Home

Follow Countercurrents on Twitter 

Why Subscribe ?

Popularise CC

Join News Letter

Editor's Picks

Press Releases

Action Alert

Feed Burner

Read CC In Your
Own Language

Bradley Manning

India Burning

Mumbai Terror

Financial Crisis

Iraq

AfPak War

Peak Oil

Globalisation

Localism

Alternative Energy

Climate Change

US Imperialism

US Elections

Palestine

Latin America

Communalism

Gender/Feminism

Dalit

Humanrights

Economy

India-pakistan

Kashmir

Environment

Book Review

Gujarat Pogrom

Kandhamal Violence

WSF

Arts/Culture

India Elections

Archives

Links

Submission Policy

About CC

Disclaimer

Fair Use Notice

Contact Us

Search Our Archive

Subscribe To Our
News Letter



Our Site

Web

Name: E-mail:

 

Printer Friendly Version

An Open Letter To Mr. Jairam Ramesh

By Shankar Sharma

23 March, 2011
Countercurrents.org

22nd March 2011

Dear Mr. Ramesh,
I refer to the two of your interviews referred to in the news items below.
“Ramesh says achieving 33 per cent forest cover unrealistic”
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/147285/ramesh-says-achieving-33-per.html
“India cannot abandon nuclear power: Jairam Ramesh”
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/147306/india-cannot-abandon-nuclear-power.html

It is difficult to decide to put these statements in which of the following categories of human frailty: ignorance, or naivety, or political concession to please industrial houses, or confused understanding of two diverse subjects.


To say that achieving 33 per cent forest cover is unrealistic is tantamount to say that our environment can be completely compromised for the sake of so called GDP centred development. 33% forest cover has been the target recommended by National Forest Policy, which the present govt. has not disowned yet. Without recommending a different target figure, to say that the earlier figure is unrealistic is sacrilegious to say the least.  What is the revised target figure you are proposing: 20%, 10% or even 5%?  What is the guarantee that this revised figure will not be laughed at by the next MoEF?  Has MoEF the support of any objective scientific study to arrive at such a conclusion?


The figure of 33% target recommended by National Forest Policy has been done after a careful analysis of all the related issues, even though that target itself is considered by many scientists as inadequate to ensure a health environment to our people on a sustainable basis.  Looking at how the density/quality/extent of our forests is being reduced every year, the figure of 33% can certainly be termed as inadequate. The wise people in your ministry seem to confuse trees with forests.  I am living in the midst of Western Ghats, and on observing the continuous degradation of forests here, and on talking to the villagers, scientists and environmentalists it becomes very clear that the concerned authorities have no objective to adequately protect our bio-diversity.  Fast degrading forests, as we have today, even in 50% of the total area of our country cannot provide us the quality and quantity of ecological services our country needs.  Instead of making honest efforts to increase the provision of such ecological services, MoEF seem to be focused on how to reduce such services even further to benefit few industrial/corporate houses.


The large number of mines, power projects, SEZs, industries, airports, townships etc. being licensed all over the country within or in the vicinity of ecologically sensitive areas will further reduce both the density and extent of forest cover.  One would have expected that MoEF to have a basic knowledge that dense bio-rich rain forest stretches can support millions of people as they are doing now in Asia, Africa and South America than the large number of polluting industries, which have already made life miserable for such people.
It is very disturbing that the MoEF itself say that forests are expendable for the lop-sided growth we are witnessing today.  In this background all other actions and appearances of MoEF will be seen as mere ostentation.


The statement attributed to you on the subject of nuclear power is even more baffling.  It seems obvious that the officials have misrepresented the facts to you when you were in Power Ministry, and/or you have completely got your facts wrong.


Despite a massive investment by DAE since 1950s, the percentage of installed nuclear capacity is only 2.8% of the total installed power capacity; and its annual energy contribution is even much less because of poor performance of the nuclear power plants. Compare this with negligible investment by the govt. in renewable energy sources. Starting from 1990 this sector has already achieved about 13% of the total installed capacity. What sort of environmental and social risks can you attribute to this sector?
Can our poor and densely populated country afford to take the risk of a nuclear emergency?  If a techno-economically advanced country like Japan, with a huge focus on safety quality and emergency preparedness, is struggling to contain the evolving nuclear holocaust is it not foolhardy to say that our country, which has rarely been associated with high quality and openness, is better prepared?  Are the advocates of nuclear power ready to put their names as guarantors of safety in each of our nuclear power plants?
Has no one told you that the post independence history reveals that the tall claims of nuclear power additions in our country have turned out to be just false claims?  Even before a single unit of nuclear electricity was produced in the country, by 1969 the AEC predicted that by 2000 there would be 43,500 MW of nuclear generating capacity.  As of now the total nuclear capacity is only 4,700 MW.    For such a meager share of our power production capacity, shall our society be condemned to face nuclear holocausts just to prop up the nuclear establishment?  Your statement seems to support the business interests of French, Russian and American nuclear industries at the cost of overall welfare of our people. It is better to remember that about 44% of the people in our country, who have no access to electricity even after 64 years of massive investments, would rather prefer not to have electricity as compared to the option of multiple crises of a nuclear accident.


You may like to remember that the people of this country are most likely to blame your ministry for the huge consequences of any nuclear accidents.  


You seem to be a victim of the wrong propaganda that nuclear power will lead to the overall reduction of GHG emissions. Increased use of nuclear power did not really reduce Japan's emission levels.  Between 1965 to 1995 Japan's nuclear power capacity went from zero to over 40,000 MW. During the same period its CO 2   emissions increased from about 400 million tons to about 1,200 million tons.  What is needed to reduce the overall GHG emissions is to resolutely move away from the Western life style of heavy energy consumption and consumerism.  MoEF's license to start hundreds of industries, conventional power plants, mining, airports etc. will only increase the GHG emissions.
Has your Ministry ever considered the true cost to the society of nuclear power?  Have the  costs of mining and processing Uranium ore, and the GHGs associated with the industry right from stage of mining, transporting, processing, cooling of reactors, and then for thousands of years in the process of waste management been taken into account?  Can our farmers, mostly with small holdings, be allowed to face the credible risk of becoming destitute in the case of nuclear radiation contaminating the food /agricultural crops they grow?


The statement attributed to you that “ ….and we imposed 35 conditions for that clearance," w.r.t  Jaitapura nuclear power park is hilarious at best.  Everyone knows in our country that once this power plant start operating MoEF will never dare to stop such a high profile nuclear power plant even if all these so called conditions are violated.

W.r.t your statement that "As far as safety and radioactive waste management is concerned, it is the responsibility of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board," people of this country can only say that it is irresponsible and complete abrogation of the Ministry's constitutional obligations to protect the environment, and bio-diversity.  Has no one brought to your attention that the Bio-diversity Convention has strongly espoused the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE?


In this context I sincerely hope that MoEF will urgently stop its practice of anti–people and anti-environment policies, and take its constitutional obligations objectively and seriously.


Regards

Shankar Sharma
Power Policy Analyst
Mulubagilu, Doorvasapuram Post, Thirthahally
Shimoga District, Karnataka - 577432
[email protected]
[email protected]

 

 


 




 


Comments are not moderated. Please be responsible and civil in your postings and stay within the topic discussed in the article too. If you find inappropriate comments, just Flag (Report) them and they will move into moderation que.