed for critical thinking, research and introspection becomes a matter of luxury. You just can’t write straight, and I am sure it shows here too.

 In the past month when I have not been blogging, the most important thing concerning India was the open ended    moratorium on the introduction of genetically modified Bt brinjal. While it might not sound earth shattering, this decision was significant because it was taken due to strong public pressure. In fact, the Environment Minister stated that the moratorium will continue until public trust has been fully established on the safety of GM crops in India.

Understandably several scientists and the seed companies are unhappy with the decision. However the fact remains that the safety testing process was flawed and the initial decision to grant approval to these crops were based on test results conducted by the seed companies, which naturally created a conflict of interest.  Also, as eminent agricultural scientists have pointed out, the tests themselves are incomplete- for example gene flow studies, or in other words what would happen if the Bt gene jumps from the brinjal plant to weeds in the field have not been done. Here  is an excellent article pointing out these lacunae in the testing process. Moves are afoot by the Agriculture and the Science and Technology ministers to overturn the moratorium. The final decision now rests with the PM, but I hope for the sake of public health and food securtiy he agrees to hold off until more conclusive and objective tests are conducted.

In other news the clinate change deal stitched at the last minute in Copenhagen has run into trouble as countries like India and China are objecting to efforts by the EU to supplant the Kyoto Protocol with this deal. They contend, with good reason that when they signed this deal there was no such assumption. Apparently a lot of strongly worded letters have been exchanged between the PMO in New Delhi and the UNFCC secreteriat at Bonn. China and India have not associated with the accord yet but they have submitted plans to the secreteriat to reduce emissions and national goals have already been set. 

This in itself means nothing, as none of these are legally binding. My guess is that all eyes are on the West, especially on Obama as he attempts to create a consensus on the US Climate bill. If he manages it, the next COP at Mexico City might have better chances than Copenhagen.

I would also like to end this short post by I won’t be posting anytime soon as I apprehend a big round of travel coming up, along with plenty of changes in my personal life. If all goes well I will be writing my next post from a new country.

Humans considered storms to be a sign of nature’s fury. While we have gained some bit of understanding of the science behind hurricanes, cyclones, typhoons and gales their destructive potential has remained the same.

This is not to say that winds are a scourge of nature-sailboats and windmills were two very useful inventions that were crucial to the progress of human civilization. But the fact remains that if you got caught in a storm while  you were at sea, in nine cases out of ten you were likely to meet your maker.In the recent years, as science gained a slight understanding of these complex weather systems the damage caused by storms has been somewhat limited, as early warning systems prevents ships from going out in choppy seas. But there can be no avoiding the massive destruction caused by strong winds when they hit land and cross habitable areas. Case in point is Hurricane Katrina; even after four years (it struck in Aug 2005) the rebuilding of New Orleans is still continuing while the government risks being slapped with claims for billions of dollars in damages.

Anatomy of a hurricane

Inspite of the complexity of hurricanes (and also typhoons, tornadoes, cyclones,twisters), they can be thought of as a heat engine, transferring energy from one part of the earth’s surface to another. They need a source of heat to form. As they move onwards they encounter cooler temperatures and expend their stored energy mainly as kinetic energy (strong winds) and condensation (rains). This is a very simplistic explanation- check out the animation below for  a better idea.

This animation is courtesy BBC’s weather guides

Harnessing hurricanes

Hurricanes are a storehouse of enormous amounts of energy. A Category 5 hurricane like  Gustav released energy equivalent to 11.000 Hiroshima type atomic bombs. Of course, most of this energy is dissipated by friction, shear strain, atmospheric turbulence and heating. This energy is also dissipated over a much larger area (typically thousands of square kilometers ) and spread over an extended period of time (weeks). But even with such losses there is enough energy to go around, as any of the thousands of videos of hurricanes in action reveal.

A natural hurricane is impossible to control and utilize. But that does not prevent us from running with the concept and creating an artificial hurricane to convert the energy from the turbulence into electricity. There is a  theory, called CAPE (Convective Available Potential Energy)  that a unit mass of air gains energy as it rises through the warmer lower levels to the cooler upper levels of the atmosphere. Solar chimneys have already put this theory in action where warm air, heated by sun rises through a chimney and in the process drives wind turbines, thereby generating electricity.

Atmospheric Vortex Engines

A Canadian engineer named Louis Michaud has proposed a concept named Atmospheric Vortex Engine where the walls of the solar chimney are replaced by cooler layers of surrounding air and  solar radiation as heat source  by waste industrial heat in the form of steam.  At the base, the AVE will have a cylindrical structure, open at the top and with inlets at an angle all around the base.

The Atmospheric Vortex Engine in action

The heated and moist air will be introduced into the cylinder tangentially and will rise up in the form of a vortex. A low pressure system will be created and more air will be sucked in, while depending on initial  heat energy supplied the top of the vortex can rise up to an altitude of around 10 kms. Since the pressure and temperature at such altitudes is very low the  spin cycle will be maintained and the vortex will continue operating in a self sustained manner, unless it is stopped. Wind turbines at the base near the air intakes will convert the energy of the incoming winds into electricity.

Calculations show that that an AVE station can produce up to 200 MW power and will need to have a base cylindrical structure of diameter 400m and  a height of 100m. At the base the vortex will have a diameter of 50 m and will extend to an altitude of 20 km.Some probable designs can be seen here.

Safety issues and challenges

Is there any chance of this vortex going rogue, gaining energy and becoming a threat? According to the inventor stopping the vortex is as simple as introducing cold and dry air and reversing the  angle of ingress . However the sustainability of the process might be disrupted due to weather events like high winds and cold weather that might intensify or stifle the process. For now, tests on miniature models have borne out the theory but there is no saying how things will work in the scales that will be needed for cost economic functioning. There are a whole lot of variables involved, many of them not under human control and plenty of research needs to be done before the technology can be deployed in real world.

As the world moves towards an increasingly energy constrained future we need to think creatively to meet our energy needs. AVE is just one of the many promising concepts which need to be looked into thoroughly. If things work according to plan hurricanes may be one of the numerous sources powering a brave new world.

What’s the archetypal image that we carry in our minds about cities? Sky high buildings, 24/7 traffic, pollution, glitzy malls and most importantly, lack of green spaces. It seems that city dwellers are condemned to live and work in concrete, glass and steel structures which always seem to be missing something, inspite of clever use of colour combinations.

Now,medical science has long known that greenery reduces stress and elevates human mood. But trees need space to grow and as we know, cities have very little open space. Horizontal open space, if you count out rooftops. But they do make up for the lack of such spaces in profusion of vertical spaces  like the facades of multistoried buildings and  walls.

A new age architectural movement using such spaces to increase the level of greenery in cities has taken hold in recent years in Europe and now North America. What we get is something variously called green or living roofs and walls and looks like this

That is a green roof. If you are looking for a green wall, this is what you will get.

Notice how nice looking both these buildings are? A sight to soothe sore eyes. And also notice how much better the green facade looks in comparison to the plain concrete front on the left?

And its not even the exteriors that can be greened. Interiors can be as well.

Benefits of green walls and roofs

Apart from aesthetic factors, there are numerous benefits of greening walls and roofs. Unlike concrete, plants don’t reflect heat back, and a building in Chicago with a green roof is actually 14 to 44 degree Celsius cooler than the adjacent conventional buildings, leading to a corresponding savings of minimum 5% in electricity. Another study in Toronto estimated that 6% greening of roofs would cut annual GHG emissions by 2.4 megatons.

There are some other benefits that are not immediately apparent, but can be very important in the long run. Plants absorb water and therefore, green roofs can take the load off  stormwater drainage systems in many cities (especially relevant in Indian cities).Incidences of smog and ambient dust have also come down in areas where there is a significant percentage of living roofs. Heck, if you are the gardening type you could even grow your own vegetables and fruits on top and in fact there are plans for skyfarms that would feed upto 35,000 people in Toronto annually-a 58 story building, 1.32 hectare actual space and 8 million square feet of growing space.

Terminology, maintenance and resources

Sure green roofs have many benefits but what is the catch? Why aren’t people greening their houses and offices? For now, the sticker price is comparatively higher than normal roofs and walls,though it is coming down steadily. Of course, in the long run, the cost, if looked in context with other factors like electricity bills and a better living environment is much less than conventionally built roofs/walls.

Depending  on what you want, there are different ways in which you can go about greening your roof and walls. Most important thing to keep in mind is the type of plants; local species  are the best. Irrigation is also important, especially in context of walls.

For roofs a special type of compost which is also lightweight  is recommended.There are basically two types of roofs-extensive and intensive. While this site has an excellent FAQ a quick note- extensive roofs are cheaper than intensive ones and require low maintenance.

Google is your best friend if you decide to go down the road of greening your house. The green movement is heavily supported by municipalities in various cities across the West and resources are aplenty on the Net. Local bodies across US and Europe give financial incentives to builders who install green walls and roofs and Toronto is actually considering a building code that would make such structures mandatory. Obviously it will be a long time before something like that happens in India, but in cities like Hong Kong, Tokyo and Singapore there is widespread awareness and implementation of such walls

In case you need a little more inspiration this site features some stunning examples of living walls across the globe including a skyscraper in Mumbai, India said to the the world’s tallest and largest living wall.

Such places will probably make their neighbours go green with envy.

Before I start off, I will confess to one thing- I am an optimist.,not a merchant of gloom and doom.So, the rest of this blog entry will be looking at all things through rose-tinted glasses.

Okay, now that the disclosure is out of the way, let’s get down to brass tacks. After two weeks of massive wrangling between nation states the culmination of 2 years of global negotiation was a flimsy 2.5 page long draft labelled the Copenhagen accord. It’s not even an accord in the traditional sense of the word-it was hammered by US and the BASIC bloc of countries ,supported by the EU and lambasted by the African and small islands bloc of nations. So, it was a failure, right, if nearly 100 nations condemned it as a suicide pact?

Well, as with all things that depends on your point of view. If the draft of the deal, available at UNFCC’’s website can be distilled to a few easy to read bullet points here is what we will get

• The parties agree that a 2 degree C rise in temperature above pre-industrial level is maximum allowable limit.
• Developed countries shall provide guaranteed financial assistance and transfer technology to help the vulnerable countries, especially in Africa and the small islands adapt to climate change
• The  Annex I parties (essentially the first world)  will have to voluntary submit their emission reduction targets for 2020 to the UNFCC secretariat by January 31 2010. These reductions will be verified by a mechanism agreed by the Conference of Parties.
• The non Annex I parties (in this context big developing countries like China, India, Brazil etc) will also have to submit their targets by the same date, but they have the flexibility of assigning a cut-off date for themselves. They will have to communicate their reduction data to UNFCC every two years. This reporting will respect principles of national sovereignty, an important demand of China.
• The deal promises to focus on areas like safeguarding of forests by adopting mechanisms like REDD plus (Forestry carbon standards will be the focus of another post)
• Market based initiatives to reduce emissions, like the cap and trade model will continue
• The LDC and island states who are the most vulnerable to climate change will get $30bn in cash and technology transfers, divided between adaptation and mitigation. By 2020 this fund will increase to $100bn a year and will be mobilized from various sources-governmental as well as private, most of it flowing through something called Copenhagen Green Climate Fund.
• A review of implementation of this accord will be made in 2015

If we look at this one thing strikes the eye- there are no hard numbers. There are no defined emissions targets, no legal penalties for ignoring these targets, no mention of how emissions will be reduced. In terms of funding there is a vague mention of how much money will be invested but no breakdown of how much will be paid by whom. This looks like the manifesto of a political party, not an international agreement which deals with an incredibly complicated issue like climate change.

A section of protests at Copenhagen, courtesy ratexla

This is precisely the objections of a large number of activists across the globe. The Copenhagen accord is not a strong consensual agreement but an elitist document that is full of good intentions but short on implementable details. The leaders get to look good without making firm commitments. It also leaves plenty of loopholes- for instance what should be the base year from which the reductions of emissions would be determined? Science says 1990, while many Annex I countries want it to be 2005.

So, why am I optimistic ? Rose tinted glasses are one thing, but I see hope that even this hugely flawed document has given the world something to base our actions on. Look at it this way- all the time the conference was going on the largest emitters -US and China were on the opposite sides of the fence.China wanted money but didn’t want any international supervision. That was a deal-breaker for the US, in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s words.

While nothing is guaranteed, this document indicates that both China and US have reached some kind of middle ground,along with the major emitters like EU and India,Brazil and South Africa. Similarly the positive noises on various topics ranging from REDD to technology transfer is better than silence or negativity.

While there are no fixed legal targets, this document is still a very powerful weapon for civil society. People, who ultimately have to pay the price for climate change can demand concrete steps based on what was promised to by Obama and company. Also, in all certainty it will be the basis of a similar summit in Nov 2010 in Mexico City, where a legally binding agreement is expected to be hashed out.

Maybe, COP 15 won’t turn out to be such a catastrophe, after all.

If you have been following the COP15 summit at Copenhagen then you might know that things are not looking good.

First, the conference started with the usual way international summits start- 1200 limos, 140 private jets and a huge carbon footprint,never mind that the conference was about sustainability and letting the planet breathe. This contradictory behaviour prompted many to believe that all will be business as usual while the skeptics were convinced that the whole thing was a sham. Conspiracy theories were swirling around thick and fast while science was heavily twisted to fit the agenda of various vested interests.

The summit at Copenhagen started under the shadow of “Climategate“, an incident where the private mails of scientists at East Anglica University’s Climatic Research Unit were leaked on the Internet. While the number of documents leaked numbered in thousands controversy raged around a few mails where words like “temps” and “trick” were used in the same paragraph. To quote a line from a mail by Dr Phil Jones, head of the CRU

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Looks fishy,right? There are more “confessions” that has the numerous climate change skeptics outrightly condemning climate change to be variously, a religion, a left wing conspiracy to lower the living standards in the West, a plot to take away jobs to the third world or a ploy by scientists to gain research funds. Furthermore IPCC’s recommendations about the levels of emissions cuts (from 25% to 40% of 1990’s emissions) are derived from analysis by bodies like CRU. Yet inspite of what meets the eye, there is little evidence of any cover up and overwhelming evidence that the science of climate change is real and backed by solid facts.

Let me digress. a bit Where I am in India, ten years ago it would be impossible to sit writing this post without being swaddled in jackets and warm leggings. Yet, I am pretty comfortable in my normal light summer wear. The water table is steadily falling each year, the wetlands are drying up after every season and the glaciers in the Himalayas and the poles are breaking off and melting at scary rates. The writing on the wall is clear, regardless of whether we read it or not.

Back to Copenhagen. Within a few days of the opening of the conference an informal draft agreement dubbed the Danish text was leaked to the press. This draft suggested that rich countries, who were the only anthropogenic contributors of greenhouse gases for a very long time since the Industrial Revolution (the third world, notably China and India are new entrants to this bloc) would allow for a sidelined role of UN, more influence to the World Bank (and hence the West, the main contributors) and lesser commitments on them for cleaning up the air. Predictably, the rest of the world was outraged. The developing world, notably Africa and small island nations like Tuvalu decried what they saw as attempts by the rich world to continue doing business as usual and forcing the poor countries to suffer the worst effects of climate change like rise in sea levels and 50% lower crop yields.

The main demand of developing nations, specifically the African bloc is to achieve a treaty which restricts global temperature rise by maximum 2 degree Centigrades from pre-Industrial levels. Groupings like G-77, representing 130 countries have repeatedly stalled and have even in one instance walked out on 14th to protest the lack of commitment and weak emission targets proposed by Europe and America

Essentially, everything boils down to money. The developing world is demanding close to $100billion every year as adaptation costs for climate change as well as technology transfer. The developed world is willing to settle for amounts ranging from $1.5 billion to $10 billion for periods ranging from each year to three  years. Britain and other EU countries favour a corpus with funds amounting to $10 billion every year . There are also differences about on the Kyoto protocol- the poorer countries want the protocol to be extended and strengthened while the richer ones want large emitters among developing countries like China and India to be a part of any emission control effort.

Of course, before the conference China, India and the US had made noises about taking steps to voluntarily cut back on emissions, but the Asian economies stressed that there could be no legal obligations. There are even difference of opinions between bigger and smaller developing countries-the smaller ones don’t care if China or India or Brazil’s emissions are controlled along with developed countries while the BASIC(Brazil,South Africa,India,China) group vehemently opposes any such move.

But the main sticking point is the US. It is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases after China and the highest per capita emitter. While the rest of the developed world had joined the Kyoto protocol and committed to legal cuts, the US stayed out of it.Even now, the US is perceived as offering too little, a cut in emissions of 17%  by 2020 from 2005 levels which amounts to 4% from 1990 levels. The need is for cuts from 25% to 40%. For many, especially in the developing world, the US is the main villain in the drama. While the US president Obama has said he would try his best he pleads that his hands are tied by the Congress. Legal experts have however asserted that the president can use his Executive authority to ink a legally binding deal. If  the US  steps forward, the summit can perhaps be resurrected.

Look at it this way.Last year the world spent upto $1.3 trillion in total to get the financial system back on rails. The asking investment for climate change is peanuts compared to this, and if done well is likely to be the best investment we can make for our future. Else, we would have a lot of explaining to do to our children and grandchildren.

If you have been following the news about the Climate Change talks that are going to start in Copenhagen from the 5^th you might have already noticed the despair among the environmentalists and the bickering among the nations. As with all international summits  there is a huge deal of technicalities involved and some seriously complex issues are being debated At the time of writing it looks like no legally binding agreement will be reached at COP 15,though it would be foolhardy to totally give up hope. While everyone agrees in principle to reducing greenhouse gases, its the devil in the details that is most likely to sink any chances of a firm deal. Details like, by how much would emissions need to be lowered from what cut-off dates, how much investment can be made and who has to foot the bill.

But as with all other things, there is one silver lining. In the area of using forests as a emission reduction mechanism there is a broad agreement on everything but few issues. This news story explains in detail what are the issues involved but here is the short story- the REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation ) scheme is an arrangement whereby countries or communities are paid to stop cutting down forests. Carbon is thereby sequestrated, animal and plant species get a new lease of life and much needed funds are pumped into sustainable development.

So, if implemented properly this scheme can solve many problems for countries like India where the incentive to cut down forests is much more than the incentive to preserve them. However as noted in the report there is a need for strict oversight so that protected forests are not cut down again and the funds go where they are meant to go.It’s tough, but doable

Today is Blog Action Day and this year’s topic is Climate Change. For those who don’t know what this concept is about you can head over to the BAD website and read all about the Blog Action Day movement.

This year’s topic is climate change. Whenever we talk about climate change we tend to think in macro terms, in terms of cutting emissions from vehicles and factories and airlines. We don’t think micro, like using CFLs or car-pooling or living in mud houses.

Yes you heard that right.Mud houses might be one of the ways in which we can turn the tide in the fight to cool down our atmosphere. Cement as a material is very energy intensive during its manufacturing process. Limestone is the predominant raw material used in cement manufacturing, along with plenty of electricity and tons of coal. That electricity comes mostly from fossil fuels . And of course, the greenhouse gases that are released from the actual manufacturing process (one ton cement production releases a ton of carbon dioxide) are a big contributor to global warming, considering the billions of tons of cement produced all over the world. You could look at some statistics here, though some are Canada specific and some are bit dated.

In terms of livability cement is a lousy material. It heats up in summers and cools down in winters, which entails installing air-conditioners, coolers,fans and heaters. Concrete, especially steel reinforced is short lived and have to replaced after 50-100 years. And no matter how many building codes you adhere to there is always the risk of concrete buildings toppling in a tremor.

Now I see what some of you are thinking-,’Oh c’mon, how the hell will you build a multi storied mud apartment in a city like London or Mumbai? And mud, who are we, some villagers?” Those who are asking the first question may have a point-high density urban housing would be impossible with a traditional mud built house.But in the second century people in Shibam started building houses of mud which eventually reached 16 stories. If people in Yemen in the middle ages could make such structures surely with modern technology we can do better.

As to the second objection about aesthetics have a look at these photos

Beautiful, aren’t they? These creations are Laurie Baker’s, a renowned British architect who lived and worked in India. He advocated using locally available and free or cheap materials like adobe bricks, mud and bamboo to build eco-friendly structures that are in harmony with their surroundings. I have read one of his books, Mud and it makes for interesting reading. He championed traditional styles, like the “Assam type” building style that most people adapted here in Assam till not long ago- use interlacing bamboo sticks as walls and apply a coating of wet mud on them and leave the wall to dry. This style was responsible for the low mortality count during the 8+ temblor that stuck Assam in 1950. Today such an earthquake would kill millions, especially if it hits urban areas.

We need to be more aware of what choices we have in terms of living in a greener way, and starting that transition from our home, so as to speak is an extremely wise choice.

In my last post I had mentioned how “development”, as we know it would make our earth unlivable in a very short span of time. This post illustrates that assertion with a real life incident which touches nearly each one of us. Or at least each one of us who drinks soft drinks

It was nearly two months ago when a group of men, most of them in their late 20s arrived at Sidh. From the way they spoke it was clear that they came from the Hindi heartland. They were plainly attired in shirts, trousers and slippers. They were the anonymous types, looking and talking like the countless men who leave their villages and migrate to urban India for livelihood.

Their ordinariness changed the moment they started to talk. It was over a bottle of water, which one man said he won’t drink from even if he was dying of thirst. “I won’t drink anything that comes out of a labelled bottle,”he asserted, not without some abruptness.

It turned out that they were part of a local group called the Lok Samiti that was opposing a bottling plant of Coca Cola in their village named Mehdiganj, 20 km from Varanasi. The media had covered a lot of protests about how soft drink bottling plants were becoming water guzzlers and environmental disasters and I wanted to hear from someone who had been at the forefront of the agitations. They didn’t disappoint.

Mehdiganj’s troubles started when a biscuit factory for Parle-G was set up in the village in mid 90s. This factory was bought over by Coca Cola and retooled to bottle soft drinks sometime around 1997. The factory was built on fertile agricultural land acquired at cheap rates. But there was no opposition to it by the locals because they were assured of jobs in the factory. They did get jobs, but found that a few months later they were replaced by cheap labour from Bihar.

“The factory was controversial from the start”, said a man named Nandlal . Nandlal was the headman, the pradhan of the village and also the prime mover behind Lok Samiti. The first fact was a bit surprising, because pradhans, in my mind were men with grey hair and wrinkled faces.

“They colluded with corrupt officials and undervalued the price of the land even further, thereby avoiding paying about a lakh (Rs 100,000) in stamp duty and other charges”, Nandlal continued.

“Was any action taken?” I asked.

“There was a court case and they were fined the charges as well as damages. The owners were fined Rs 150000 and they paid Rs 50,000. But we don’t know if they paid the rest of the fine” he responded.

“But our troubles didn’t really start something around 2001,when the plant started operations”, Govind,another man, took up the narrative. “At first we noticed nothing. But we realised that the water in our wells had dried up and there was nothing to use on our fields. The plant was sucking up all the water. They need 8 liters of water for every liter of coke.”

“But things started getting worse. They generated lots of effluents and chemicals which was just pumped into the fields with any treatment. Dogs died, people had skin rashes and we have got mango trees which have stopped producing any fruit.And of course, there were no crops.Once they even went around saying that the waste from their plant was good for our crops.”

I did a web search and came up with this old report which tallied in many aspects with what I heard. But I got more updates .

Suresh continued talking while the rest of the group bunched around, “After we realised that we would be ruined if the plant continued we started our agitation. We have faced police action, lathicharges and have demonstrated everywhere. I have spent nights in Tihar Jail and have seen my aged mother being hit with lathis. But its our land, our life and we won’t stop.”

“Any legal hassles?”

“Plenty. They got a restraining order from the court on about 20 villagers. The villagers were ordered not to come within 100 meters of the plant boundary. All were arrested from their houses because most of them lived adjacent to the boundary wall. Another time Coca Cola got together a body of experts and set them to examine the water quality.They said if the plant is not shut down this village will soon become uninhabitable. This was because the plant was pumping waste water backing into the water table in a bid to show that the water level has risen. Now wells 3 km away have black, smelly and undrinkable water. We are all ruined “

“So what is the latest news in this issue?”

“The Central government has set up a committee to look into the matter. We hope that this committee will recommend that the plant here, like the one in Kerala be also shut down. That’s the least they can do.”

“Have you been to Kerala?” A Coke bottling plant at Palakkad, Kerala was shut down after massive protests because of similar environmental concerns. This case had received wide media attention.

“Yes we have been there. We went there to see how they had fought Coke. We learnt plenty of things from them”,Suresh quietly responded.

The dinner gong sounded and we all proceeded towards the mess hall. I was still processing what I heard. We buy a bottle of Coke for 10 rupees, but is it only 10 rupees worth of resources that went into the bottle? So many things were not seen to us.Is this kind of development we want? I knew I would never be able to drink a bottle of Coke with the same unconcern again in the future. But I also knew that I had to study this situation more deeply. It was a very disturbed me that went to bed shortly afterward.

UPDATE As of 15 October 2009 the Coca Cola plant at Mehdiganj has not stopped production. Nandlal, however, is hopeful that ultimately Lok Samiti’s agitation would succeed in its objectives. He has reasons for hope, as a similar plant in nearby Sinhachawar in U.P has been shut down by Coke.

Nandlal can be reached at +91-94153 00520.

Ideas, or ideologies are one of the most defining traits of humans. Still more mystifying is their propensity to go to war and kill each other over them. Yet, in the cold light of reason most of these ideologies are not worthy of their apologists’ spirited defence, or their attackers’ outraged attacks.

Take the idea of capitalism and free trade. Nobody seems to argue the importance of economic prosperity and raising the standard of living of the population of the world. However this is where things get murky. There is considerable argument, and most often violent about how to go about achieving those aims. Till the last decade of the last century there were two conflicting ideologies at play, with their own roadmaps to economic nirvana- capitalism and communism, or their variants. The world was divided into camps and countries were separated by curtains. With the fall of Soviet Union, communism/socialism stood discredited and the way of laissez faire- free trade, governments staying out of the business of doing business, market forces, SEZs, deregulations etc held sway. We seemed to have found the right mix of ingredients of the secret noodle soup of prosperity and development. This ‘development’ also entailed cutting down most of our forests, damming rivers, patenting traditional remedies, polluting oceans and the atmosphere, strip mining and spraying poisons on our crops- but there is this thing about no pain no gain, right? Besides, it was just a little leap of faith-using resources of nature for the greater good of humankind.

Apparently we were very wrong. 2007 arrived and what the world had been suspecting for a couple of years or so was formally declared- the system was bankrupt,rotten and tottering. The entire edifice of capitalism was actually shakier than a house of cards and it crashed spectacularly with the US economy. This is a bit simplistic description of how the actual events panned out but more or less true. The world discovered that it had been had. It was told to leap over a small crack and had been assured that it would float down very safely, and unhurt. However in midair it discovered that it was freefalling into a chasm with the bottom still unseen.

And what about myself? As with many Indians of my age (I am in my mid twenties) I didn’t live through the Hindu rate of growth where you had to book a car or a scooter or a telephone and wait for two years for delivery. I, however vividly remember watching Doordarshan and listening to All India Radio, both government organs and both monopolies. However these memories have been buried under the mushrooming of car showrooms where you can walk in and drive out and watching drivel on 200 odd channels. Like others I have roamed the glittering malls, worn Reeboks and ate at MacDonalds and Pizza Huts. And I would be lying if I say I didn’t like these experiences.

My enthusiasm was shared by all of my friends (jobs were there for the taking), the newspapers which I read and the powers to be. Those parties that made disgruntled noises, like the Left earned my righteous scorn about not keeping up with the times.I would occasionally read about issues like farmer suicides and protests against the government policy of setting up vast Socio Economic Zones on thousands of acres of agricultural land. I felt that those were the pains of progress and that the old had to give way to the new. I was satisfied with the economic policy of our government, though I wished more deregulation, more disinvestment, was done. I believed in capitalism and in market forces, though I knew that like most human systems it was far from perfect. These feelings were mirrored more or less by the youth of our generation.

Boy, was I wrong!. After coming to Sidh and meeting with various people I realized that the current form of capitalism practiced was going to be our ruin. If no course corrections were being made the world would be unlivable after a couple of generations, and that’s a very generous estimate. I also had to revisit plenty of my fondly held beliefs and assumptions and have formed certain opinions about our future. And this has a lot to deal with economy and environment. Besides we are still in recession and its easy to take tough decisions when the situation is desperate

I am not a professional economist or an environmentalist. But I am deeply concerned about both and recent events have indicated how inter related these two supposedly different fields are. More of that in the next few posts.

So you love monsoons? Especially the pitter patter of fat raindrops, the howling winds that create shimmering curtains of rain and the cool wind on your hair (disclosure: I have none, but I have an imagination). If you fall in this club then it would not be a stretch to say that you would love to walk in the rains and get gloriously wet. Unless, of course, you have hydrophobia or allergy to water, in which case you would be very very miserable. But then, that would be only 2 to 3% of the general population.

For the rest, before you rush out into courtyards, roads, gardens and fields to pay your obeisance to the rain gods and maybe splash a bit of mud, do pause and make some preparations. That little bit of care is going to be the difference between feeling like a grumpy wet monkey and a frolicsome swan.

What you are wearing, or rather not wearing while outdoors in the rains is the most critical factor towards enjoying the show. You don’t want to be in anything like a leather jacket, a blazer or stuff that wouldn’t dry in an hour, or three. Multilayered clothes, like fur lined (faux, for the environmental types) coats are out. Absolute no-no are also jeans and leather clothes as well as thicker fabrics and shoes with socks.

From my experience the best attire to get wet is in a pair of shorts and rubber slippers. Ladies, don’t follow this advice, unless you are comfortable. With my recommended attire you will wet only your skin and once you are done gamboling you can come in and wipe the water off. But that is an ideal situation and admittedly it would look odd for office workers to shuck off their suits and shoes in the lobby and leap out into the streets in their underwear.

So, compromise! Gents,take off those shoes and jacket and maybe your shirt. Ladies, lose those stilettos and remember to wipe off the makeup from your face and eyes. Trust me, nothing looks more horrible than streaks of rouge and mascara running down your faces and eyes.

Some other things to keep dry when you are temporarily not being responsible adults is your purse. This stipulation applies to men, whose purses are the centre of their existence. Phones, especially the newfangled touch types and magnetic cards are no buddies with water, so keep them out of the water. Otherwise you might be locked out of your office or spend time with a bored customer executive on the phone explaining why you need a new debit card.

The type of rain is also an important element in your wetting experience (pardon the horrible pun). While you wouldn’t be encountering as many types of rain as Rob “Rain God” McKenna encounters in “So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish” there is need for some prior observation. I have found that feeble drizzles are the worst while a torrential downpour is the best type to get wet in.The former will make you feel wretched while the latter makes you feel gungo-ho and ready to brave the elements. For me, getting wet this way is like getting a caffeine kick.

For all my loquaciousness I have never really gotten wet a lot, mainly because back home I was susceptible to colds and coughs. I can only detail what happened with me a month ago, as I walked down from a bus and into the first major shower of the Himalayan monsoon here in Mussoorie. Within 15 feet I was soaked through the thick jeans through to my underwear and I seriously considered crawling under a truck to escape the rains.

I finally got to a shop where the whole world and his bedraggled dog seemed to have taken shelter . After getting stuck there for nearly two and a half hours I had to search around Mussoorie for a place to sleep. I found a gurudwara, but rains flooded the common hall after two hours and 30 people had to sweep out the waters before they soaked all the mattresses and quilts. Come morning I set out wearing a wet tee, with my jeans draped on my shoulders and trekked cross country. So, the next time you want to getting wet follow my advice regarding clothing. You don’t want to look like a drowned rat, sneezing your sinuses out and catch pneumonia.