In the first general elections held since the phased shutdown of nuclear reactors across Japan, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) scored a landslide victory. Incidentally, the LDP was also the party most vehemently opposed to its predecessor, the Democratic Party of Japan (DJP), when it declared the shutdown of nuclear power plants (NPPs) across Japan, increasing the economic powerhouse's reliance on fossil fuels.
Now that Abe, who termed Noda's actions "irresponsible", is in power, the markets were also quick to respond. TEPCO's shares jumped 33 per cent, Kansai Electric Power's rose 18 per cent, the Nikkei index 1 per cent, and the shares of two Australian uranium mining companies rose at least 5 per cent each.
Showing posts with label Policies amp; Economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Policies amp; Economics. Show all posts
Wednesday, 19 December 2012
Wednesday, 7 November 2012
Backfiring biofuels in the EU
A version of this article as written by me appeared in The Hindu on November 8, 2012.
--
The European Union (EU) announced on October 17 that the amount of biofuels that will be required to make up the transportation energy mix by 2020 has been halved from 10 per cent to 5 per cent. The rollback mostly affects first-generation biofuels, which are produced from food crops such as corn, sugarcane, and potato.
The new policy is in place to mitigate the backfiring of switching from less-clean fossil fuels to first-generation biofuels. An impact assessment study conducted in 2009-2012 by the EU found that greenhouse gas emissions were on the rise because of conversion of agricultural land to land for planting first-generation biofuel crops. In the process, authorities found that large quantities of carbon stock had been released into the atmosphere because of forest clearance and peatland-draining.
Moreover, because food-production has now been shifted to take place in another location, transportation and other logistic fuel costs will have been incurred, emissions due to which will also have to be factored in. These numbers fall under the causal ambit of indirect land-use change (ILUC), which also includes the conversion of previously untenable land to fertile land. On October 17, The Guardian published an article that called the EU's proposals "watered down" because it had chosen not to penalize fuel suppliers involved in the ILUC.
This writer believes that's only fair - that the EU not penalize the fuel suppliers - considering the "farming" of first-generation biofuels was enabled, rather incentivized by the EU, which would have well known that agricultural processes would be displaced and that agricultural output would drop in certain pockets. The backfiring happened only because the organization had underestimated the extent to which collateral emissions would outweigh the carbon-credits saved due to biofuel-use. (As for not enforcing legal consequences on those who manufacture only first-generation biofuels but go on to claim carbon credits arising from second-generation biofuel use as well: continue reading.)
Anyway, as a step toward achieving the new goals, the EU will impose an emissions threshold on the amount of carbon stock that can be released when some agricultural land is converted for the sake of biofuel crops. Essentially, this will exclude many biofuels from entering the market.
While this move reduces the acreage because “fuel-farming” eats it up, it is not without criticisms. As Tracy Carty, a spokeswoman for the poverty action group Oxfam, said over Twitter, “The cap is lower than the current levels of biofuels use and will do nothing to reduce high food prices.” Earlier, especially in the US, the recourse of first-generation biofuels such as biodiesel had been resorted to by farmers looking to cash in on their steady (and state-assured) demand as opposed to the volatility of food prices.
The October 17 announcement effectively revises the Renewable Energy Directive (RED), 2009, which first required that biofuels constitute 10 per cent of the alternate energy mix by 2020.
The EU is now incentivising second-generation biofuels, mostly in an implied manner, which are manufactured from crop residues such as organic waste, algae, and woody materials, and do not interfere with food-production. The RED also requires that biofuels that replace fossil fuels be at least 35 per cent more efficient. Now, the EU has revised that number to increase to 50 per cent in 2017, and to 60 per cent after 2020. This is a clear sign that first-generation biofuels, which enter the scene with a bagful of emissions, will be phased out while their second-generation counterparts will take their places - at least, this ought to happen considering the profitability of first-generation alternatives is set to go down.
However, the research concerning high-performance biofuels is still nascent. As of now, it has been aimed at extracting the maximum amount of fuel from available stock, not as much at improving their efficiency. This is especially observed with the extraction of ethanol from wood, high-efficiency microalgae for biodiesel production, production of butanol from biomass with help from acetobutylicum, etc. - where more is known about the extraction efficiency and process economics than the performance of the fuel itself. Perhaps the new proposals will siphon some research out of the biotech. community in the near future.
Like the EU, the USA also has a biofuel-consumption target set for 2022, by when it requires that 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel be mixed with transport fuel, up from the 9 billion gallons mandated by 2008. More specifically, under the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007,
(The underlined bit's what the EU has now included in its policies.)
However, a US National Research Council report released on October 24 found that if algal biofuels, second-generation fluids whose energy capacity lies between petrol’s and diesel’s, have to constitute as much as 5 percent of the country’s alternate energy mix, “unsustainable demands” would be placed on “energy, water and nutrients”.
Anyway, two major energy blocs – the USA and the EU – are leading the way to phase out first-generation biofuels and replace them completely with their second-generation counterparts. In fact, two other large-scale producers of biofuels, Indonesia and Argentina, wherefrom the EU imports 22 per cent of its biofuels, could also be forced to ramp up investment and research inline with their buyer's interests. As Gunther Oettinger, the EU Energy Commissioner, remarked, “This new proposal will give new incentives for best-performing biofuels.” The announcement also affirms that till 2020, no major changes will be effected in the biofuels sector, and post-2020, only second-generation biofuels will be supported, paving the way for sustained and focused development of high-efficiency, low-emission alternatives to fossil fuels.
(Note: The next progress report of the European Commission on the environmental impact of the production and consumption of biofuels in the EU is due on December 31, 2014.)
--
The European Union (EU) announced on October 17 that the amount of biofuels that will be required to make up the transportation energy mix by 2020 has been halved from 10 per cent to 5 per cent. The rollback mostly affects first-generation biofuels, which are produced from food crops such as corn, sugarcane, and potato.The new policy is in place to mitigate the backfiring of switching from less-clean fossil fuels to first-generation biofuels. An impact assessment study conducted in 2009-2012 by the EU found that greenhouse gas emissions were on the rise because of conversion of agricultural land to land for planting first-generation biofuel crops. In the process, authorities found that large quantities of carbon stock had been released into the atmosphere because of forest clearance and peatland-draining.
Moreover, because food-production has now been shifted to take place in another location, transportation and other logistic fuel costs will have been incurred, emissions due to which will also have to be factored in. These numbers fall under the causal ambit of indirect land-use change (ILUC), which also includes the conversion of previously untenable land to fertile land. On October 17, The Guardian published an article that called the EU's proposals "watered down" because it had chosen not to penalize fuel suppliers involved in the ILUC.
This writer believes that's only fair - that the EU not penalize the fuel suppliers - considering the "farming" of first-generation biofuels was enabled, rather incentivized by the EU, which would have well known that agricultural processes would be displaced and that agricultural output would drop in certain pockets. The backfiring happened only because the organization had underestimated the extent to which collateral emissions would outweigh the carbon-credits saved due to biofuel-use. (As for not enforcing legal consequences on those who manufacture only first-generation biofuels but go on to claim carbon credits arising from second-generation biofuel use as well: continue reading.)
Anyway, as a step toward achieving the new goals, the EU will impose an emissions threshold on the amount of carbon stock that can be released when some agricultural land is converted for the sake of biofuel crops. Essentially, this will exclude many biofuels from entering the market.
While this move reduces the acreage because “fuel-farming” eats it up, it is not without criticisms. As Tracy Carty, a spokeswoman for the poverty action group Oxfam, said over Twitter, “The cap is lower than the current levels of biofuels use and will do nothing to reduce high food prices.” Earlier, especially in the US, the recourse of first-generation biofuels such as biodiesel had been resorted to by farmers looking to cash in on their steady (and state-assured) demand as opposed to the volatility of food prices.The October 17 announcement effectively revises the Renewable Energy Directive (RED), 2009, which first required that biofuels constitute 10 per cent of the alternate energy mix by 2020.
The EU is now incentivising second-generation biofuels, mostly in an implied manner, which are manufactured from crop residues such as organic waste, algae, and woody materials, and do not interfere with food-production. The RED also requires that biofuels that replace fossil fuels be at least 35 per cent more efficient. Now, the EU has revised that number to increase to 50 per cent in 2017, and to 60 per cent after 2020. This is a clear sign that first-generation biofuels, which enter the scene with a bagful of emissions, will be phased out while their second-generation counterparts will take their places - at least, this ought to happen considering the profitability of first-generation alternatives is set to go down.
However, the research concerning high-performance biofuels is still nascent. As of now, it has been aimed at extracting the maximum amount of fuel from available stock, not as much at improving their efficiency. This is especially observed with the extraction of ethanol from wood, high-efficiency microalgae for biodiesel production, production of butanol from biomass with help from acetobutylicum, etc. - where more is known about the extraction efficiency and process economics than the performance of the fuel itself. Perhaps the new proposals will siphon some research out of the biotech. community in the near future.
Like the EU, the USA also has a biofuel-consumption target set for 2022, by when it requires that 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel be mixed with transport fuel, up from the 9 billion gallons mandated by 2008. More specifically, under the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007,
- RFS program to include diesel, in addition to gasoline;
- Establish new categories of renewable fuel, and set separate volume requirements for each one.
- EPA to apply lifecycle greenhouse gas performance threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits fewer greenhouse gases than the petroleum fuel it replaces.
(The underlined bit's what the EU has now included in its policies.)
However, a US National Research Council report released on October 24 found that if algal biofuels, second-generation fluids whose energy capacity lies between petrol’s and diesel’s, have to constitute as much as 5 percent of the country’s alternate energy mix, “unsustainable demands” would be placed on “energy, water and nutrients”.
Anyway, two major energy blocs – the USA and the EU – are leading the way to phase out first-generation biofuels and replace them completely with their second-generation counterparts. In fact, two other large-scale producers of biofuels, Indonesia and Argentina, wherefrom the EU imports 22 per cent of its biofuels, could also be forced to ramp up investment and research inline with their buyer's interests. As Gunther Oettinger, the EU Energy Commissioner, remarked, “This new proposal will give new incentives for best-performing biofuels.” The announcement also affirms that till 2020, no major changes will be effected in the biofuels sector, and post-2020, only second-generation biofuels will be supported, paving the way for sustained and focused development of high-efficiency, low-emission alternatives to fossil fuels.(Note: The next progress report of the European Commission on the environmental impact of the production and consumption of biofuels in the EU is due on December 31, 2014.)
Saturday, 1 September 2012
Who runs science in India?
[caption id="attachment_23967" align="aligncenter" width="625"]
Click on the image for the article.[/caption]
Right now, Colin Macilwain cannot be more on top of the problem: the role of a Chief Scientific Adviser has shifted toward leveraging science and technology to reap rewards through economic and industrial policy, away from bridging the gap between the ruling elite and the academically engaged.
A contrast with India, unfortunately, is meaningless in this regard. While New York and Berlin may face off over what it means to have one person at the top versus what it means to have several people engaged throughout, scientific policy in India is in a shambles more because the Chief Scientific Adviser, C.N.R. Rao, has professed no inclination toward either agenda.
Instead, given that the country is oriented primarily toward tackling the energy crisis, Rao's role in influencing the government to institute decentralization policies, cross-generation power tariffs, and subsidization of alternative energy sources pales in comparison to the industrial lobby that subsumes his voice with just a lot of money.
While we leave universities to tackle their loss of autonomy - chiefly because the boards indulge public interference in order to maximise public-funding - and our engineers to bridge the infrastructural gap between low consumption, lower private-sector investment, and invitations to greater foreign direct-investment, who is really running science in India?
Click on the image for the article.[/caption]Right now, Colin Macilwain cannot be more on top of the problem: the role of a Chief Scientific Adviser has shifted toward leveraging science and technology to reap rewards through economic and industrial policy, away from bridging the gap between the ruling elite and the academically engaged.
A contrast with India, unfortunately, is meaningless in this regard. While New York and Berlin may face off over what it means to have one person at the top versus what it means to have several people engaged throughout, scientific policy in India is in a shambles more because the Chief Scientific Adviser, C.N.R. Rao, has professed no inclination toward either agenda.
Instead, given that the country is oriented primarily toward tackling the energy crisis, Rao's role in influencing the government to institute decentralization policies, cross-generation power tariffs, and subsidization of alternative energy sources pales in comparison to the industrial lobby that subsumes his voice with just a lot of money.
While we leave universities to tackle their loss of autonomy - chiefly because the boards indulge public interference in order to maximise public-funding - and our engineers to bridge the infrastructural gap between low consumption, lower private-sector investment, and invitations to greater foreign direct-investment, who is really running science in India?
Monday, 23 July 2012
What passes for money
How many things will pass for money? Investment and disinvestment are both aimed at regulating growth from one sector to another, but at higher benefit-to-cost ratios, such moves will fail.
Two important cases in point: cap-and-trade in reducing GHG emissions and levying a fee to pursue unauthorized constructions (in cities like Chennai).
The confounding factors are posterity and space: once consumed, the machine cannot be reversed unless there is more investment/sanctioning.
Two important cases in point: cap-and-trade in reducing GHG emissions and levying a fee to pursue unauthorized constructions (in cities like Chennai).
The confounding factors are posterity and space: once consumed, the machine cannot be reversed unless there is more investment/sanctioning.
Friday, 13 April 2012
Science in India
What really is the attitude toward science in India?
In many of the other countries that do or don't have strong science programmes, the attitude toward science is well known. In China, for example, where the space programme is picking up well, high-speed railway lines are being built, and the annual investment in science has grown at more than 20 per cent annually since 2000 (now in the neighbourhood of $100 billion), there is open support for the cause of science and the role it must play in the country's development. In India, however, investments in R&D are half-hearted in that they don't enjoy or suffer either widespread support or cynicism. Moreover, where in most cases science funding is seen at least as a move toward indigenous military empowerment, India lacks that, too.
In a December 2010 report titled 2011 Global R&D Funding Forecast, going with a study sponsored by R&D Mag, India's share of global R&D spending is 3.0 per cent (0.80% of GDP), measly in comparison with the countries it is seen as competing with: America (34.0%), Japan (12.1%), China (12.9% = 1.44% of GDP), and Europe (23.2%). The immediate solution is definitely not to step up spending but to look at why a country that has used science to rise to where it is now is doing so without any support for it at the basic level, as if it sees science as a mere tool that will be dropped the moment its goals are achieved.
Looking at the status quo from a mediaperson's vantage point, a few habits come immediately to light. The first is a lack of outreach programmes by Indian science institutions. For a country brimming with engineers, there are too few fora that cater to the science-minded. On either sides of the locus charted by science-stream in classes XI and XII, engineering education in either the IITs or the NITs, and then a job with the engineering sector, there is no place to engage with scientists and technicians simply because one might enjoy interacting with them, find out more about what they do and how it is impacting the society at large. The one other place to do all this is from within media circles.
Even in the political sphere, there is abysmal engagement by the politicians with the people and vice versa at the scientific level. Granted, we are only now setting out on a path of getting as many people educated as possible through the means of reservations and constitutionally established compulsions. However, that does not mean there is nothing to look at higher up the pyramid: for becoming the focus of the world for its abundance of engineers and doctors, for launching manned missions to the moon in the near future, and for being at the forefront of nuclear science research, the most politicians are willing to talk about is shutting down crucial nuclear power plants.
[caption id="attachment_22951" align="aligncenter" width="540"]
The Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant[/caption]
Apparently, science has already assumed a degenerate form in the country, where it can be sidelined to accrue people-support ahead of the elections. Unfortunately, these are also some of the more easily-kept promises. Science often isn't public opinion, and there is a lot of work required in that direction to mend the people's idea of its importance and the roles it plays in shaping equanimous progress.
Still, where are the broader ambitions that politicians must have about safeguarding the nation's support in the field of cutting-edge physics? Where are the broader ambitions that address the country's role in nuclear non-proliferation (apart from when heads of state come visiting)? Where are the broader ambitions concerned with furthering nanotechnology research in the country in keeping with its growing domination as a centre for medical tourism?
In fact, let us not attend to such broad considerations now: a look at the attitude toward the IT-sector in South India should do. The most successful R&D contribution of J Jayalalithaa, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, to date has been the setting up of IT parks in and around Chennai (a move borrowed suspiciously from the Hyderabad- and Bangalore-models without too much foresight). As the subsidization of IT products drew in a large volume of software engineers that led to a siphon effect, so also did focus shift away from other non-subsidized industries. Now, the Pallikaranai marshlands on which most of the IT offices are set up have taken a severe beating.
Why? Because we can't seem to understand the importance of a young man's or woman's employment in the same light as the importance of a healthy local ecosystem.
Those within the scientific community are no exception, either. Forget the science outreach programmes—they are only secondary considerations. Instead: where are the science magazines a la Scientific American? Don't Indians possess a tradition of invention and discovery dating back to about 4,000 years? What killed it, then? A couple of days ago, a friend of mine had a tough time locating doctors working on stem cell research in India because university websites were severely outdated! The popular opinion of the sports-and-political-news hegemon is that the paucity of media representation would have driven researchers to speak about their research with quite some zeal, but no. Even contacting a scientist has become a hassle.
[caption id="attachment_22958" align="aligncenter" width="540"]
A good example of a science institution's website that goes nowhere is that of the Department of Biotechnology (affiliated with the Government of India)[/caption]
Moreover, the contactable ones are often tight-lipped when answering questions on studies done by them, and not necessarily on subjects that have debatable ethical concerns attached, such as soil sedimentation, state of plumbing, safety in power plants, metallurgy and materials engineering, greenhouse gas emissions, and renewable energy (quoting from experience). Have their ought-to-be profligate opinions dried up because of the subjects' misguided depiction in the media in the past? How do we fix it?
It is hard to imagine that the answer to these and such questions is colonialism because India's rapid rise to a position of power seems to have caused all the problems. For example, sustained mishandling of the planning, construction and operation of dams alone is sure to have dented rural India's idea of technology. Now, with a disturbing experience of the national government's contumacious attitude toward rural authority, we are obliged to push harder even for all-round legitimate projects. In fact, perspectives have turned so skewed that "all-round legitimacy" has become the rallying point for contention between environmentalists and any kind of developers. Now, you can't say "development" and not be expected to be tossed into a political maelstrom.
Circling back to the first point: what is the attitude toward science in India? The nation has enjoyed a pluralism of cultures, languages, and traditions for centuries now, and is it that science, too, is being granted that privilege? If you think that isn't too bad, think again: the thing about science that it always has one right answer, ergo there is always only one way to use it. Of course, the course of its action can be deftly regulated, but not to a point where many journalists don't or can't understand what science really is up to in the country.
Science is not the Big Dam, the Big Metro Line, the Big Power Plant that displaces thousands of people without sufficient recourse, that robs livelihoods and impregnates men and women with carcinogens, that is the call to arms of the poor against the rich. No!; science is now the helpless instrument in the hands of the short-sighted power-monger, and it must be removed from there. To do so, at least all that I have mentioned in this post must be fixed.
In many of the other countries that do or don't have strong science programmes, the attitude toward science is well known. In China, for example, where the space programme is picking up well, high-speed railway lines are being built, and the annual investment in science has grown at more than 20 per cent annually since 2000 (now in the neighbourhood of $100 billion), there is open support for the cause of science and the role it must play in the country's development. In India, however, investments in R&D are half-hearted in that they don't enjoy or suffer either widespread support or cynicism. Moreover, where in most cases science funding is seen at least as a move toward indigenous military empowerment, India lacks that, too.In a December 2010 report titled 2011 Global R&D Funding Forecast, going with a study sponsored by R&D Mag, India's share of global R&D spending is 3.0 per cent (0.80% of GDP), measly in comparison with the countries it is seen as competing with: America (34.0%), Japan (12.1%), China (12.9% = 1.44% of GDP), and Europe (23.2%). The immediate solution is definitely not to step up spending but to look at why a country that has used science to rise to where it is now is doing so without any support for it at the basic level, as if it sees science as a mere tool that will be dropped the moment its goals are achieved.
Looking at the status quo from a mediaperson's vantage point, a few habits come immediately to light. The first is a lack of outreach programmes by Indian science institutions. For a country brimming with engineers, there are too few fora that cater to the science-minded. On either sides of the locus charted by science-stream in classes XI and XII, engineering education in either the IITs or the NITs, and then a job with the engineering sector, there is no place to engage with scientists and technicians simply because one might enjoy interacting with them, find out more about what they do and how it is impacting the society at large. The one other place to do all this is from within media circles.Even in the political sphere, there is abysmal engagement by the politicians with the people and vice versa at the scientific level. Granted, we are only now setting out on a path of getting as many people educated as possible through the means of reservations and constitutionally established compulsions. However, that does not mean there is nothing to look at higher up the pyramid: for becoming the focus of the world for its abundance of engineers and doctors, for launching manned missions to the moon in the near future, and for being at the forefront of nuclear science research, the most politicians are willing to talk about is shutting down crucial nuclear power plants.
[caption id="attachment_22951" align="aligncenter" width="540"]
The Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant[/caption]Apparently, science has already assumed a degenerate form in the country, where it can be sidelined to accrue people-support ahead of the elections. Unfortunately, these are also some of the more easily-kept promises. Science often isn't public opinion, and there is a lot of work required in that direction to mend the people's idea of its importance and the roles it plays in shaping equanimous progress.
Still, where are the broader ambitions that politicians must have about safeguarding the nation's support in the field of cutting-edge physics? Where are the broader ambitions that address the country's role in nuclear non-proliferation (apart from when heads of state come visiting)? Where are the broader ambitions concerned with furthering nanotechnology research in the country in keeping with its growing domination as a centre for medical tourism?
In fact, let us not attend to such broad considerations now: a look at the attitude toward the IT-sector in South India should do. The most successful R&D contribution of J Jayalalithaa, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, to date has been the setting up of IT parks in and around Chennai (a move borrowed suspiciously from the Hyderabad- and Bangalore-models without too much foresight). As the subsidization of IT products drew in a large volume of software engineers that led to a siphon effect, so also did focus shift away from other non-subsidized industries. Now, the Pallikaranai marshlands on which most of the IT offices are set up have taken a severe beating.Why? Because we can't seem to understand the importance of a young man's or woman's employment in the same light as the importance of a healthy local ecosystem.
Those within the scientific community are no exception, either. Forget the science outreach programmes—they are only secondary considerations. Instead: where are the science magazines a la Scientific American? Don't Indians possess a tradition of invention and discovery dating back to about 4,000 years? What killed it, then? A couple of days ago, a friend of mine had a tough time locating doctors working on stem cell research in India because university websites were severely outdated! The popular opinion of the sports-and-political-news hegemon is that the paucity of media representation would have driven researchers to speak about their research with quite some zeal, but no. Even contacting a scientist has become a hassle.
[caption id="attachment_22958" align="aligncenter" width="540"]
A good example of a science institution's website that goes nowhere is that of the Department of Biotechnology (affiliated with the Government of India)[/caption]Moreover, the contactable ones are often tight-lipped when answering questions on studies done by them, and not necessarily on subjects that have debatable ethical concerns attached, such as soil sedimentation, state of plumbing, safety in power plants, metallurgy and materials engineering, greenhouse gas emissions, and renewable energy (quoting from experience). Have their ought-to-be profligate opinions dried up because of the subjects' misguided depiction in the media in the past? How do we fix it?
It is hard to imagine that the answer to these and such questions is colonialism because India's rapid rise to a position of power seems to have caused all the problems. For example, sustained mishandling of the planning, construction and operation of dams alone is sure to have dented rural India's idea of technology. Now, with a disturbing experience of the national government's contumacious attitude toward rural authority, we are obliged to push harder even for all-round legitimate projects. In fact, perspectives have turned so skewed that "all-round legitimacy" has become the rallying point for contention between environmentalists and any kind of developers. Now, you can't say "development" and not be expected to be tossed into a political maelstrom.Circling back to the first point: what is the attitude toward science in India? The nation has enjoyed a pluralism of cultures, languages, and traditions for centuries now, and is it that science, too, is being granted that privilege? If you think that isn't too bad, think again: the thing about science that it always has one right answer, ergo there is always only one way to use it. Of course, the course of its action can be deftly regulated, but not to a point where many journalists don't or can't understand what science really is up to in the country.
Science is not the Big Dam, the Big Metro Line, the Big Power Plant that displaces thousands of people without sufficient recourse, that robs livelihoods and impregnates men and women with carcinogens, that is the call to arms of the poor against the rich. No!; science is now the helpless instrument in the hands of the short-sighted power-monger, and it must be removed from there. To do so, at least all that I have mentioned in this post must be fixed.
Saturday, 31 March 2012
Findings on the administrative state of the Pallikaranai marshlands
Chennai’s garbage woes have taken a turn for the worse in light of multiple violations by the new contractors, Ramky Enviro Engineers, responsible for cleaning up the city. Ranging from lack of adherence to the basic terms of the contract it signed with the Corporation of Chennai (CoC) to worsening the city’s rich biodiversity, Ramky has exacerbated the problems it was chosen to remove.
The government of Tamil Nadu and the CoC are also to blame for not taking Ramky to task even though it has been three months since the contractors were brought on board to clean the areas of Kodambakkam (Zone XIII), Mylapore (Zone X) and Adyar (Zone V). Moreover, the state government’s lack of foresight in judging the value of the Pallikaranai marshlands that lies outside the city and commissioning it as a dump-yard has given rise to large concentrations of lead and manganese in the soil, causing severe poisoning of groundwater supply to the neighbourhood.
In fact, in its annual budget for the year 2012-2013, the Corporation of Chennai announced that Rs 70 crore would be spent on solid waste management in the city, with an additional Rs 5 crore going to be spent on the restoration of the marshlands. These are big numbers, considering the allocation for upgrading of electrical infrastructure in the city is Rs 45 crore, and of education, Rs 15 crore.
Mismanaging the marsh
Dr Indumathi Nambi, Assistant Professor in the Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering at IIT-Madras, profiled the soil sediments around the marshlands in a year-long study in 2010. She said, “The dump-yard is not even a landfill. Landfills have a proper basement three or four layers thick that prevent the sedimentation of heavy metals or surface runoffs into the drains.” She added that because of these shortcomings, the surrounding areas such as Mylai Balaji Nagar receive groundwater of very poor quality.
The fate of the marsh is linked closely with Ramky’s activities inside the city. Its contractors took charge after the Neel Metal Fanalca (NMF) fiasco that saw that contract being terminated four years before its expiry, leading to Ramky’s contract being more full-fledged, inclusive of many little considerations such as the presence of garbage bins on street corners, and valued more.
In the three years that NMF was in service, it was paid Rs 600-700 per tonne of waste post-segregation. However, Ramky is being paid Rs 1,469 per tonne of waste post-segregation. This is where the problems begin.
Negligence of duty
The contract stipulates that the commissionaires – in this case, Ramky Enviro Engineers – will be compensated only after the waste has been segregated at the source and then weighed at a designated weighment station. To supervise these activities, a Project Officer has been appointed by the CoC. However, that the waste has been segregated into recyclables, non-recyclables and non-recyclable non-biodegradables was brought under doubt after rag-pickers were spotted in and around the dump-yard at Pallikaranai.
Thirumurthy, a rag-picker off the Pallikaranai 100-feet road, said, “There are a lot of plastic items and metal items in the waste. There is no saying which part of the dump has what.” However, he said pickings become easier after corporation officials throw the plastic and metallic objects aside to burn the rest illegally.
Because waste is being dumped unsegregated, Ramky is being paid for a weight greater than what it should be. In comparison with NMF’s contractual rate, the compensation is likely to be almost twice as much.
This points to the Project Officer’s negligence of his duty. There are also other violations, minor in comparison, but important nonetheless because they concern the day-to-day operations of Ramky’s commissioners in the city.
For example, sweeping of the roads has to be carried out at least twice everyday according to the contract. However, residents of South Mada Street, Thiruvallur Nagar, Eldams Road and Sastri Nagar have been complaining that streets are being swept only once a day and that, too, with low efficiency. Other common complaints include lack of cleanliness around bins, irregular clearance of bins, and lack of service on the toll-free complaint line that Ramky is contractually obliged to set up.
Administration over the years
The Pallikaranai marshlands were brought under government agenda in 2002, when a study was conducted by the state to assess the land quality of the area. The then Collector, Abdul Salam, dismissed all land allotments on the marsh on the basis of them encroaching on environmentally sensitive areas. However, subsequently, the land was reallotted to the buyers after it was found that survey numbers attached to plots had been meddled with.
Mrs Jayshree Vencatesan of Care Earth, an organisation that has been advocating the conservation of the marshlands, said, “Invisible groups have been trying to derail the government’s attempts to protect the marshland repeatedly. On the basis of wrong survey numbers, land was returned to those it was taken from and under these circumstances, the Centre for Wind Energy Technology came up.”
In 2003, the Save Pallikaranai Marsh Forum (SPMF) was constituted to protest against the dumping and burning of waste in the area. In the same year, the Perungudi sewage treatment plant (STP) became defunct in 1996, which was also targeted by the SPMF. In response, the Dr Vijayan Committee was set up by T R Baalu, then the minister for environment and forests. The committee, in turn, recommended the setting up of a 54 MLD (millions of litres per day) STP in place of the old one. For this purpose, the Corporation set aside Rs 300 crore.
Broken promises
Today, the plant, finally commissioned in 2006, is in a similar condition to its predecessor when it was decommissioned. The absence of a collection tank, provided to absorb loads exceeding the expected amount, has ensured that any excess waste flows directly into the marsh without being treated. This fate is not much different from that of a lot of the solid waste that enters the plant, which floats around untreated in the marsh.
During the renovation in 2006, Metrowater had reassured the residents that after upgrading, there would be no foul smell and that the treated sewage would be of a higher quality. There was also a promise made of Rs 83 lakh to upgrade the Taramani link road pumping station to improve the movement of wastes within the marshlands and prevent stagnation. To assist this, the CoC had also announced for the new plant to discharge effluents into the Buckingham canal.
None of these promises have been met. S Kumararaja of the Federation of Velachery Residents’ Welfare Associations, said, “Repeated representations have been made to upgrade the sewage pumping stations, but authorities are yet to take action. As the station often ceases functioning during monsoon, the sewer network gets affected.”
In 2005, S Malathi, then Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu, brought 378 hectares of the marshland under the protection of the Forest Act of 1882. This effectively removed it from the jurisdiction of the CoC and placed it in the hands of the Forest Department, a central body, no longer letting the area be subject to indiscriminate pollution. Though this may seem like a cause to celebrate, Mrs Vencatesan says that “a careful perusal of the Department’s plans reveals that they plan to drain the marshlands and build a gated community for their officials.” (See inset)
Caught between centre and state politics
Between 2001 and 2006, conflicts between the Congress-dominated government at the Centre and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam-ruled (AIADMK) state prevented any quick action to be taken concerning the marshlands. In 2006, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) came to power at the state as well as the centre, and began to push for the setting up of an integrated waste management plant at the Pallikaranai marshlands and in Perungudi.
In 2009, the High Court Expert Committee Report, ordered by Judge A P Shah and headed by Ms Sheela Rani, that had looked into the DMK’s proposal was released. It pointed at the various illegal activities already being carried out on the marshlands and ways to tackle them. The most important conclusion of this report was that the “proposed municipal solid waste handling violates … the rules especially on source segregation, recycle, reuse and siting criteria.” This violation is with respect to the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 2000 framed under the Environment Protection Act.
However, these were only recommendations and were not enforced by authorities. Soon, clearance was received by the CoC from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) to set up an STP at the desired location after a controversial public hearing. It was at this time that a member of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), V Srinivasan, filed a petition with the National Environmental Appellate Authority (NEAA) in 2010, arguing that the plant was going to be situated within 10 km of a national park (at Guindy).
However, in 2011, the NEAA was dissolved and the National Green Tribunal (NGT) set up. The NGT opened up in Tamil Nadu on February 24, 2012, and turned down the DMK-led proposal to set up the integrated plant on the basis of its being within 6 km of the Guindy national park. Now, the proposal awaits clearance from the Centre, which they might not get because of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (1971).
There is one other violation of a Central legislation in terms of the National Wetland Law. Under the Draft Regulatory Framework for Wetlands Conservation, compiled by the Indira Gandhi Centre for Development Research and issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests on May 24, 2010, solid waste dumping and discharge of untreated effluents on wetlands is prohibited. In extension to this, the Centre asked state governments to constitute a State Wetland Appraisal Committee to monitor the situation and shut down any illegal dumping on wetlands. Tamil Nadu is yet to set up such a committee.
The government of Tamil Nadu and the CoC are also to blame for not taking Ramky to task even though it has been three months since the contractors were brought on board to clean the areas of Kodambakkam (Zone XIII), Mylapore (Zone X) and Adyar (Zone V). Moreover, the state government’s lack of foresight in judging the value of the Pallikaranai marshlands that lies outside the city and commissioning it as a dump-yard has given rise to large concentrations of lead and manganese in the soil, causing severe poisoning of groundwater supply to the neighbourhood.
In fact, in its annual budget for the year 2012-2013, the Corporation of Chennai announced that Rs 70 crore would be spent on solid waste management in the city, with an additional Rs 5 crore going to be spent on the restoration of the marshlands. These are big numbers, considering the allocation for upgrading of electrical infrastructure in the city is Rs 45 crore, and of education, Rs 15 crore.
Mismanaging the marsh
Dr Indumathi Nambi, Assistant Professor in the Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering at IIT-Madras, profiled the soil sediments around the marshlands in a year-long study in 2010. She said, “The dump-yard is not even a landfill. Landfills have a proper basement three or four layers thick that prevent the sedimentation of heavy metals or surface runoffs into the drains.” She added that because of these shortcomings, the surrounding areas such as Mylai Balaji Nagar receive groundwater of very poor quality.
The fate of the marsh is linked closely with Ramky’s activities inside the city. Its contractors took charge after the Neel Metal Fanalca (NMF) fiasco that saw that contract being terminated four years before its expiry, leading to Ramky’s contract being more full-fledged, inclusive of many little considerations such as the presence of garbage bins on street corners, and valued more.
In the three years that NMF was in service, it was paid Rs 600-700 per tonne of waste post-segregation. However, Ramky is being paid Rs 1,469 per tonne of waste post-segregation. This is where the problems begin.
Negligence of duty
The contract stipulates that the commissionaires – in this case, Ramky Enviro Engineers – will be compensated only after the waste has been segregated at the source and then weighed at a designated weighment station. To supervise these activities, a Project Officer has been appointed by the CoC. However, that the waste has been segregated into recyclables, non-recyclables and non-recyclable non-biodegradables was brought under doubt after rag-pickers were spotted in and around the dump-yard at Pallikaranai.
Thirumurthy, a rag-picker off the Pallikaranai 100-feet road, said, “There are a lot of plastic items and metal items in the waste. There is no saying which part of the dump has what.” However, he said pickings become easier after corporation officials throw the plastic and metallic objects aside to burn the rest illegally.
Because waste is being dumped unsegregated, Ramky is being paid for a weight greater than what it should be. In comparison with NMF’s contractual rate, the compensation is likely to be almost twice as much.
This points to the Project Officer’s negligence of his duty. There are also other violations, minor in comparison, but important nonetheless because they concern the day-to-day operations of Ramky’s commissioners in the city.
For example, sweeping of the roads has to be carried out at least twice everyday according to the contract. However, residents of South Mada Street, Thiruvallur Nagar, Eldams Road and Sastri Nagar have been complaining that streets are being swept only once a day and that, too, with low efficiency. Other common complaints include lack of cleanliness around bins, irregular clearance of bins, and lack of service on the toll-free complaint line that Ramky is contractually obliged to set up.
Administration over the years
The Pallikaranai marshlands were brought under government agenda in 2002, when a study was conducted by the state to assess the land quality of the area. The then Collector, Abdul Salam, dismissed all land allotments on the marsh on the basis of them encroaching on environmentally sensitive areas. However, subsequently, the land was reallotted to the buyers after it was found that survey numbers attached to plots had been meddled with.
Mrs Jayshree Vencatesan of Care Earth, an organisation that has been advocating the conservation of the marshlands, said, “Invisible groups have been trying to derail the government’s attempts to protect the marshland repeatedly. On the basis of wrong survey numbers, land was returned to those it was taken from and under these circumstances, the Centre for Wind Energy Technology came up.”
In 2003, the Save Pallikaranai Marsh Forum (SPMF) was constituted to protest against the dumping and burning of waste in the area. In the same year, the Perungudi sewage treatment plant (STP) became defunct in 1996, which was also targeted by the SPMF. In response, the Dr Vijayan Committee was set up by T R Baalu, then the minister for environment and forests. The committee, in turn, recommended the setting up of a 54 MLD (millions of litres per day) STP in place of the old one. For this purpose, the Corporation set aside Rs 300 crore.
Broken promises
Today, the plant, finally commissioned in 2006, is in a similar condition to its predecessor when it was decommissioned. The absence of a collection tank, provided to absorb loads exceeding the expected amount, has ensured that any excess waste flows directly into the marsh without being treated. This fate is not much different from that of a lot of the solid waste that enters the plant, which floats around untreated in the marsh.
During the renovation in 2006, Metrowater had reassured the residents that after upgrading, there would be no foul smell and that the treated sewage would be of a higher quality. There was also a promise made of Rs 83 lakh to upgrade the Taramani link road pumping station to improve the movement of wastes within the marshlands and prevent stagnation. To assist this, the CoC had also announced for the new plant to discharge effluents into the Buckingham canal.
None of these promises have been met. S Kumararaja of the Federation of Velachery Residents’ Welfare Associations, said, “Repeated representations have been made to upgrade the sewage pumping stations, but authorities are yet to take action. As the station often ceases functioning during monsoon, the sewer network gets affected.”
In 2005, S Malathi, then Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu, brought 378 hectares of the marshland under the protection of the Forest Act of 1882. This effectively removed it from the jurisdiction of the CoC and placed it in the hands of the Forest Department, a central body, no longer letting the area be subject to indiscriminate pollution. Though this may seem like a cause to celebrate, Mrs Vencatesan says that “a careful perusal of the Department’s plans reveals that they plan to drain the marshlands and build a gated community for their officials.” (See inset)
Caught between centre and state politics
Between 2001 and 2006, conflicts between the Congress-dominated government at the Centre and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam-ruled (AIADMK) state prevented any quick action to be taken concerning the marshlands. In 2006, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) came to power at the state as well as the centre, and began to push for the setting up of an integrated waste management plant at the Pallikaranai marshlands and in Perungudi.
In 2009, the High Court Expert Committee Report, ordered by Judge A P Shah and headed by Ms Sheela Rani, that had looked into the DMK’s proposal was released. It pointed at the various illegal activities already being carried out on the marshlands and ways to tackle them. The most important conclusion of this report was that the “proposed municipal solid waste handling violates … the rules especially on source segregation, recycle, reuse and siting criteria.” This violation is with respect to the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 2000 framed under the Environment Protection Act.
However, these were only recommendations and were not enforced by authorities. Soon, clearance was received by the CoC from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) to set up an STP at the desired location after a controversial public hearing. It was at this time that a member of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), V Srinivasan, filed a petition with the National Environmental Appellate Authority (NEAA) in 2010, arguing that the plant was going to be situated within 10 km of a national park (at Guindy).
However, in 2011, the NEAA was dissolved and the National Green Tribunal (NGT) set up. The NGT opened up in Tamil Nadu on February 24, 2012, and turned down the DMK-led proposal to set up the integrated plant on the basis of its being within 6 km of the Guindy national park. Now, the proposal awaits clearance from the Centre, which they might not get because of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (1971).
There is one other violation of a Central legislation in terms of the National Wetland Law. Under the Draft Regulatory Framework for Wetlands Conservation, compiled by the Indira Gandhi Centre for Development Research and issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests on May 24, 2010, solid waste dumping and discharge of untreated effluents on wetlands is prohibited. In extension to this, the Centre asked state governments to constitute a State Wetland Appraisal Committee to monitor the situation and shut down any illegal dumping on wetlands. Tamil Nadu is yet to set up such a committee.
Wednesday, 29 February 2012
The time void
There is a problem. It's hidden beneath a layer of pride that, in my opinion, is misguided and instigative. Nonetheless, it persists and must be noted.
[caption id="attachment_22543" align="alignleft" width="352" caption="QXP 6's user interface"]
[/caption]
I rediscovered it when I was first introduced to QuarkXPress 6.0 around 6 months ago. The software is used to design newspaper pages and other printed entities where content positioning is of some importance, like business cards. Working with it is a cumbersome affair. For one, the interface is outdated and had to have been put together without any awareness of the GUI design philosophies that were around in the early 2000s. For another, there is no sense of structure: where different tools could have been grouped together under one tab for convenience, there are none. All its myriad capabilities are there simply because they can be there; there is no purpose - which lends itself to different users in different forms for different reasons.
All this is forgivable because they are visible problems, problems that we known are there but problems that don't exactly interfere with what the software seems useful for. The issue is that QXP - as it is taught in classrooms in journalism colleges (which is an assumption I freely make because ACJ, where I study, is one of the better places to study journalism in India, and ACJ uses QXP) - consumes valuable time that could have been spent learning either what succeeded it, such as Adobe InDesign, or learning entirely something else.
The reason I say this is because once I graduate and find myself employed (hopefully), QXP is only going to take me so far. After a point, once professional demands are stepped up - an inevitable scenario - I will have to abandon the knowledge I have and spend some more time learning may way around a successor technology.
This is a problem that my friend and I addressed in early 2008, albeit superficially, by understanding its repercussions in the context of a school-goer. The principle bone of contention is that there is a loss of time: where only X hours should be spent in learning how to tackle a problem, at least 2X hours are spent.
Before I proceed, let me introduce, with relevance to this discussion, three phases within which some technology will exist in its lifetime.
(The titles are self-explanatory.)
Suppose a typical industrialist in a developed nation has come up with a new idea which is yet to be implemented productively in the global scene. He will invest his money in hiring scientists, programmers, etc., and in research and development of the product. When he releases the product into the market, it will surface as an emerging technology. Subsequently, the cost of this technology will be very high. There will still be buyers because of the originality of the idea and changes this idea can bring in to their lives.
From the money earned through this venture (profits), the industrialist will begin another project, hiring the intellectual cream of the world and invest the rest (or part of it) in R&D. This cycle is almost perpetual and has many side-effects.
When an industrialist in a developing nation is in the same situation and wants to commence a new project, the path will take be markedly different. Even though he or she may have sufficient funds for the venture, the risks involved in undertaking such a task in a developing scenario are comparatively higher. Also, owing to the inefficient cash flow channels, the money involved in this task will have to be either consumed by the labor force alone, or R&D alone. In such a situation, the industrialist will go for an easier solution: purchasing the product directly from the industrialist in the developed nation.
Now, on acquiring a new piece technology, the user has to get acquainted with its pros and cons and must be able to manipulate it to yield productive results. This process can take quite some time. At the end of this learning session, the user is now able to stand on the concepts of this idea and think of newer ones that surpass the existing level (innovation). In the developing nation, by the time the user has acquired the skills of the product he or she has purchased, newer ideas would have cropped up. This pushes the skills of the user to the old phase. He now has to start all over again just to sustain himself.
[caption id="attachment_22542" align="aligncenter" width="533" caption="On the x-axis, time, and on the y, phases of technology from 'Outdated' at the bottom to 'Emerging' at the top. Moving forward in time, the lines indicate progress. In the section between 'New' and 'Emerging' technologies, the way students and professionals in developed countries function is represented. As for those from developing countries, the representation is between 'Old' and 'New' technologies. Now, the orange line indicates the way a developing country moves forward, the green line the way we ought to move, and the blue line the way developed countries move."]
[/caption]
In any country, the academic curriculum and everything that we perceive is relative to the state of the technology that is in use. Our syllabi at school are framed on the basis of what is known and may be useful for the student. On the completion of education, when the student is emerging as a professional in some field, he will be exposed to the contemporary and practical scenario.
In a developed nation, the vicious circle is firmly established and running. The technological output out of this circle will be in the emerging phase when the individual is studying and will have evolved into the present or new phase when the individual becomes a professional. At this stage, the knowledge of the person will accommodate the concepts held by the present ideas. This way, he can use the present product and utilize it to bring in improvisations, as well as create new ones.
In a developing nation, owing to the vicious circle and economic risks, the students are masked from the news that a new product or idea has emerged elsewhere by their curriculum and syllabus. This way, when they emerge as professionals in their field of choice, they face a dilemma: owing to the emergence of a newer product, the knowledge they now have is shifted back into the old phase. To correct this, they undergo training and workshops before they can work and think productively.
This is a hidden problem and must be corrected as soon as possible.
[caption id="attachment_22543" align="alignleft" width="352" caption="QXP 6's user interface"]
[/caption]I rediscovered it when I was first introduced to QuarkXPress 6.0 around 6 months ago. The software is used to design newspaper pages and other printed entities where content positioning is of some importance, like business cards. Working with it is a cumbersome affair. For one, the interface is outdated and had to have been put together without any awareness of the GUI design philosophies that were around in the early 2000s. For another, there is no sense of structure: where different tools could have been grouped together under one tab for convenience, there are none. All its myriad capabilities are there simply because they can be there; there is no purpose - which lends itself to different users in different forms for different reasons.
All this is forgivable because they are visible problems, problems that we known are there but problems that don't exactly interfere with what the software seems useful for. The issue is that QXP - as it is taught in classrooms in journalism colleges (which is an assumption I freely make because ACJ, where I study, is one of the better places to study journalism in India, and ACJ uses QXP) - consumes valuable time that could have been spent learning either what succeeded it, such as Adobe InDesign, or learning entirely something else.
The reason I say this is because once I graduate and find myself employed (hopefully), QXP is only going to take me so far. After a point, once professional demands are stepped up - an inevitable scenario - I will have to abandon the knowledge I have and spend some more time learning may way around a successor technology.
This is a problem that my friend and I addressed in early 2008, albeit superficially, by understanding its repercussions in the context of a school-goer. The principle bone of contention is that there is a loss of time: where only X hours should be spent in learning how to tackle a problem, at least 2X hours are spent.
Before I proceed, let me introduce, with relevance to this discussion, three phases within which some technology will exist in its lifetime.
- Old
- Present/new
- Emerging
(The titles are self-explanatory.)
Suppose a typical industrialist in a developed nation has come up with a new idea which is yet to be implemented productively in the global scene. He will invest his money in hiring scientists, programmers, etc., and in research and development of the product. When he releases the product into the market, it will surface as an emerging technology. Subsequently, the cost of this technology will be very high. There will still be buyers because of the originality of the idea and changes this idea can bring in to their lives.
From the money earned through this venture (profits), the industrialist will begin another project, hiring the intellectual cream of the world and invest the rest (or part of it) in R&D. This cycle is almost perpetual and has many side-effects.
When an industrialist in a developing nation is in the same situation and wants to commence a new project, the path will take be markedly different. Even though he or she may have sufficient funds for the venture, the risks involved in undertaking such a task in a developing scenario are comparatively higher. Also, owing to the inefficient cash flow channels, the money involved in this task will have to be either consumed by the labor force alone, or R&D alone. In such a situation, the industrialist will go for an easier solution: purchasing the product directly from the industrialist in the developed nation.
Now, on acquiring a new piece technology, the user has to get acquainted with its pros and cons and must be able to manipulate it to yield productive results. This process can take quite some time. At the end of this learning session, the user is now able to stand on the concepts of this idea and think of newer ones that surpass the existing level (innovation). In the developing nation, by the time the user has acquired the skills of the product he or she has purchased, newer ideas would have cropped up. This pushes the skills of the user to the old phase. He now has to start all over again just to sustain himself.
[caption id="attachment_22542" align="aligncenter" width="533" caption="On the x-axis, time, and on the y, phases of technology from 'Outdated' at the bottom to 'Emerging' at the top. Moving forward in time, the lines indicate progress. In the section between 'New' and 'Emerging' technologies, the way students and professionals in developed countries function is represented. As for those from developing countries, the representation is between 'Old' and 'New' technologies. Now, the orange line indicates the way a developing country moves forward, the green line the way we ought to move, and the blue line the way developed countries move."]
[/caption]In any country, the academic curriculum and everything that we perceive is relative to the state of the technology that is in use. Our syllabi at school are framed on the basis of what is known and may be useful for the student. On the completion of education, when the student is emerging as a professional in some field, he will be exposed to the contemporary and practical scenario.
In a developed nation, the vicious circle is firmly established and running. The technological output out of this circle will be in the emerging phase when the individual is studying and will have evolved into the present or new phase when the individual becomes a professional. At this stage, the knowledge of the person will accommodate the concepts held by the present ideas. This way, he can use the present product and utilize it to bring in improvisations, as well as create new ones.
In a developing nation, owing to the vicious circle and economic risks, the students are masked from the news that a new product or idea has emerged elsewhere by their curriculum and syllabus. This way, when they emerge as professionals in their field of choice, they face a dilemma: owing to the emergence of a newer product, the knowledge they now have is shifted back into the old phase. To correct this, they undergo training and workshops before they can work and think productively.
This is a hidden problem and must be corrected as soon as possible.
Saturday, 4 February 2012
Neck-deep in the Netherlands
An excerpt from a piece that appeared in the European print edition of The Economist:
This report betokens the question: how effective is the Kyoto protocol in ensuring a good quality of life? If the purchase of emission rights is allowable to blunt the losses incurred when shifting from high-polluting to low-polluting infrastructure, then the redistribution of pollution around the globe is inevitable as the baton is passed from countries with higher growth volumes than those with lower ones. That is why nation-specific solutions to a global problem are meaningless.
Here's another one from the same article.
Pieter Boot is from the Dutch planning bureau for the environment. I see this as evidence that the environment and lifestyle aren't under the same banner, that even at policy-level, they aren't addressed with a unifying perspective. And this problem will last for as long as the state is able to treat sick people, because when demand outstrips supply, environmental pollution will become a more direct concern by having become a fiscal concern.
Just for the record, I'm not passing judgment. I'm saying that's just the way things are: if the state's coffers weren't filled so quickly, Dutch tourism would be non-existent, wouldn't it? We just have to discover relevance - instead of inventing it - and reorder our priorities as the times change. Personally, I believe we have a better chance at terraforming an exoplanet than managing to save the earth completely.
Carbon-dioxide emissions rose by 15% between 1990 and 2010. Only vast purchases of emission rights keep the Netherlands below its Kyoto targets.
This report betokens the question: how effective is the Kyoto protocol in ensuring a good quality of life? If the purchase of emission rights is allowable to blunt the losses incurred when shifting from high-polluting to low-polluting infrastructure, then the redistribution of pollution around the globe is inevitable as the baton is passed from countries with higher growth volumes than those with lower ones. That is why nation-specific solutions to a global problem are meaningless.
Here's another one from the same article.
... the UN's human-development index ranks it as the third-best place to live in the world, after Norway and Australia. High living standards, good health and low accident-mortality rates matter, says Mr. Boot.
Pieter Boot is from the Dutch planning bureau for the environment. I see this as evidence that the environment and lifestyle aren't under the same banner, that even at policy-level, they aren't addressed with a unifying perspective. And this problem will last for as long as the state is able to treat sick people, because when demand outstrips supply, environmental pollution will become a more direct concern by having become a fiscal concern.
Just for the record, I'm not passing judgment. I'm saying that's just the way things are: if the state's coffers weren't filled so quickly, Dutch tourism would be non-existent, wouldn't it? We just have to discover relevance - instead of inventing it - and reorder our priorities as the times change. Personally, I believe we have a better chance at terraforming an exoplanet than managing to save the earth completely.
Monday, 30 January 2012
Science education and statistical issues
This image below speaks volumes.
[caption id="attachment_21435" align="aligncenter" width="529" caption="From a report titled 'ASPIRES: Science and career aspirations (age 10-14)' compiled by the ASPIRES Project, London, 2012."]
[/caption]
What's keeping away the kids? More specifically, why is there an observable offset of interest from aspiration for children in the age group, as the report claims, 10-14? Here are some snippets from an otherwise incredibly boring report.
To this, the report suggests as a solution a broadening of scope in classrooms, to make science a "conceivable career" for students. But that seems to be trivializing the problem, which I think won't get sorted until classrooms are targeted individually. The problems of race and social class (or of caste and poverty in India) cannot be generalized impact-wise in any sense.
In India, in 1966, the Kothari Commission Report was submitted by Dr. D. S. Kothari to the Prime Minister. The report recommended that the government had to focus on a carefully chosen set of subjects in order to bolster its economy to meet certain important targets in the engineering sector.
Unfortunately, the curriculum that was created those five decades ago spurred a surplus of science and engineering graduates as well as colleges and institutions, conceiving a fixation that these and related courses translated to job security. Even though the situation may seem to be different today, a close examination will reveal that any Indian family is half-composed of engineers and management graduates.
My point is that participation rates - which could be purely because parents insist that their children study this or that and nothing else - don't necessarily translate into liking for the subjects. And when participation rates in schools are used by committees and organizations to predict what the future composition of graduates will be, their reports are likely to discourage further action in the sector.
The next point I strongly agree with, in both global and Indian contexts.
The 'science pipeline' model also goes on to create a certain profile of the larger science population (such as the image of a geek), to which certain minority groups may not be able to relate. That leads to discouragement and a closeting of aspirations.
The solution? I don't know. Maybe awareness? I'm skeptical.
[caption id="attachment_21435" align="aligncenter" width="529" caption="From a report titled 'ASPIRES: Science and career aspirations (age 10-14)' compiled by the ASPIRES Project, London, 2012."]
[/caption]What's keeping away the kids? More specifically, why is there an observable offset of interest from aspiration for children in the age group, as the report claims, 10-14? Here are some snippets from an otherwise incredibly boring report.
Research shows that young people’s aspirations are strongly influenced by their social backgrounds (e.g. by ‘race’/ethnicity, social class and gender) and family contexts where identity and cultural factors play an important role in shaping the perception of science as ‘not for me’.
To this, the report suggests as a solution a broadening of scope in classrooms, to make science a "conceivable career" for students. But that seems to be trivializing the problem, which I think won't get sorted until classrooms are targeted individually. The problems of race and social class (or of caste and poverty in India) cannot be generalized impact-wise in any sense.
... countries with high attainment and participation rates in mathematics (such as Japan) also record amongst the lowest levels of student liking for the subject.
In India, in 1966, the Kothari Commission Report was submitted by Dr. D. S. Kothari to the Prime Minister. The report recommended that the government had to focus on a carefully chosen set of subjects in order to bolster its economy to meet certain important targets in the engineering sector.
Unfortunately, the curriculum that was created those five decades ago spurred a surplus of science and engineering graduates as well as colleges and institutions, conceiving a fixation that these and related courses translated to job security. Even though the situation may seem to be different today, a close examination will reveal that any Indian family is half-composed of engineers and management graduates.
My point is that participation rates - which could be purely because parents insist that their children study this or that and nothing else - don't necessarily translate into liking for the subjects. And when participation rates in schools are used by committees and organizations to predict what the future composition of graduates will be, their reports are likely to discourage further action in the sector.
The next point I strongly agree with, in both global and Indian contexts.
Science education policy has been strongly criticised for assuming that its primary importance is to prepare the next generation of the nation’s professional scientists (the ‘science pipeline’ model).
The 'science pipeline' model also goes on to create a certain profile of the larger science population (such as the image of a geek), to which certain minority groups may not be able to relate. That leads to discouragement and a closeting of aspirations.
The solution? I don't know. Maybe awareness? I'm skeptical.
Monday, 23 January 2012
Cities of the future
An article titled 'What If There Were Another Technologically Advanced Species?' appeared on LiveScience on January 20, which spoke about how two intelligent species would coexist on the same planet. The article assumed that one of the species to be human for arguments' sake, and charted out, albeit superficially, how their culture would shape up in the presence of another species.
The article was fascinating for two reasons. The first reason is a not-so-important one: that LiveScience picked such a curious topic to write about. The second reason is that this clash of civilizations can be envisaged not only as a clash of two cultures but, by extension, also as a clash of two political states. Because the author, Natalie Wolchover, mentions in the article that conflicts arise when resources and/or ideologies are matters of contention between two factions, why not attempt to understand what might happen at the interface of conflict of two cities?
William Harcourt-Smith, whose opinions on the subject have been solicited in the article, says that the most likely outcome of an encounter is armed conflict. And if one of the two sides is stronger in anyway than the other, the latter will be eventually thoroughly defeated. However, if after years of internecine of warfare, no side has emerged victorious, they either start to populate geographically different parts of the planet or adapt to consume different resources - like what happened with the Darwin's finches and their beaks.
[caption id="attachment_21359" align="aligncenter" width="450" caption="The beaks of Darwin's finches"]
[/caption]
Cities as today's centres of development are expanding at sprightly rates, especially at their peripheries, where they "acquire" land around them during the urbanization process. They attract investments, they sustain development by providing opportunities for growth, and they consume resources whose value originates from the people inhabiting the cities. With this picture in mind, it is not hard to imagine a time in the future when some cities have grown so massive that, apart from being political and military powerhouses, they could get in the way of development of another such supercity.
And when two supercities clash, they could closely resemble the clash between two intelligent civilizations. Assuming that each city wants different resources, according to Harcourt-Smith, the cities will ignore each other as long as they're not competing for the same thing. In reality, however, all cities have many things in common, such as water, food and electricity. So if one city treads on the toes of a second, then the pressure on existing water-related infrastructure will force conflict, for example.
At the same time, if there is abundant water, food, electricity and other amenities available, and if we posit a significant difference in the cultures of the two cities, how would the outcomes chart out? Will one city's "essence" percolate into the other, like a cultural invasion, until the other's culture becomes highly localized? Will the tendency to ignore persist such that, over time, two distinct sub-species of humans exist? Will the cost of conflict deter cities from expanding to that extent at all and keep them bound to a well-defined region?
I seemed to have assumed, subconsciously, that cities will be allowed to grow and operate freely without the intervention of the state governments. This is not the case... presently. There have been policy-makers and academics in the past who have advocated for a city free of larger political intervention, and even though that's obviously a long way off, it's an idea that has a good chance of becoming real sometime within the next few centuries.
The article was fascinating for two reasons. The first reason is a not-so-important one: that LiveScience picked such a curious topic to write about. The second reason is that this clash of civilizations can be envisaged not only as a clash of two cultures but, by extension, also as a clash of two political states. Because the author, Natalie Wolchover, mentions in the article that conflicts arise when resources and/or ideologies are matters of contention between two factions, why not attempt to understand what might happen at the interface of conflict of two cities?
William Harcourt-Smith, whose opinions on the subject have been solicited in the article, says that the most likely outcome of an encounter is armed conflict. And if one of the two sides is stronger in anyway than the other, the latter will be eventually thoroughly defeated. However, if after years of internecine of warfare, no side has emerged victorious, they either start to populate geographically different parts of the planet or adapt to consume different resources - like what happened with the Darwin's finches and their beaks.
[caption id="attachment_21359" align="aligncenter" width="450" caption="The beaks of Darwin's finches"]
[/caption]Cities as today's centres of development are expanding at sprightly rates, especially at their peripheries, where they "acquire" land around them during the urbanization process. They attract investments, they sustain development by providing opportunities for growth, and they consume resources whose value originates from the people inhabiting the cities. With this picture in mind, it is not hard to imagine a time in the future when some cities have grown so massive that, apart from being political and military powerhouses, they could get in the way of development of another such supercity.
And when two supercities clash, they could closely resemble the clash between two intelligent civilizations. Assuming that each city wants different resources, according to Harcourt-Smith, the cities will ignore each other as long as they're not competing for the same thing. In reality, however, all cities have many things in common, such as water, food and electricity. So if one city treads on the toes of a second, then the pressure on existing water-related infrastructure will force conflict, for example.
At the same time, if there is abundant water, food, electricity and other amenities available, and if we posit a significant difference in the cultures of the two cities, how would the outcomes chart out? Will one city's "essence" percolate into the other, like a cultural invasion, until the other's culture becomes highly localized? Will the tendency to ignore persist such that, over time, two distinct sub-species of humans exist? Will the cost of conflict deter cities from expanding to that extent at all and keep them bound to a well-defined region?
I seemed to have assumed, subconsciously, that cities will be allowed to grow and operate freely without the intervention of the state governments. This is not the case... presently. There have been policy-makers and academics in the past who have advocated for a city free of larger political intervention, and even though that's obviously a long way off, it's an idea that has a good chance of becoming real sometime within the next few centuries.
Monday, 9 January 2012
The nature of machines
Every time there's a man-made disaster that's happened, a kind of talk finally emerges about Mother Nature biting us back for what we did and how it was a disaster waiting to happen. I don't think there's any such thing as a "disaster waiting to happen" (disasters happen because no one could have predicted their occurrence) but I digress.
We tend to say such things because they are a kind of background on which our civilization is based. Without it, we'd be nothing: all of our most important resources would disappear and the habitability of the world would decline alarmingly. Like some theoretical physicists say, we're background-dependent.
However, all that would still be just as right as it was about 200 years ago if our form of engagement with nature hadn't changed. With the advent of machines, humans moved out from within the resources-processing interface and into the processed-consumption interface.
Obviously, two-hundred years prior, the price of a product could have been determined by how dangerous it was to acquire the resources required to make it. Today, the price of the product is determined by how many people want to consume it.
As Adam Smith argued in the Wealth of Nations (Book 01 chapter 07):
The industrial interface has created a quick process through which absolute demand can become effectual demand (albeit for the purpose of capitalization): it makes previously unaffordable products wanted at first, and then cheaper, and then accessible.
In other words, our background dependence has shifted away from simply nature and towards simply industry. In fact, our engagement with nature is mediated in significant part by our engagement with various industries. Even if we ignore the very-real possibility that there's no clean way to do certain things, the immediate focus is more on consumption patterns than on industrial processes.
That's because everything is demand driven. If there is enough demand for a commodity, then it must be manufactured until the need has been satiated. Such thinking leaves no space for the evaluation of options during the resources-processing stage.
Who, then, watches the watchers? Who has an eye or, better yet, a hand over demand? Is there any such thing as consumer social responsibility? I suppose it's only been gaining traction for a decade or so with the coming of social media and greater general awareness on and accessibility of environmental issues.
However, it's not enough. Just because there are more people consuming than there are people producing doesn't mean the consumers will won; it can never be a war of numbers. On the other hand, I believe that those who engage with the environment in producing things for us to consume should have some say - and how much say should be the focus of policy-level debate. Consumer social responsibility can, at best, influence only how much wealth is created and not how it is created.
If anything, we should've learnt this from the penetration of social media, and technology by extension, into our lives: the way technology develops is hinged significantly on our perception of its capabilities. What technology becomes capable of doing is navigated by what we want it to do more than anything else.
Looks like I digressed anyway. What I (actually) wanted to ask was: with this new background-dependence on industrial processes, will the biggest disasters "waiting to happen" change from the natural kind to the industrial kind? Will they focus less on things such as resource depletion and more on possible resource use?
We've started to toy with industries in an effort to mitigate their impact on nature: if something's going wrong with the natural world, we quickly take a step back and make the necessary corrections on the industrial whiteboard. But because of a changing dynamic, surely this knee-jerk must have long-term effects.
--
This is an extension of something that Isaac Asimov touched on in one of his non-fiction pieces called 'The Robot Chronicles'.
We tend to say such things because they are a kind of background on which our civilization is based. Without it, we'd be nothing: all of our most important resources would disappear and the habitability of the world would decline alarmingly. Like some theoretical physicists say, we're background-dependent.
However, all that would still be just as right as it was about 200 years ago if our form of engagement with nature hadn't changed. With the advent of machines, humans moved out from within the resources-processing interface and into the processed-consumption interface.
Obviously, two-hundred years prior, the price of a product could have been determined by how dangerous it was to acquire the resources required to make it. Today, the price of the product is determined by how many people want to consume it.
As Adam Smith argued in the Wealth of Nations (Book 01 chapter 07):
The market price of every particular commodity is regulated by the proportion between the quantity which is actually brought to market, and the demand of those who are willing to pay the natural price of the commodity, or the whole value of the rent, labour, and profit, which must be paid in order to bring it thither. Such people may be called the effectual demanders, and their demand the effectual demand; since it may be sufficient to effectuate the bringing of the commodity to market. It is different from the absolute demand. A very poor man may be said in some sense to have a demand for a coach and six; he might like to have it; but his demand is not an effectual demand, as the commodity can never be brought to market in order to satisfy it.
The industrial interface has created a quick process through which absolute demand can become effectual demand (albeit for the purpose of capitalization): it makes previously unaffordable products wanted at first, and then cheaper, and then accessible.
In other words, our background dependence has shifted away from simply nature and towards simply industry. In fact, our engagement with nature is mediated in significant part by our engagement with various industries. Even if we ignore the very-real possibility that there's no clean way to do certain things, the immediate focus is more on consumption patterns than on industrial processes.
That's because everything is demand driven. If there is enough demand for a commodity, then it must be manufactured until the need has been satiated. Such thinking leaves no space for the evaluation of options during the resources-processing stage.
Who, then, watches the watchers? Who has an eye or, better yet, a hand over demand? Is there any such thing as consumer social responsibility? I suppose it's only been gaining traction for a decade or so with the coming of social media and greater general awareness on and accessibility of environmental issues.
However, it's not enough. Just because there are more people consuming than there are people producing doesn't mean the consumers will won; it can never be a war of numbers. On the other hand, I believe that those who engage with the environment in producing things for us to consume should have some say - and how much say should be the focus of policy-level debate. Consumer social responsibility can, at best, influence only how much wealth is created and not how it is created.
If anything, we should've learnt this from the penetration of social media, and technology by extension, into our lives: the way technology develops is hinged significantly on our perception of its capabilities. What technology becomes capable of doing is navigated by what we want it to do more than anything else.
Looks like I digressed anyway. What I (actually) wanted to ask was: with this new background-dependence on industrial processes, will the biggest disasters "waiting to happen" change from the natural kind to the industrial kind? Will they focus less on things such as resource depletion and more on possible resource use?
We've started to toy with industries in an effort to mitigate their impact on nature: if something's going wrong with the natural world, we quickly take a step back and make the necessary corrections on the industrial whiteboard. But because of a changing dynamic, surely this knee-jerk must have long-term effects.
--
This is an extension of something that Isaac Asimov touched on in one of his non-fiction pieces called 'The Robot Chronicles'.
Musings on the nature of wealth
The way we live dictates what we think are problems, and what we think are problems determines what we'd like to address and get out of the way first. In this context, there has definitely been a transition from preserving growth in the long-term living standards of the future generations to preserving the earth as it is. That's because the way we look at long-term living standards has changed.
The biggest risk we now face, consequently, is a definition of growth that is critically temporal. In between nature and man, there's the machine (resource-processing → processed product). How we grow and how much we grow is how well-oiled the machine is and what it's built to do, and our dependence on it is utterly unavoidable. Therefore, it is important to keep the machine running because if it breaks down, it will be man and nature once again.
And man-and-nature wouldn't be so bad if not for countries like India. In India, globalization is halfhearted, and capitalism fights a battle every day against a socialist old-order that refuses to fade. Man-and-nature cannot be allowed to happen in India because efforts to sustain an improvement on our long-term living standards are inadequate and, in fact, need to be stepped up. Only then do we stand a chance of competing in a future where wealth will be more valuable.
And wealth will be more valuable because of two reasons.
Like The Economist argued in an article that appeared on December 18 last year:
And strict limits on carbon emissions in the future means expenditure.
This brings us to the evaluation of how our wealth is created. Wealth is born in the presence of demand, and demand exists because commodities exist. Demands control the price of commodities, but the price must also be controlled by decisions made by the manufacturer. When dependence on industry outstrips dependence on nature, wealth creation will outstrip wealth itself.
The biggest risk we now face, consequently, is a definition of growth that is critically temporal. In between nature and man, there's the machine (resource-processing → processed product). How we grow and how much we grow is how well-oiled the machine is and what it's built to do, and our dependence on it is utterly unavoidable. Therefore, it is important to keep the machine running because if it breaks down, it will be man and nature once again.
And man-and-nature wouldn't be so bad if not for countries like India. In India, globalization is halfhearted, and capitalism fights a battle every day against a socialist old-order that refuses to fade. Man-and-nature cannot be allowed to happen in India because efforts to sustain an improvement on our long-term living standards are inadequate and, in fact, need to be stepped up. Only then do we stand a chance of competing in a future where wealth will be more valuable.
And wealth will be more valuable because of two reasons.
- It will purchase relatively more valuable portions of the consumption pie than it does today.
- It will provide us with the leverage to outlast conflicts because larger shares of the pie will have to come at the cost of someone else's.
Like The Economist argued in an article that appeared on December 18 last year:
Insuring against catastrophe means trying to boost future wealth, and that means that if you're going to borrow, it's important to channel that borrowing into investment. The good thing current consumers get as compensation is the ability to burn away cheap fossil fuels. If disaster prevention is the key, by contrast, then consumers can borrow now for the purpose of consumption, but they must compensate the future by facing strict limits on carbon emissions.
And strict limits on carbon emissions in the future means expenditure.
This brings us to the evaluation of how our wealth is created. Wealth is born in the presence of demand, and demand exists because commodities exist. Demands control the price of commodities, but the price must also be controlled by decisions made by the manufacturer. When dependence on industry outstrips dependence on nature, wealth creation will outstrip wealth itself.
Sunday, 8 January 2012
The resolved pleasure of rural journalism
On January 2, 2012, I didn't think rural journalism would be something I could come to like. Being a science nerd, amongst other things, I always thought my heart would lie with the urban side of things: huge laboratories smashing the smallest things together, guilt-spasmed corporations funding obscure research, the grand designs and the fervent pursuit of knowledge, and essentially all things developed. However, meeting with the fishermen, farmers and salt pan workers of Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu, shook the foundation I took for granted enough to have me reconsider my options. At first, at least.
The first sensation that becomes apparent is that, in rural journalism, public participation is much greater than on the urban side. In India, that's just because government policy is conspicuously biased toward the urban populace and urbanization, leaving the rural and the poor to fend for themselves in an economic environment that takes more than it gives. When the journalist shows himself, he finds that his place has already been clearly marked out: adversary to the government, darling of the masses, assumed to be sacrificial and, in many cases, leftist.
For the uninitiated, i.e. me, that's the sort of attention I've to really fight to get when working in science journalism. When reporting science stories, I don't have the assured readership of thousands of people, I don't have the constant reminder that if I goof up somewhere, actual lives and livelihoods will be rattled with it, and most of all, I don't have a fresh crop of stories day after day, week after week. Fortunately, and disregarding all these terrible thoughts (that have only the effect of bogging me down), what reportage in rural India will do best is reinforce your purpose as a journalist. That at the lowest level, journalism is as pertinent and life-changing as influencing economic policy is at the highest level.
At the same time, it becomes very easy to get lost in a sea of the micro: micro-political issues are rampant and most of them are self-limiting, and micro-economic issues often restrict the penetration of "urban goodness". With such regular and close contact with the deprived, most journalistic remediation focuses on the micro-issue of mitigation of the effects of resource theft. What IMHO it should focus on is the mitigation of the effects of improper deployment and administration, which is the root cause of all the theft.
For instance, the Sterlite copper smelting plant situated on the coast, next to Tuticorin's harbour, has been accused of severely polluting the neighbouring waters, depleting the water of the Thamirabharani, and undermining the significance of local and more traditional industries. I don't think that's what Sterlite has done. I think that's what all copper smelting plants do when the government can't step up and do its bit: modify policy perspectives to prevent abuse in the face of demand and have a hand on long-term evolution characteristics, broadly speaking.
However, because of a queasy and money-mongering government, Sterlite operations everywhere will take a hit. People will quote the damage the corporation has wrecked in south Tamil Nadu even if a plant is coming up somewhere where the necessary safeguards are in place. Industrialism is not all that dispensable, if you didn't know, and toying around with it for personal gains is only going to delegitimize its already-pocked facade. This is one of the most important perspectives of rural journalists that needs to be emphasized: that stories extend far beyond the interface of the deprived and the depleter, that just because they're not visible to the naked eye doesn't mean they aren't there.
[caption id="attachment_21204" align="aligncenter" width="266" caption="P. Sainath is an award-winning rural journalist who works efficiently between the deprived and the depleter, but his negligence of remedial measures makes him a cynic-in-power."]
[/caption]
All in all, I had a wonderful time talking to the people in Vagaikulam, Aalanthalai, Rajapandinagar, Nattaathi, Periyakulam, Subramaniyapuram, Srivaikundam, people employed in paddy-farming and banana plantations, raking salt in the salt pans, fishing, pearl-diving, weaving, and trading, people generous with their food, cynicism, homes and opinions. For a change, it felt strangely good to travel vast distances just to solicit the petitions of a few men and women under the grating January sun simply because there was someone waiting for a listen. That was the moment of (selfish?) pleasure that made the trip worth it.
The first sensation that becomes apparent is that, in rural journalism, public participation is much greater than on the urban side. In India, that's just because government policy is conspicuously biased toward the urban populace and urbanization, leaving the rural and the poor to fend for themselves in an economic environment that takes more than it gives. When the journalist shows himself, he finds that his place has already been clearly marked out: adversary to the government, darling of the masses, assumed to be sacrificial and, in many cases, leftist.
For the uninitiated, i.e. me, that's the sort of attention I've to really fight to get when working in science journalism. When reporting science stories, I don't have the assured readership of thousands of people, I don't have the constant reminder that if I goof up somewhere, actual lives and livelihoods will be rattled with it, and most of all, I don't have a fresh crop of stories day after day, week after week. Fortunately, and disregarding all these terrible thoughts (that have only the effect of bogging me down), what reportage in rural India will do best is reinforce your purpose as a journalist. That at the lowest level, journalism is as pertinent and life-changing as influencing economic policy is at the highest level.
At the same time, it becomes very easy to get lost in a sea of the micro: micro-political issues are rampant and most of them are self-limiting, and micro-economic issues often restrict the penetration of "urban goodness". With such regular and close contact with the deprived, most journalistic remediation focuses on the micro-issue of mitigation of the effects of resource theft. What IMHO it should focus on is the mitigation of the effects of improper deployment and administration, which is the root cause of all the theft.
For instance, the Sterlite copper smelting plant situated on the coast, next to Tuticorin's harbour, has been accused of severely polluting the neighbouring waters, depleting the water of the Thamirabharani, and undermining the significance of local and more traditional industries. I don't think that's what Sterlite has done. I think that's what all copper smelting plants do when the government can't step up and do its bit: modify policy perspectives to prevent abuse in the face of demand and have a hand on long-term evolution characteristics, broadly speaking.
However, because of a queasy and money-mongering government, Sterlite operations everywhere will take a hit. People will quote the damage the corporation has wrecked in south Tamil Nadu even if a plant is coming up somewhere where the necessary safeguards are in place. Industrialism is not all that dispensable, if you didn't know, and toying around with it for personal gains is only going to delegitimize its already-pocked facade. This is one of the most important perspectives of rural journalists that needs to be emphasized: that stories extend far beyond the interface of the deprived and the depleter, that just because they're not visible to the naked eye doesn't mean they aren't there.
[caption id="attachment_21204" align="aligncenter" width="266" caption="P. Sainath is an award-winning rural journalist who works efficiently between the deprived and the depleter, but his negligence of remedial measures makes him a cynic-in-power."]
[/caption]All in all, I had a wonderful time talking to the people in Vagaikulam, Aalanthalai, Rajapandinagar, Nattaathi, Periyakulam, Subramaniyapuram, Srivaikundam, people employed in paddy-farming and banana plantations, raking salt in the salt pans, fishing, pearl-diving, weaving, and trading, people generous with their food, cynicism, homes and opinions. For a change, it felt strangely good to travel vast distances just to solicit the petitions of a few men and women under the grating January sun simply because there was someone waiting for a listen. That was the moment of (selfish?) pleasure that made the trip worth it.
Friday, 9 December 2011
Tackling Redhouse gas emissions
The 17th conference on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change claims to have invited delegates from all member states of the UN to discuss on and arrive at a consensus toward the future of the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in December next year. However, recent trends amongst participants have shown that the principle negotiating blocks are the USA, the EU and the BRICS nations: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Unfortunately, trends have also shown that no consensus on anything is reached until the last moment of the conference, thanks primarily to the lack of commitment each nation is willing to put up.
The Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997, put a binding legal agreement upon developed nations (or, as it calls them, “annex 1 nations”) to cut down on their emissions or face UN-imposed sanctions. As frail as the embargoes may themselves sound, most developed nations with the exception of the USA ratified the agreement and began the arduous process of, to use an appropriate mathematical term, “leaning” down. A recent study by The Economist has emerged that shows how Czechoslovakia cut down its emissions by as much as 30 per cent. But that misses the point: the focus has since shifted away from every country to a certain group of countries, each with its own brand of interests.
The successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which will take effect from 2015 onward if it is formulated in 2011 or 2012, will have to accommodate the emissions of developing nations. Before the Kyoto Protocol came into effect, more than half of all global emissions came from developed nations; today, 58 per cent of all emissions are by developing nations. This means that a binding legal agreement will have to lean down the USA, the EU as well as the BRICS bloc, and therein lies the rub.
The USA is willing to accede to such an agreement if the same limits and sanctions are imposed on all countries that ratify it, shirking away from a West-specific clause that will jeopardise its capacity to keep the Chinese, Indian and Brazilian economies in check. India, in turn, has a different concern altogether. The average emissions per capita per annum of an Indian are a mere 1.2 tonnes, and with more than 400 million of its people still living in poverty, India’s needs are more pressing than America’s because its need for development is righteously immense. Therefore, leashing both the USA and India with the same amount of rope makes no sense. However, the prospect of finally leashing the USA has the EU excited, which makes the BRICS’s resistance all the more important, all the more precarious.
Because of the significant unified bargaining power of the BRICS block, the biggest threat it could face is one of its members breaking rank, which the head of the Chinese delegate almost did. On December 6, Mr. Xie Zhenhua announced that China was ready to participate in a treaty that would legally bind both developing and developed nations, an announcement that is sure to have sent a shiver down the convention’s spine. However, before anything radical materialized, Mr. Zhenhua clarified that China was willing to participate in a treaty that would bind only the developed nations even though developing nations would be a part of it.
What is he trying to say? That the developing nations will evaluate the greenhouse gas emissions of the developed nations? Or that China was prepared to break away and form its own bargaining front? Or was it simply a case of reckless overstepping that was quickly mitigated by the realization that China would have nowhere to go from thereon? Greenhouse gases can step aside: it seems a blast of hot, red air demands some attention now.
The Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997, put a binding legal agreement upon developed nations (or, as it calls them, “annex 1 nations”) to cut down on their emissions or face UN-imposed sanctions. As frail as the embargoes may themselves sound, most developed nations with the exception of the USA ratified the agreement and began the arduous process of, to use an appropriate mathematical term, “leaning” down. A recent study by The Economist has emerged that shows how Czechoslovakia cut down its emissions by as much as 30 per cent. But that misses the point: the focus has since shifted away from every country to a certain group of countries, each with its own brand of interests.
The successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which will take effect from 2015 onward if it is formulated in 2011 or 2012, will have to accommodate the emissions of developing nations. Before the Kyoto Protocol came into effect, more than half of all global emissions came from developed nations; today, 58 per cent of all emissions are by developing nations. This means that a binding legal agreement will have to lean down the USA, the EU as well as the BRICS bloc, and therein lies the rub.
The USA is willing to accede to such an agreement if the same limits and sanctions are imposed on all countries that ratify it, shirking away from a West-specific clause that will jeopardise its capacity to keep the Chinese, Indian and Brazilian economies in check. India, in turn, has a different concern altogether. The average emissions per capita per annum of an Indian are a mere 1.2 tonnes, and with more than 400 million of its people still living in poverty, India’s needs are more pressing than America’s because its need for development is righteously immense. Therefore, leashing both the USA and India with the same amount of rope makes no sense. However, the prospect of finally leashing the USA has the EU excited, which makes the BRICS’s resistance all the more important, all the more precarious.
Because of the significant unified bargaining power of the BRICS block, the biggest threat it could face is one of its members breaking rank, which the head of the Chinese delegate almost did. On December 6, Mr. Xie Zhenhua announced that China was ready to participate in a treaty that would legally bind both developing and developed nations, an announcement that is sure to have sent a shiver down the convention’s spine. However, before anything radical materialized, Mr. Zhenhua clarified that China was willing to participate in a treaty that would bind only the developed nations even though developing nations would be a part of it.
What is he trying to say? That the developing nations will evaluate the greenhouse gas emissions of the developed nations? Or that China was prepared to break away and form its own bargaining front? Or was it simply a case of reckless overstepping that was quickly mitigated by the realization that China would have nowhere to go from thereon? Greenhouse gases can step aside: it seems a blast of hot, red air demands some attention now.
Monday, 5 December 2011
Another look at the displacement v. development debate
What is development?
I would interpret all development as a biological process, one that mimics natural processes. In this framework, development is the process through which each system attains maturity, a position of sufficiency and sustainability.
Maturity in whose interest? In the interests of the people? That is a secular definition that assumes everybody has all kinds of information required to make the decision. Therefore, development comes down to transparency that enables as well as reflects informed decision-making. I say secular because in such a definition of development, it becomes easy to exclude a world of foreign nations, which is not the case.
Consequently, a nation’s developmental trajectory is dictated significantly by foreign interests. In my opinion, thus, the developmental mechanism must work toward increasing the regional purchasing power so that our say in the international trade arena holds more weight.
The problem
Displacement versus development is a problem particularly difficult to explore because, beyond the initial recognition of the government’s role as being “villainous”, there is not much that has been said or done to establish a line beyond which displacement becomes simply necessary. The pursuit of developmental goals by the Indian government has resulted in over 21.3 million being displaced internally according to a 1998 report by the Indian Social Institute. Almost 5.8 per cent, or 1.25 million, of them have been displaced by the establishment of industrial estates1.
Development seems like a two-faced engine: (1) it works toward increasing our purchasing power regarding resources we may need in the future and (2) it consumes important resources required for its sustenance that the nation may not be in a position to provide. For instance, the proposed installation of two nuclear reactors at Kudankulam will generate 2,000 MW of power, which is over and above Tamil Nadu’s shortage (659 MW). Apart from this, another 11,540 MW is to be added between 2012 and 2016 with the installation of 17 power plants around the state, eight of them having already been sanctioned2.
Now, as environmentalists and others in the area protest against constructing a plant that poses significant risks to the livelihoods of residents, a question that goes under-attended is that of necessity: which are the quarters that require this 12,881 MW(the total 13,540 MW minus the deficit) of energy? What has been done, either by private parties or the government, to determine if such demands are legitimate? We must ask why Kudankulam and why not in Chennai, whose population actually stands to benefit from the operation of the reactors. What else is being done to whittle down unnecessary losses that have resulted in such huge power shortages?
In light of such seeming discrimination, the problem statements are two.
- Why is the government intent on displacing those peoples who are poised to benefit the least from the projects that displace them?
- Can development become necessary under any conditions and assume precedence over displacement?
The real villain, the real villainy
In India, I believe that the problem has never purely been one of displacement v. development, even though the conflict between those who champion either cause is what birthed it. According to Dr. Prabhat Patnaik, one of India’s leading economists, the central government’s adoption of a capitalist economic model will produce problems unique to the country because capitalism is being superimposed on an “old order” that hasn’t fully been dismantled. This is where the adivasi resides.
- Developmental cap - When it comes to the displacement of adivasis, a symbolic cap is necessary to discourage the government from favouring one section of the population more than the other, in the process expanding a gap that it has been elected to work against! Since government accountability for state-instituted displacement, especially as a result of land acquisition, is virtually absent, there is nothing to prevent the problem from worsening except an undertaking on the state’s part.
It must undertake to frame its growth rate according to a plebiscit decreed by the people in the absence of congressmen and patricians at the order of a magistrate or a tribune, and it must work with the plebiscit as a strict guideline. This is similar to what has already been mandated by the new Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Bill, 2011. - Consumption cap - If, at the policy level, a framework can be built that prioritizes the rights of the Dongria Kondh over the demand for bauxite mined from the Niyamgiri Hills in Orissa, what are the processes on the other side of the wall that will determine how much we reduce our consumption of aluminium by? Because we cannot plug a hole at one end of the pipe and expect the water levels at the other end to not rise up.
Conclusion
Yes, someone must suffer a loss of some kind for the sake of development, but instead of sustaining growth rates at precarious costs, why isn’t there any faith in the aspirations of the adivasis themselves? Why is it that adivasis are being targeted again and again instead of the state inculcating a program that will successfully reintegrate them into modern society, moderate growth rates to reasonable levels, and ensure that the notion of progress is no longer mired in controversy?
I hold that integration into modern society is more desirable than tribalizing the modern society because of the mechanisms we require to remain on a competitive note with our traders and strategic partners. At the same time, there is no doubt that we have lost control over our own internal homogenization. It is true that our first duty is toward ourselves, but what it has been lost to requires a look at India’s foreign relations and political history, which possesses its own special share of flaws. However, regression in the post-globalization age would be incredibly painful.
My answer is that under some circumstances, displacement could become simply necessary. While, there can be no excuse for the government to snatch land from its citizens for any use, except those expediently required (such as national defence, etc.), that is a matter of enforcement: without rehabilitation and resettlement, it is just unconstitutional.
It would be more harmful for the Indian economy, and the important subsidies it provides that sustains large sections of the rural population, in the short- and long-terms to cease its current trade partnerships and other strategic commitments than to resist globalization and modernization and start on a path toward complete self-sufficiency. The only leeway on top of it is that we need an equitable distribution of development because only that promises the convergence of globalization with our social harmony to some extent.
Sources
Monday, 21 November 2011
We, not the people.
Displacement versus development is a problem particularly difficult to explore because, beyond the initial recognition of the government's role as being "villainous", there is not much that has been said or done to establish a line beyond which displacement, with rehabilitation, becomes simply necessary. The pursuit of developmental goals by the Indian government has resulted in over 21.3 million being displaced internally according to a 1998 report by the Indian Social Institute, and almost 5.8 per cent, or 1.25 million, of them have been displaced by the establishment of industrial estates.
On the one hand, development seems like a two-faced engine that, whilst making possible a future wherein important resources may be purchased, consumes important resources required for its sustenance that the nation may not be in a position to provide. The proposed installation of two nuclear reactors at Kudankulam, for instance, will generate 2,000 MW of power, which is over and above Tamil Nadu's shortage (659 MW). Apart from this, another 11,540 MW is to be added with the proposed installation of 17 power plants around the state, eight of them having already been sanctioned.
Now, as environmentalists and others in the area protest against constructing a plant that poses significant risks to the livelihoods of residents, a question that goes under-attended is that of necessity: which are the quarters that require this 12,881 MW of energy? What has been done, either by private parties or the government, to determine if such demands are legitimate?
Further, in order for the government to be in a position to define future growth in any sector, it must first be in a position to produce the necessary resources indigenously. In an increasingly urbanized context, however, those displaced are usually from the countryside - especially farmers, who are reliant on natural resources directly for their sustenance - and, therefore, upon displacing them, the government is only displacing the nation's principle conservationists. In light of such seeming discrimination, the problem statements are two instead of one.
In India, I believe that the problem has never purely been one of displacement v. development, even though the conflict between those who champion either cause is what birthed it. According to Dr. Prabhat Patnaik, one of India's leading economists, the central government's adoption of a capitalist economic model will produce problems unique to the country because capitalism is being superimposed on an "old order" that hasn't fully been dismantled. Whether or not it merits dismantlement is another question, but it is definitely unfair to systematically target a certain section of the population.
Subsequently, even before we are in a position to centre a debate around the safeguards against a reactor meltdown at Kudankulam, we must ask why Kudankulam and why not the outskirts of Chennai, whose population actually stands to benefit from the operation of the reactors. We must ask what else is being done to whittle down unnecessary "losses" that have resulted in such huge power shortages.
Considering that the previous argument did not concern itself with the mining of natural resources: when it comes to the displacement of adivasis, a symbolic cap is necessary to discourage the government from favouring one section of the population more than the other, in the process expanding a gap that it has been elected to work against! Since government accountability for state-instituted displacement, especially as a consequence of land acquisition, is virtually absent, there is nothing to prevent the problem from worsening except an undertaking on the state's part: that it will frame its growth rate in consultation with representatives from all industries without exception.
(In the absence of rehabilitation, those displaced from their lands become akin to refugees, such as those displaced by armed conflict, despite the granting of refugee status being at the discretion of political authorities. Post-displacement, projects aimed at rejuvenating the adivasi communities have only been on an ad hoc basis.
Even in the latest Draft National Rehabilitation Policy (NRP) 2006, those affected by the acquisition of their land do not have the right to be consulted before their property is chosen for acquisition. While there are landowners who have indeed agreed to hand over their land to the government, they are reluctant to do so until the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Act is passed. Unfortunately, the corresponding bill is not listed among the 31 priority bills of the Parliament's winter session in 2011.)
If, at the policy level, a framework can be brought into existence that mandates a process through which, say, the rights of the Dongria Kondh are prioritized over the demand for bauxite mined from the Niyamgiri Hills in Orissa, what are the processes on the other side of the wall that will determine how much we reduce our consumption of aluminium by? Because we cannot plug a hole at one end of the pipe and expect the water levels at the other end to not rise up.
[caption id="attachment_20760" align="aligncenter" width="325" caption="Bauxite mining (top); Vedanta Alumina, a subsidiary of Sterlite Industries, Ltd., which received the controversial clearance from the SC to proceed with bauxite mining in the Niyamgiri Hills"]
[/caption]
Yes, someone must suffer a loss of some kind for the sake of development, but instead of sustaining growth rates at precarious costs, why isn't there any faith in the aspirations of the adivasis themselves? Why is it that adivasis are being targeted again and again instead of inculcating a program that will successfully reintegrate them into modern society, moderate growth rates to reasonable levels, and ensure that the notion of progress is no longer mired in controversy?
I am not against nuclear power or bauxite mining but for it; what I am against is the government's tendency to define "public interests" without the real interests of the "public" in mind. India needs some amount of aluminium and some amount of energy to realize some of its projected growth rates; what it doesn't need is the dousing of such important issues in a socio-political quagmire. Displacement v. development is, uniquely, a human rights issue, and it is an environmental issue as well, and while we are debating it, it is important to be aware of the human rights and environmental factors that influence the parameters whose traits we take for granted.
On the one hand, development seems like a two-faced engine that, whilst making possible a future wherein important resources may be purchased, consumes important resources required for its sustenance that the nation may not be in a position to provide. The proposed installation of two nuclear reactors at Kudankulam, for instance, will generate 2,000 MW of power, which is over and above Tamil Nadu's shortage (659 MW). Apart from this, another 11,540 MW is to be added with the proposed installation of 17 power plants around the state, eight of them having already been sanctioned.
Now, as environmentalists and others in the area protest against constructing a plant that poses significant risks to the livelihoods of residents, a question that goes under-attended is that of necessity: which are the quarters that require this 12,881 MW of energy? What has been done, either by private parties or the government, to determine if such demands are legitimate?
Further, in order for the government to be in a position to define future growth in any sector, it must first be in a position to produce the necessary resources indigenously. In an increasingly urbanized context, however, those displaced are usually from the countryside - especially farmers, who are reliant on natural resources directly for their sustenance - and, therefore, upon displacing them, the government is only displacing the nation's principle conservationists. In light of such seeming discrimination, the problem statements are two instead of one.
- Why is the government intent on displacing those peoples who are poised to benefit the least from the projects that displace them? (It is also that these people are invariably of a particular caste and/or profession, which makes the problem seem motivated)
- Can development become necessary under any conditions and, therefore, assume precedence over displacement and the problems therewith? (This question includes issues of necessity, too)
In India, I believe that the problem has never purely been one of displacement v. development, even though the conflict between those who champion either cause is what birthed it. According to Dr. Prabhat Patnaik, one of India's leading economists, the central government's adoption of a capitalist economic model will produce problems unique to the country because capitalism is being superimposed on an "old order" that hasn't fully been dismantled. Whether or not it merits dismantlement is another question, but it is definitely unfair to systematically target a certain section of the population.
Subsequently, even before we are in a position to centre a debate around the safeguards against a reactor meltdown at Kudankulam, we must ask why Kudankulam and why not the outskirts of Chennai, whose population actually stands to benefit from the operation of the reactors. We must ask what else is being done to whittle down unnecessary "losses" that have resulted in such huge power shortages.
Considering that the previous argument did not concern itself with the mining of natural resources: when it comes to the displacement of adivasis, a symbolic cap is necessary to discourage the government from favouring one section of the population more than the other, in the process expanding a gap that it has been elected to work against! Since government accountability for state-instituted displacement, especially as a consequence of land acquisition, is virtually absent, there is nothing to prevent the problem from worsening except an undertaking on the state's part: that it will frame its growth rate in consultation with representatives from all industries without exception.
(In the absence of rehabilitation, those displaced from their lands become akin to refugees, such as those displaced by armed conflict, despite the granting of refugee status being at the discretion of political authorities. Post-displacement, projects aimed at rejuvenating the adivasi communities have only been on an ad hoc basis.
Even in the latest Draft National Rehabilitation Policy (NRP) 2006, those affected by the acquisition of their land do not have the right to be consulted before their property is chosen for acquisition. While there are landowners who have indeed agreed to hand over their land to the government, they are reluctant to do so until the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Act is passed. Unfortunately, the corresponding bill is not listed among the 31 priority bills of the Parliament's winter session in 2011.)
If, at the policy level, a framework can be brought into existence that mandates a process through which, say, the rights of the Dongria Kondh are prioritized over the demand for bauxite mined from the Niyamgiri Hills in Orissa, what are the processes on the other side of the wall that will determine how much we reduce our consumption of aluminium by? Because we cannot plug a hole at one end of the pipe and expect the water levels at the other end to not rise up.
[caption id="attachment_20760" align="aligncenter" width="325" caption="Bauxite mining (top); Vedanta Alumina, a subsidiary of Sterlite Industries, Ltd., which received the controversial clearance from the SC to proceed with bauxite mining in the Niyamgiri Hills"]
[/caption]Yes, someone must suffer a loss of some kind for the sake of development, but instead of sustaining growth rates at precarious costs, why isn't there any faith in the aspirations of the adivasis themselves? Why is it that adivasis are being targeted again and again instead of inculcating a program that will successfully reintegrate them into modern society, moderate growth rates to reasonable levels, and ensure that the notion of progress is no longer mired in controversy?
I am not against nuclear power or bauxite mining but for it; what I am against is the government's tendency to define "public interests" without the real interests of the "public" in mind. India needs some amount of aluminium and some amount of energy to realize some of its projected growth rates; what it doesn't need is the dousing of such important issues in a socio-political quagmire. Displacement v. development is, uniquely, a human rights issue, and it is an environmental issue as well, and while we are debating it, it is important to be aware of the human rights and environmental factors that influence the parameters whose traits we take for granted.
Thursday, 17 November 2011
More empty classrooms
[caption id="attachment_20671" align="aligncenter" width="474" caption="Source: Annual Report, University Grants Commission, 2009-2010"]
[/caption]
Two facts are evident from the chart shown above. The first is that while the increase in the number of colleges has been significant between the years 2004 and 2009, a similar growth is not reflected in the number of teachers: 53.7 per cent more colleges versus 28.7 more teachers (both in 2009). This means that while public and private institutes of higher education are established, there is not enough being done to staff them adequately.
The second observation follows from the first: in order to perfectly gauge the adequacy of teachers, it is seen that the percentage increase in the number of colleges is not reflected in the increase in the number of students: 36.7 per cent. Therefore, there are more colleges, more students per teacher, and more vacant seats today than ever before. According to a survey conducted by the Manpower Group in early 2011, 67 per cent of Indian employers experience difficulties in finding the right person for a job - and this statistic stood at just 16 per cent last year. Thus, the problem is both quantitative and, considering an increasing shortage of talent, qualitative.
[/caption]Two facts are evident from the chart shown above. The first is that while the increase in the number of colleges has been significant between the years 2004 and 2009, a similar growth is not reflected in the number of teachers: 53.7 per cent more colleges versus 28.7 more teachers (both in 2009). This means that while public and private institutes of higher education are established, there is not enough being done to staff them adequately.
The second observation follows from the first: in order to perfectly gauge the adequacy of teachers, it is seen that the percentage increase in the number of colleges is not reflected in the increase in the number of students: 36.7 per cent. Therefore, there are more colleges, more students per teacher, and more vacant seats today than ever before. According to a survey conducted by the Manpower Group in early 2011, 67 per cent of Indian employers experience difficulties in finding the right person for a job - and this statistic stood at just 16 per cent last year. Thus, the problem is both quantitative and, considering an increasing shortage of talent, qualitative.
Tuesday, 15 November 2011
Half against the whole
In the context of such a massive number as seven billion, it becomes even more urgent to address a host of issues that are of concern to people today. While the stresses imposed on mineral and food resources guide state policies toward minimizing consumption, making distribution more efficient and distribution channels cleaner, the institutionalization of such directives involves, at its heart, women. It is important to address the needs and rights of those who constitute half the population of this planet.
The desired consequence of empowering women is their gaining in confidence that can help them escape those stereotypes born of outdated traditional customs, stereotypes that keep them from emerging into a meaningful public life.
While such grim realities are hardly reflected in statistical data, the disparity in access to healthcare services between men and women is startling. For instance, the National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Reports (2010) by the United States government shows that in 2008, the state forecast that a minimum of 60.7 per cent of the people suffering from blood clots in the arteries could undergo successful fibrinolysis, a complex procedure to relieve the clots, by the year 2010. However, in 2010, while the number had been attained for males, women were expected to hit it somewhere in 2012.
Therefore, the transition from rhetoric to performance mandates the provision of round-the-clock and easy access to healthcare for women. This empowers them to decide when or when not to have children and to determine the spacing between multiple births.
The reliance on such empowerment drives has been the greatest in developing and underdeveloped countries. Therefore, when the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) concluded that the world's poorest countries have higher fertility and population growth rates, the causes seem to be lack of freedom to decide when to procreate, jobs that confine women to performing tasks within households, and the lack of access to contraceptives - or ignorance of their use.
In turn, an increase in the number of people points to fewer opportunities for poor families to rise out of poverty. It is in such areas where deprivation is prevalent that unreasonable and hindering cultural norms arise, norms that hold women back from holding paying jobs. American anthropologist Oscar Lewis once said, "The subculture of the poor develops mechanisms that tend to perpetuate it, especially because of what happens to the world view, aspirations, and character of the children who grow up in it."
Once she has emerged from poverty and its special circumstances, how does her employment affect the global population? To answer this, consider a study published in 2010 by the Department of Professional Employees (DPE) that shows that labour force participation has increased "most dramatically" among married women in the years from 1950 to 2009. The same study by the DPE shows that the number of working women (in the USA) increased from 18.4 million in 1950 to 66.2 million in 2009, with the corresponding drop in fertility in the same period being 3.6 births per woman to 2.0 births per woman.
Interpreting these facts together, the consequences of a woman working assume two forms: the first is that more the time she spends at work, less the time she will have for her family and even less her willingness to bear more children. The second is that there will be a corresponding shift from larger to nuclear families, such as those that can afford to live in cities where job opportunities are more abundant. Fertility rates, therefore, are brought down as larger families become unaffordable.
It must be borne in mind that these reforms, and any other, become effective only if the woman is in control of her reproduction. If we are to hope that seven billion is the peak after which there is a decline that eases the stress on our almost-invaluable resources, we will have to invest in the health and social wellbeing of women.
The desired consequence of empowering women is their gaining in confidence that can help them escape those stereotypes born of outdated traditional customs, stereotypes that keep them from emerging into a meaningful public life.
While such grim realities are hardly reflected in statistical data, the disparity in access to healthcare services between men and women is startling. For instance, the National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Reports (2010) by the United States government shows that in 2008, the state forecast that a minimum of 60.7 per cent of the people suffering from blood clots in the arteries could undergo successful fibrinolysis, a complex procedure to relieve the clots, by the year 2010. However, in 2010, while the number had been attained for males, women were expected to hit it somewhere in 2012.
Therefore, the transition from rhetoric to performance mandates the provision of round-the-clock and easy access to healthcare for women. This empowers them to decide when or when not to have children and to determine the spacing between multiple births.
The reliance on such empowerment drives has been the greatest in developing and underdeveloped countries. Therefore, when the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) concluded that the world's poorest countries have higher fertility and population growth rates, the causes seem to be lack of freedom to decide when to procreate, jobs that confine women to performing tasks within households, and the lack of access to contraceptives - or ignorance of their use.
In turn, an increase in the number of people points to fewer opportunities for poor families to rise out of poverty. It is in such areas where deprivation is prevalent that unreasonable and hindering cultural norms arise, norms that hold women back from holding paying jobs. American anthropologist Oscar Lewis once said, "The subculture of the poor develops mechanisms that tend to perpetuate it, especially because of what happens to the world view, aspirations, and character of the children who grow up in it."
Once she has emerged from poverty and its special circumstances, how does her employment affect the global population? To answer this, consider a study published in 2010 by the Department of Professional Employees (DPE) that shows that labour force participation has increased "most dramatically" among married women in the years from 1950 to 2009. The same study by the DPE shows that the number of working women (in the USA) increased from 18.4 million in 1950 to 66.2 million in 2009, with the corresponding drop in fertility in the same period being 3.6 births per woman to 2.0 births per woman.
Interpreting these facts together, the consequences of a woman working assume two forms: the first is that more the time she spends at work, less the time she will have for her family and even less her willingness to bear more children. The second is that there will be a corresponding shift from larger to nuclear families, such as those that can afford to live in cities where job opportunities are more abundant. Fertility rates, therefore, are brought down as larger families become unaffordable.
It must be borne in mind that these reforms, and any other, become effective only if the woman is in control of her reproduction. If we are to hope that seven billion is the peak after which there is a decline that eases the stress on our almost-invaluable resources, we will have to invest in the health and social wellbeing of women.
Saturday, 5 November 2011
The third-world contingency problem
Matrices are used to represent curves on the Cartesian plane. Consider this matrix:
1 0It's a 2x2 identity matrix that can be represented on the Cartesian plane in terms of the x and y coordinates.
0 1
x yOn the Cartesian plane (or a graph paper), this can be represented by a line that goes from [0,0] to [1,1] with a slope of 45 degrees. Now, this is a two dimensional matrix where x and y are the dimensions. Let me add a new dimension, z, of depth. Now, if I were to represent the same line in space, it would be
x 1 0
y 0 1
x y zTo imagine this, think of a graph sheet where a line is drawn from [0,0] to [1,1]. By adding the z dimension, this line is drawn from [0,0,0] to [1,1,0]. To paraphrase, it is a line in a 3-dimensional space with a direction. In the first case, the line was a line: because of the starting point, the ending point and the slope being defined, it was scalar. Now, by adding one more dimension, the line has become a vector. This is a popular notion in mathematics: when an entity exists as a scalar in n dimensions, it will exist as a vector in n + 1 dimensions.
x 1 0 0
y 0 1 0
z 0 0 0
In order to prove this theorem, the origin of the n + 1 vector space must be found. Considering the above 3x3 matrix as a determinant and using Kramer's rule to solve it,
x y zIt becomes evident that-
x 1 0 0
y 0 1 0
z 0 0 0,
D = 1 0 0Thus, the solution as given by Kramer's rule:
0 1 0
0 0 0
Dx = 1 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Dy = 0 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
Dz = 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
x = Dx / DIn doing so and substituting the [z,z] value with 0, 1 and -1, the value of the D determinant goes from 1, 1 and -1. In other words, the value of D on the number line goes from one side of zero to the other side. Since the number line is one dimensional, it has 2 directions within the dimension: positive and negative. Therefore, the same line which was a scalar in n = 2 dimensions now becomes a vector in an n+1 vector space because it now has directions as well as magnitude.
y = Dy / D
z = Dz / D
This problem, along with its many requirements and conclusions, is used widely used in economics. Before I state the problem, however, there is one more important concept: the Laplace transformation. Every vector space, in order to exist as a vector space, must conform to the basic mathematical operations like addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. If it conforms, then it joins the vector space club.
Say there is a vector space denoted by V5 (i.e., having 5 dimensions). It conforms to the basic operations as well as 5 parameters of its own, three of which are length, breadth and height, one of which could be time, and the fifth one could be, for example, weight. All these dimensions are possessed by, say, a chair.
In order to transform this V5 space into a V6 space, the following rules must be met:
- The V6 space must conform to the basic mathematical operations
- 5 of the 6 dimensions of the V6 space must be length, breadth, height, time and weight
Take the chair. It has dimensions in a V3 space, a time component in a V4 space, and a weight component in a V5 space. In the V6 space, it may now assume a monetary value component.
Now, here is the problem:
Developing nations all around the world have a contingency plan for crises that is defined by 3 conditions: intrinsic non-monetary (Inm) parameter, extrinsic monetary (Em) parameter, and globalization(Glo).
Most economics models today, if not all, deal with the variations in Inm and Em exclusively. However, we know from reality that the variation in Inm and Em are not independent. To whit, if there is no rain during a particular season, the agricultural produce volume falls, agricultural exports fall, the imports increase, inflation within the country rises, the purchasing power parity falls, the income of the earner goes from enough to not-enough and foreign direct investments fall.
So, why can't economic models deal with them together? In mathematical terms, the solution for the [Inm, Em, Glo] vector space is found by excluding the set [Inm, Em], while in realistic terms, the [Inm, Em] space exists very much.
This is done so because of two reasons:
- The matrix denoting the relation between Inm and Em has too many parameters: there is no one factor that yields a proportionality relationship between Inm and Em.
- The relation between Inm and Em is a relation and not a function, a function being defined by a set variation pattern. While, one day, Inm and Em might be defined by a function f1, the very next day they become instances of another function, f2.
So, how is an economic model that deals with [Inm, Em] formulated?
Sunday, 23 October 2011
Comparative analysis of media literature on PSA testing in the USA
Ever since the Food and Drug Administration approved the deployment of PSA testing to check for prostate cancer amongst men over the age of 50, the project has morphed into a public health disaster. In fact, consequences of its improper administration have resulted in one of its most noted former advocates, Richard J. Ablin, distancing himself from it.
PSA stands for protein-specific antigens, which are produced by the prostate gland in the human body. When the protein level in the blood, as a result of the secretion, crosses 4 ng/mL, it is indicative of prostate cancer. However, in the last 17 years since the test was approved, only 3.8 per cent of the men tested turned out to have prostate cancer even though thousands underwent painful surgeries as a result of false positives. This has resulted in widespread debates on the subject emerging in the USA as well as in other countries that use the PSA test regarding its risks and cost benefits.
The issue was covered comprehensively by the mass media and especially by three publications in the United States: The New York Times, LA Times and the Washington Post. NYT also carried an essay by Ablin last year (dated 9 March, 2010). However, while the focus in all three publications was on the emerging dissatisfaction amongst test subjects, urologists and policy-makers, each of the newspapers focused on one distinct and important aspect of the story.
[caption id="attachment_20488" align="aligncenter" width="397" caption="Richard J. Ablin"]
[/caption]
The NY Times article evaluated the test and presented a series of numbers that highlighted its failure to be comprehensive, robust and reliable. Quoting the results of a study undertaken by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the article stresses on the test's inability to influence healthcare positively and the onus it places on the Ministry of Health to substitute it with one that works. Furthermore, the article also argues against the test's obsession with simply the symptoms of the cancer and its inability to discern the precise causes of those symptoms as being a significant contributor to its failure.
In doing so, it sidesteps the cost-versus risk conflict that has arisen as a result and instead, by condemning the technique, does not offer any judgment on the need to administer the test by the FDA. At the same time, the article fails to mention the absence of any urologists on the panel and, therefore, loses the balance it could have otherwise retained. Whether this was done deliberately to restrict the readers' attention to the shortcomings of the test or not is unknown.
The Los Angeles Times article went another way and evaluated the consequences of the administration of the test. While the debate on its administration perseveres, that the consequences are responsible for its happening in the first place were here brought to light. With a number like 3.8 per cent, the first thing that comes to mind is not the apparent commonality of the disease but the incredible failure rate - which is compounded by the painful implications of a prostatectomy.
When the prostate gland is removed, a man's capability to produce semen, or for that matter to get or sustain an erection, is severely reduced. Given the thousands of men tested since 1994, it arises that for every 48 people tested, 1 is diagnosed successfully with prostate cancer while 47 have unnecessary trouble staying out of the bathroom for long. In fact, a randomized study, where test subjects were divided between one group that received yearly PSA tests and another that received "usual care", reported in the same article highlights the disparity: 50 from the special group died over the course of 10 years as opposed to 44 from the "usual care" group.
In hindsight, this forces men to make tough choices post-testing, choices that can make or break a family in many cases. That this test is forcing such choices to be made is the point of condemnation and not the ineffectiveness of the test itself, argues the LA Times. If anything, the socio-economic outcome seems unconstitutional. As the writer puts it, it is "his prerogative, his prostate."
As the NYT article fails to point out, as Ablin argues in his essay for the NYT, as the LA Times post suggests, a small shift in the target demographic could yield far better results. Men in the age-group of 50 to 75 are "much more likely to die with prostate cancer and much less likely to die of prostate cancer". This is because the disease develops very slowly. Therefore, instead of getting every man older than 25 tested, it would make much more sense to not destroy the lives of most young men in all probability.
The third publication, the Washington Post, evaluated the options presented by the test. This is not to say that it didn't consider the test itself or its dire consequences. On the contrary, it has presented them in a way as to be balanced so its readers could judge their relevance based on the options that the test presented to those who underwent it.
In the last 17 years, the administration of the test has cost $3 billion, not to mention the costs of those who underwent surgeries and subsequent treatment. For someone who has read only the NYT and LAT articles, the presence of such a number instantly forces the conclusion that the test has to go. However, what about those whose lives were saved simply because of the test? How do you argue with them? This is the most important line of thought taken up by the WP, a line that has been missing from the other two newspapers. The lack of suggestions is made up for by increasing the awareness of the people so that public debate becomes more informed - instead of relying solely on the judgments of doctors.
After all, heaping condemnation on the most accessible test to detect for the most prevalent disease in the USA cannot go unopposed.
This comparison reminds me of something else I've been thinking about: if you were writing this article, would you go ahead and be responsibly suggestive like NYT and LAT were or would you hold back, stay fully neutral and continue to just provide information like the WP did?
PSA stands for protein-specific antigens, which are produced by the prostate gland in the human body. When the protein level in the blood, as a result of the secretion, crosses 4 ng/mL, it is indicative of prostate cancer. However, in the last 17 years since the test was approved, only 3.8 per cent of the men tested turned out to have prostate cancer even though thousands underwent painful surgeries as a result of false positives. This has resulted in widespread debates on the subject emerging in the USA as well as in other countries that use the PSA test regarding its risks and cost benefits.
The issue was covered comprehensively by the mass media and especially by three publications in the United States: The New York Times, LA Times and the Washington Post. NYT also carried an essay by Ablin last year (dated 9 March, 2010). However, while the focus in all three publications was on the emerging dissatisfaction amongst test subjects, urologists and policy-makers, each of the newspapers focused on one distinct and important aspect of the story.
[caption id="attachment_20488" align="aligncenter" width="397" caption="Richard J. Ablin"]
[/caption]The NY Times article evaluated the test and presented a series of numbers that highlighted its failure to be comprehensive, robust and reliable. Quoting the results of a study undertaken by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the article stresses on the test's inability to influence healthcare positively and the onus it places on the Ministry of Health to substitute it with one that works. Furthermore, the article also argues against the test's obsession with simply the symptoms of the cancer and its inability to discern the precise causes of those symptoms as being a significant contributor to its failure.
In doing so, it sidesteps the cost-versus risk conflict that has arisen as a result and instead, by condemning the technique, does not offer any judgment on the need to administer the test by the FDA. At the same time, the article fails to mention the absence of any urologists on the panel and, therefore, loses the balance it could have otherwise retained. Whether this was done deliberately to restrict the readers' attention to the shortcomings of the test or not is unknown.
The Los Angeles Times article went another way and evaluated the consequences of the administration of the test. While the debate on its administration perseveres, that the consequences are responsible for its happening in the first place were here brought to light. With a number like 3.8 per cent, the first thing that comes to mind is not the apparent commonality of the disease but the incredible failure rate - which is compounded by the painful implications of a prostatectomy.
When the prostate gland is removed, a man's capability to produce semen, or for that matter to get or sustain an erection, is severely reduced. Given the thousands of men tested since 1994, it arises that for every 48 people tested, 1 is diagnosed successfully with prostate cancer while 47 have unnecessary trouble staying out of the bathroom for long. In fact, a randomized study, where test subjects were divided between one group that received yearly PSA tests and another that received "usual care", reported in the same article highlights the disparity: 50 from the special group died over the course of 10 years as opposed to 44 from the "usual care" group.
In hindsight, this forces men to make tough choices post-testing, choices that can make or break a family in many cases. That this test is forcing such choices to be made is the point of condemnation and not the ineffectiveness of the test itself, argues the LA Times. If anything, the socio-economic outcome seems unconstitutional. As the writer puts it, it is "his prerogative, his prostate."
As the NYT article fails to point out, as Ablin argues in his essay for the NYT, as the LA Times post suggests, a small shift in the target demographic could yield far better results. Men in the age-group of 50 to 75 are "much more likely to die with prostate cancer and much less likely to die of prostate cancer". This is because the disease develops very slowly. Therefore, instead of getting every man older than 25 tested, it would make much more sense to not destroy the lives of most young men in all probability.
The third publication, the Washington Post, evaluated the options presented by the test. This is not to say that it didn't consider the test itself or its dire consequences. On the contrary, it has presented them in a way as to be balanced so its readers could judge their relevance based on the options that the test presented to those who underwent it.
In the last 17 years, the administration of the test has cost $3 billion, not to mention the costs of those who underwent surgeries and subsequent treatment. For someone who has read only the NYT and LAT articles, the presence of such a number instantly forces the conclusion that the test has to go. However, what about those whose lives were saved simply because of the test? How do you argue with them? This is the most important line of thought taken up by the WP, a line that has been missing from the other two newspapers. The lack of suggestions is made up for by increasing the awareness of the people so that public debate becomes more informed - instead of relying solely on the judgments of doctors.
After all, heaping condemnation on the most accessible test to detect for the most prevalent disease in the USA cannot go unopposed.
This comparison reminds me of something else I've been thinking about: if you were writing this article, would you go ahead and be responsibly suggestive like NYT and LAT were or would you hold back, stay fully neutral and continue to just provide information like the WP did?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)