Aseem Shrivastava & Aryaman Jain: Not green, but greenwash - the felling of Aarey forest
From producing
artificial meat to using renewable energy, businesses seem to be driven by
concern for our planet. But are they really? Or is this all an attempt to gain
a sense of credibility for a project otherwise driven by the mundane, old
profit motive? In this age of misinformation, it can be difficult to
distinguish between green and greenwash.
In Mumbai, despite a sustained and widespread citizens’ campaign, the Aarey forest has
been chopped down. Despite a number of alternative available sites for the Metro car depot, the agency has remained stubborn on the forest land. The push for the capital-intensive Metro has come at a time when the city’s bus service is in tatters. Still, it is argued that the Metro is the only option to improve the city’s public transport.
In Mumbai, despite a sustained and widespread citizens’ campaign, the Aarey forest has
been chopped down. Despite a number of alternative available sites for the Metro car depot, the agency has remained stubborn on the forest land. The push for the capital-intensive Metro has come at a time when the city’s bus service is in tatters. Still, it is argued that the Metro is the only option to improve the city’s public transport.
Addressing the
ecological crisis: Amidst the grief over
the felling, there are some who are justifying the move. Their argument is that
building a Metro will prevent an increase in emissions. They are comparing car
and bus emissions saved by the building of Metro transport with the carbon
absorbed by a forest. It is as though the sole purpose of a forest is to serve
as a carbon sink for human emissions. Would the forest have been able to defend
itself better had its carbon-absorptive capacity been higher? Or if the Metro
could attract a smaller number of commuters away from private cars?
Here you can see the
cognitive failure at the heart of our ecological crisis. Public transport
infrastructure does not absorb carbon dioxide. It cannot provide habitat,
recharge groundwater, or safeguard our soil. The ecological crisis is much
bigger than just carbon emissions. Apart from deteriorating air quality and
climate, this is a crisis of many things: the loss of biodiversity, freshwater,
soil, forests. It is a crisis of the loss of our souls.
If we are to really
address the ecological crisis, especially climate change, we need a fall in
emissions, not a slower-than-projected rate of increase of emissions. It is
only within the caged logical framework of slower than otherwise
ever-increasing emissions that this argument has even the most limited merits.
Still, those justifying the move make a leap of logic and compare the saved
emissions against the graph of ever-increasing emissions from mathematical
models (which have their own political-economic assumptions). But the only
relevant graph to compare against is the rate at which carbon emissions must
fall in order to avoid catastrophe. Lastly, we must ask a
crucial question: does the Metro really replace cars? Or is the class of urban
Indians who take the Metro not a few rungs below the ones who ride daily in
cars? .... read more:
Do our leaders want to certify political assassination?
