There is a farce happening in the name of Global Warming. No not the kind that Mr. Bush and cronies are cooking and force feeding to media, attempts on unsexing up the data. No it is not even about scuttling the discussions with God ordained verdicts of inevitability call it karma, qayamat or judgment day, take your pick!!. It is not even about the ubiquitous ever-prevailing globalized ideation of weonlyseeprofit Corporates. It is none of these. The farce is so very deep that it can claim to be a tradition. The farce is so very prevalent that it is almost a culture. The culture of deceit by “trustees of nation”. It is about being used as pawns by the indulgent elite for their purpose. Indulgence (or indolence it breeds) is a matter of choice and we common people have absolutely no problem with it. We also have no problem with those Editors, TV channel honchos, Columnists (carrying that aura of intelligentsia and other petty world views), photo op. activists and regrettable Gandhians (who have nothing about Gandhi or anything near it, its about positioning to gain)…….who promote these lifestyle. It’s exercising their choice alright. We have no problem with any of these, infact we are not bothered, we have more pressing problems of day-to-day existence. Yes if you have money flaunt it, what is money for then? If you have body show it, show it wide open, before botox takes over (pun intended!! Frankly I have no problem with people using latest means to look good, it’s their life). If you can write, vomit columns. But NEVER ever think!!. Thou aint do that. The modern human has been influenced by philosophies like materialism and existentialism. He has entertained views like "The world is a machine, composed of inert bodies, moved by physical necessity, indifferent to the existence of thinking beings". He refused to take a holistic view of reality; and help in developing a system in which requirements of body, mind, intellect and soul are integrated in a balanced and harmonious pattern and in which human societies function, not separately, but as complementary units of the same universe. But then we all have right to choose and choose we do. So why should we, the common people, have any problem with the elites? We have absolutely no problem (trust me on that!!). It’s a free country all have right to choose. So far so good. The problem arises when we, the common people in this country, are used. That is what the farce of discussion on Environmental problems; particularly Global Warming is all about. Consider all the International Agreements (mostly disagreements!!) on Environment whether its Montreal or Kyoto protocol there is a demarcation between “developed” and “developing” countries. This becomes a standards for defining, calculations, measures to be followed and time frame settings. So India is classified as “developing” country, which means all these elites are packed into one group with the common people!!. The latest UNDP report pegs India’s position at 127. The report says “…failure to provide substantial investments in human development and health and education opportunities for all could undermine India’s future prospects”. Studies after studies have shown growing acute disparities not only in India but also all over the world. The UN's Human Development Report (1999) adds that in 1960, the top 20 per cent of the world's people in the richest countries had 30 times the income (in terms of total GDP) of the poorest 20 per cent. This grew to 32 times in 1970, to 45 times in 1980, and to 59 times in 1989. By 1997, the top 20 per cent received 74 times the income of the bottom 20 per cent...". This implies that the globalized world we are living in today is seeing a dramatic rise in inequality. There are also marked and increasing disparities in the world community between those who have access to clean and safe resources and those who do not. Disparities of this nature may be the result of historical circumstance, contemporary economic and trade relations or simply inadequate or inappropriate governmental regulation. In a study from the London School of Economics by Robert H. Wade (‘Is globalization making world income distribution more equal?’ May 2001), similar factors have been cited as the cause for the rise in global and between-country inequalities. Rapidly widening income distribution within the biggest countries (India and China) has also been a major contributory factor. While the gap, worldwide, between the average income of the top quintile of people (top 20 per cent) and the average income of the bottom quintile within each country is about 5:1, the gap between the average income of the top quintile of states and that of the bottom quintile in India is of the order of 25-30:1. According to the results of the National Sample Survey, the percentage of rural poor in India increased from 35% in 1991 to 38.5% in 1997. Since the vast majority of India’s poor, estimated to be anywhere between 320-400 million, live in rural areas the overall number of poor has risen. Almost 50% children are malnourished, U5MR is as high as 141/1000 in poorest section. Majority of people have very low life expectancy, much less than already low national average. 62% of household do not have water supply in or near their home, potable water is a dream in millions of household. 93% don’t even have toilet in their home or any sewerage facility connected......the list goes on. Obviously it’s clear from the above that water consumption is minimal (not as a choice, off course). So these seminars, documentaries, talk shows are obviously not meant for 93% people in this country for the simple reason they just cannot afford to waste water. Few decades back Mrs. Indira Gandhi made a very dumb statement (if she were alive today she would, I assume, take it back) poverty she said is the greatest polluter. Dumb as Bush is he quoted this recently!. It is important not to fall for these elitist definitions on pollution. Poverty is NOT the greatest polluter. The difference between “pollution” and “dirtying” need to be understood. Poverty is definitely the greatest dirtifier (yep that’s a new word. Thanx!!). There is a difference between dirting (sometimes polluting) for surviving and polluting for indulgence. Technological upgradation is needed for the former but later is a sickness. Poverty creates unsanitary conditions, dirties the surroundings, and causes disease and epidemic, the reason for high sickness, mortality rate among poor albeit many could be prevented with awareness and primary health facility. But its contribution to pollution is miniscule as compared to richer societies; say in posh colonies of Delhi, Islamabad or Las Vegas. In richer societies the surrounding is clean (sometimes at an obsessive level, like in Singapore), the lifestyle in such societies exudes cleanliness to the extent that they even sneer at “unclean” people on the streets (in india there is tradition angle to it). But behind this façade of cleanliness hides the story of some greatest polluters in the world. In fact the lifestyle of most people in richer society itself is a study on: How pollution happens?. Just a simple example from daily experience to make the point clear. If a common man wants to move from point A to point B in a city he uses bus (very rarely that is in case of emergency an Auto, after much haggling). The buses are generally packed with 80-100 people in peak hours. The same distance is covered by an occupant in car. So whose per capita consumption is more, whose per capita pollution is more, who is taking more space of road in peak hours contributing to more pollution?. India faces a serious urban transportation crisis marked by traffic congestions, disorder, extreme high level of environmental pollution (noise pollution included), accidents with high fatalities and injuries as also deep inequities of access. WHO on World Health Day last year focused its attention on Road Safety, the report points that1.2 million people die in road accidents every year around the world. The death toll is highest in low and middle-income countries, where pedestrians, motorcyclists, cyclists and passengers are especially vulnerable. 85% of all road accident deaths occur in developing countries and nearly half in the Asia-Pacific region. In addition to human suffering, estimated costs of road traffic injuries are between 1% and 2% of GNP per annum in these countries. This represents a loss of approximately US$ 65 billion every year; almost twice the total development assistance received worldwide by developing countries. India accounts for about 10 percent of road accident fatalities worldwide. This accentuates deep inequities in access further. Yes please use car use all the modern gadgets, be comfortable (even I would if I have money, who doesn’t want to have a comfortable life but at the moment I am comfortable with my cycle or walking small distances…you see I am rarely in a hurry. I don’t have to rush anywhere!!) but it’s wrong to include us common people with the elite particularly during the discussion on pollution. Studies show that buses now occupy less than 1% of all vehicles on urban roads of India. Some people are so poor that they cannot even afford to travel even in this cheapest mode of transportation (which in most cases are rickety metal boxes with engines). Thousands of people use cycles in unruly traffic of cities defying death everyday. Studies show that 56% of road accident fatalities are accounted by cyclists. As we are aware now that Bangalore has serious infrastructure problems. One wonders how much misuse of vehicles (sometimes as style statement as shown in ads) has contributed to this chaos. The investment on urban transport mostly focuses on widening of roads or spaces for parking while the cyclists and pedestrians are ignored. This imbalance has to be rectified. There is a need to make traveling in private vehicles more costly and the money invested in pedestrian oriented infrastructure. Each society needs to create vehicle free zones and bicycle tracks. Traveling in fancy cars (all the features are useless in congested streets) in cities is no longer cool; it has become a liability on most of us common people.
Proposals to tackle global warming are being described as “bad investment”. Infact a panel of eminent economists (Nobel prize winners among them) some years ago placed initiatives to tackle HIV/AIDS, malaria, sanitation and other problems confronting the world ahead of the issue of Global Warming!!. It was referred to as Copenhagen consensus. Clearly problems of sanitation are very important, it causes millions of avoidable deaths but prioritizing it over the dangers of global warming is what the elitist farce all about. Sanitation can be and need be tackled at local level so is the case of HIV; it needs a culture-region specific response (an international guidelines can be proposed). The effort at international level need be (and essentially be) focused on policies that have long term impact on the planet. Global warming and issue of climatic changes has to get the utmost priority. This pointing the finger at poor societies and their sanitation (dirtying) is an attempt to hide the real culprits and scuttle the issue. Classifying sanitation over dangers of global warming is an attempt at playing God on poorer societies. This also reeks of cottage industry of charity. Those who are trying to play God need to look at the mirror. Their lifestyle and what they are promoting around the world as “clean” is causing serious impact on environment in effect the vulnerable societies. The poorest people almost always live in the poorest environment. Global warming will affect (and is affecting) the world’s poor- those least able to protect themselves against crop failures and rising sea levels- far more severely than the affluent. The effluent’s who create more effluence. Yes its “bad investment” to reduce global warming. Yes reducing profit is definitely a “bad investment”. But the question here is why should we and our future generations suffer because of your life style?. The “problem” at the grass root level in poorer societies is that they use material (technology), which they have access to. The main criterion here is cost-benefit. The cost most time is such an over riding factor that they forgo even the basic comfort or need. So asking poor societies to do “bad investment” is criminal. It is because of the greed and life style demand of the elite that the sanitation and basic needs of impoverished have worsened. Take the example of Coke Pepsi and other luxury product at the expense of local basic needs. This is being replicated all over the world. Dirtying is definitely the byproduct of reduced access to means of survival.
There is definitely an equity dimension in the whole issue of global warming. There is a deep abyss separating these two societies. The line of demarcation is not between nations but between societies within the nations. We people in this part of the world share more with common people in mumbai or plachimada or New Orleans or Bagdhad. We are the one who have to first face the fierceness of any natural or man made catastrophe. It is we (our near ones, neighbors) who contribute to the statistics in
Breaking News. Whether it is tsunami or flood or cyclones the poor part of the society faces the maximum brunt. How is that occupants of huts (or small houses) with minimal facilities is equated with houses/flats with 5-6 air conditioners and fridge stacked with “soft” drinks and so on?. It is not that I am against modern lifestyle and choice of comfort. People can decide for themselves. But they definitely will have to take responsibility for the consequences. We common people cannot pay for their exigencies nor will we allow them to piggyback ride us. There is everything for need (that too is depleting) but there is definitely not for greed (that’s an oft quoted line). So when Mr.N.Ram writes in a column (in The Hindu, where else!!) few months back that …..per capita Co2 emission by India is very small fraction of what is seen in USA…..it shows nothing but his very carefully cultivated Machiavellian ignorance (or probably delusions). What do I like millions of people in this country share anything with this megalomaniac and his Formulae One juvenilities or some Botox Turd in some excellent car. Theirs is a different world which majority us people don’t identify with (in many cases, like upwardly mobile, this could be not by choice. Attributing egalitarianism or restraint to poverty is crap philosophy). But the fact is whether we like it or not we live in different worlds albeit we share the same geographical region of India. A small example will suffice: Although per capita per day water consumption in India is low there is a huge inequity in access. The per capita consumption in urban slum is 10 liters for domestic use while in rural India it averages 40 liters. The per capita consumption in urban rich areas stands at whooping 300-450 liters(this would increase substantially if we include water intensive products they consume like cokepepsi) wherein according to Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, an overall basic water requirement of 50 liters per person per day is proposed as a minimum standard to meet four basic needs—for drinking, sanitation, bathing, and cooking. Another scientist Falkenmark uses the figure of 100 liters of freshwater per capita per day for personal use as a rough estimate of the amount needed for a minimally acceptable standard of living in developing countries, not including uses for agriculture and industry. Taking an average of both- 70-80 liters per capita per day, we find that rural India and urban slum are below the water requirement wherein the urban rich consumes almost triple the required!!!. Clearly there is a huge disparity. Majority of us do not share this world of greed, instant gratifications, gimmickry, superficiality coupled with essential attitudinal arrogance (for people like Botox Turd its about occupying the eyeball space, its exhibitionism which has replaced demonstration. Presentablilty of self that is no different from the chauvinists in audaciously classified “backward” places, instantly placing Botox Turd and her clan as forward!!). This is the world wherein sensibilities are declining with onslaught of pop culture, material acquisitions and life style-success they define. A world of cultivated politeness (politeness here is limited to within their circle, people who are influential), exchange of pleasantries, strategic use of words, market messages……offcourse everything with lots of style!!. When they argue (as in Times of India, Editorial) that India, brazil, china…..have equal right to first benefit from the earth resources……what they really mean is the benefits for greedy indulgent elite in these “developing” countries at the expense of poorer sections within these societies. You can feed on us and still be part of us is a strange logic. This Nation based per capita classification is an unacceptable argument. Its not “rich countries should clean up their act first”. It is rich societies in each country should clean up their act first. You cannot hide behind us, come forward and take responsibility towards consequences of your profligacy. There is a need for Environmental or Pollution Tax to curb per capita consumption and life style demands (so instead of frequent flier benefits we can have frequent flier tax!!!!). You see we need socio-environmental “Growth” too. The companies should be forced to reveal their green house liabilities to their investors. The profit over people (Chomsky) extended to profit over people and environment has to stop. There is an immediate need for a paradigm shift in policies related to issues of environment, particularly on global warming, green house gases (GHGs) and ozone. Mr. George Monbiot writes in Guardian Newspaper “....…“raise awareness”, “accelerate deployment of cleaner technology” and “diversify our energy supply mix”. There is nothing wrong with these objectives. But unless there is a regulation to reduce the amount of fossil fuel we use, alternative technologies are waste of time and money, for they will supplement rather than replace coal and oil burning. What counts is not what we do but what we do not do (emphasis mine). Our success and failure in tacking climate change depends on just one thing: how much fossil fuel we leave in the ground……”. He further writes “…..meaningful action on climate change has been prohibited by totalitarian capitalism…”. Totalitarian capitalism is where the government lax the rules for “efficient business” and market to decide the peril of “disposable” environment. This is not denying that there are instances of Corporates who want (and are insisting) stricter environmental laws to give impetus to eco-friendly technology to be viable. Clearly the global warming and issue of climatic changes are hinged on what elites (including upwardly mobile middle class) of all societies in all the countries do not do, that is in context to per capita consumption and life style demands.
The issue of Global Warming at the moment is being tackled at two levels. The first is more recent one that is the need for Adaptation. With increasingly turbulent and extreme oscillation of climate the need for system to adapt to the changes is being recognized. But the need for adaptation shouldn’t side track the more important issue of Mitigation, which is the second level at which the global warming is being tackled. Mitigation, wherein a sincere concerted global effort is more urgently needed. The International Agreements and concerns towards reducing GHGs, improving technologies and stringent pollution rules has to take into consideration the issue of disparities within the societies. Classifying countries into “developing” and “developed” for international agreements has to go and replaced by rich and poor societies within countries. Each country needs to be forced as part of international agreement to recognize this division and make rules accordingly on pollution control and sustainable development. We majority people all around the world cannot take the burden of indulgent few who are sucking away our common resources with impunity (off course it does give them a chance to “help” us and be in the news). As a Marketeer verdicts in one show (well its all a show !!!) “…being profitable allows for concern for environment”. It’s about let me fatten myself first. Many of these elites who are jostling the eyeball space have reached there by the very means which has caused much misery and harm to others, not to forget the long term environmental consequences. Then they try to patronize us, by charity, by whatever means that help them to cling on to public space (Crude woman is only a symptom of bigger epidemic). As early as 1987 The Brundtland Report in Europe (UK?), titled Our Common Future, defines development as “…..that which meets the needs of the poorest without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs….”. Already world over the indications are that the global warming has crossed that threshold wherein sudden shifts in climatic changes happen. Sergei kirpotin and Judith Marguard reports in New Scientist recently that an area of permafrost (in Siberia) has started to melt for the first time since it was formed some 11000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. The area, which covers the sub arctic region of western Siberia is world’s largest frozen peat bog and scientists fear that as it thaws, it will release billions of tones of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than Co2 into the atmosphere. The peat bog could hold some 70bn tonnes of methane, a quarter of all of the methane stored in the ground around the world. Over the next 100 years it would add around 700mn tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere each year. This would effectively double atmospheric levels of the gas leading to a 10% to 25% increase in global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Changes (IPCC), 2001 points out “…that a global average temperature change ranging from 2.5 degree F to 10.4 Degree F would translate into climate related impacts that are much larger and faster than any that have occurred during the 10,000 year history of civilization”. It further says “…the impact associated with deceptive changes in temperature are evident in all corners of the globe. There is heavier rains in some areas (people in Mumbai and Bangalore, recently Chennai are quite aware of it now!!. Thankfully I was prudent enough to choose a place where I was spared of this misery) and droughts in others. Glaciers are melting and spring is arriving earlier, oceans are warming (hurricanes and storms are related to these changes) and coral reefs are dying…”. Things therefore are slipping from bad to worse. Leonard Fuentes (a Cuban novelist) writes in a column recently “…..as Cuban poet Jose Marti said about poetry, either we save ourselves together or we all lose ourselves. This is the nature of “global” game in which what is at stake is not the wealth and comfort of few but the lives of everyone, in Cuba, in Barundi, in Ceylon, in Venice, in California…..”. Let me end this very long (thanx for the patience!!. Not that I give a damn!!) article with a line I read somewhere : we are not getting along with each other if we are not getting along with the planet.
There is definitely an equity dimension in the whole issue of global warming. There is a deep abyss separating these two societies. The line of demarcation is not between nations but between societies within the nations. We people in this part of the world share more with common people in mumbai or plachimada or New Orleans or Bagdhad. We are the one who have to first face the fierceness of any natural or man made catastrophe. It is we (our near ones, neighbors) who contribute to the statistics in
Breaking News. Whether it is tsunami or flood or cyclones the poor part of the society faces the maximum brunt. How is that occupants of huts (or small houses) with minimal facilities is equated with houses/flats with 5-6 air conditioners and fridge stacked with “soft” drinks and so on?. It is not that I am against modern lifestyle and choice of comfort. People can decide for themselves. But they definitely will have to take responsibility for the consequences. We common people cannot pay for their exigencies nor will we allow them to piggyback ride us. There is everything for need (that too is depleting) but there is definitely not for greed (that’s an oft quoted line). So when Mr.N.Ram writes in a column (in The Hindu, where else!!) few months back that …..per capita Co2 emission by India is very small fraction of what is seen in USA…..it shows nothing but his very carefully cultivated Machiavellian ignorance (or probably delusions). What do I like millions of people in this country share anything with this megalomaniac and his Formulae One juvenilities or some Botox Turd in some excellent car. Theirs is a different world which majority us people don’t identify with (in many cases, like upwardly mobile, this could be not by choice. Attributing egalitarianism or restraint to poverty is crap philosophy). But the fact is whether we like it or not we live in different worlds albeit we share the same geographical region of India. A small example will suffice: Although per capita per day water consumption in India is low there is a huge inequity in access. The per capita consumption in urban slum is 10 liters for domestic use while in rural India it averages 40 liters. The per capita consumption in urban rich areas stands at whooping 300-450 liters(this would increase substantially if we include water intensive products they consume like cokepepsi) wherein according to Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, an overall basic water requirement of 50 liters per person per day is proposed as a minimum standard to meet four basic needs—for drinking, sanitation, bathing, and cooking. Another scientist Falkenmark uses the figure of 100 liters of freshwater per capita per day for personal use as a rough estimate of the amount needed for a minimally acceptable standard of living in developing countries, not including uses for agriculture and industry. Taking an average of both- 70-80 liters per capita per day, we find that rural India and urban slum are below the water requirement wherein the urban rich consumes almost triple the required!!!. Clearly there is a huge disparity. Majority of us do not share this world of greed, instant gratifications, gimmickry, superficiality coupled with essential attitudinal arrogance (for people like Botox Turd its about occupying the eyeball space, its exhibitionism which has replaced demonstration. Presentablilty of self that is no different from the chauvinists in audaciously classified “backward” places, instantly placing Botox Turd and her clan as forward!!). This is the world wherein sensibilities are declining with onslaught of pop culture, material acquisitions and life style-success they define. A world of cultivated politeness (politeness here is limited to within their circle, people who are influential), exchange of pleasantries, strategic use of words, market messages……offcourse everything with lots of style!!. When they argue (as in Times of India, Editorial) that India, brazil, china…..have equal right to first benefit from the earth resources……what they really mean is the benefits for greedy indulgent elite in these “developing” countries at the expense of poorer sections within these societies. You can feed on us and still be part of us is a strange logic. This Nation based per capita classification is an unacceptable argument. Its not “rich countries should clean up their act first”. It is rich societies in each country should clean up their act first. You cannot hide behind us, come forward and take responsibility towards consequences of your profligacy. There is a need for Environmental or Pollution Tax to curb per capita consumption and life style demands (so instead of frequent flier benefits we can have frequent flier tax!!!!). You see we need socio-environmental “Growth” too. The companies should be forced to reveal their green house liabilities to their investors. The profit over people (Chomsky) extended to profit over people and environment has to stop. There is an immediate need for a paradigm shift in policies related to issues of environment, particularly on global warming, green house gases (GHGs) and ozone. Mr. George Monbiot writes in Guardian Newspaper “....…“raise awareness”, “accelerate deployment of cleaner technology” and “diversify our energy supply mix”. There is nothing wrong with these objectives. But unless there is a regulation to reduce the amount of fossil fuel we use, alternative technologies are waste of time and money, for they will supplement rather than replace coal and oil burning. What counts is not what we do but what we do not do (emphasis mine). Our success and failure in tacking climate change depends on just one thing: how much fossil fuel we leave in the ground……”. He further writes “…..meaningful action on climate change has been prohibited by totalitarian capitalism…”. Totalitarian capitalism is where the government lax the rules for “efficient business” and market to decide the peril of “disposable” environment. This is not denying that there are instances of Corporates who want (and are insisting) stricter environmental laws to give impetus to eco-friendly technology to be viable. Clearly the global warming and issue of climatic changes are hinged on what elites (including upwardly mobile middle class) of all societies in all the countries do not do, that is in context to per capita consumption and life style demands.The issue of Global Warming at the moment is being tackled at two levels. The first is more recent one that is the need for Adaptation. With increasingly turbulent and extreme oscillation of climate the need for system to adapt to the changes is being recognized. But the need for adaptation shouldn’t side track the more important issue of Mitigation, which is the second level at which the global warming is being tackled. Mitigation, wherein a sincere concerted global effort is more urgently needed. The International Agreements and concerns towards reducing GHGs, improving technologies and stringent pollution rules has to take into consideration the issue of disparities within the societies. Classifying countries into “developing” and “developed” for international agreements has to go and replaced by rich and poor societies within countries. Each country needs to be forced as part of international agreement to recognize this division and make rules accordingly on pollution control and sustainable development. We majority people all around the world cannot take the burden of indulgent few who are sucking away our common resources with impunity (off course it does give them a chance to “help” us and be in the news). As a Marketeer verdicts in one show (well its all a show !!!) “…being profitable allows for concern for environment”. It’s about let me fatten myself first. Many of these elites who are jostling the eyeball space have reached there by the very means which has caused much misery and harm to others, not to forget the long term environmental consequences. Then they try to patronize us, by charity, by whatever means that help them to cling on to public space (Crude woman is only a symptom of bigger epidemic). As early as 1987 The Brundtland Report in Europe (UK?), titled Our Common Future, defines development as “…..that which meets the needs of the poorest without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs….”. Already world over the indications are that the global warming has crossed that threshold wherein sudden shifts in climatic changes happen. Sergei kirpotin and Judith Marguard reports in New Scientist recently that an area of permafrost (in Siberia) has started to melt for the first time since it was formed some 11000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. The area, which covers the sub arctic region of western Siberia is world’s largest frozen peat bog and scientists fear that as it thaws, it will release billions of tones of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than Co2 into the atmosphere. The peat bog could hold some 70bn tonnes of methane, a quarter of all of the methane stored in the ground around the world. Over the next 100 years it would add around 700mn tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere each year. This would effectively double atmospheric levels of the gas leading to a 10% to 25% increase in global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Changes (IPCC), 2001 points out “…that a global average temperature change ranging from 2.5 degree F to 10.4 Degree F would translate into climate related impacts that are much larger and faster than any that have occurred during the 10,000 year history of civilization”. It further says “…the impact associated with deceptive changes in temperature are evident in all corners of the globe. There is heavier rains in some areas (people in Mumbai and Bangalore, recently Chennai are quite aware of it now!!. Thankfully I was prudent enough to choose a place where I was spared of this misery) and droughts in others. Glaciers are melting and spring is arriving earlier, oceans are warming (hurricanes and storms are related to these changes) and coral reefs are dying…”. Things therefore are slipping from bad to worse. Leonard Fuentes (a Cuban novelist) writes in a column recently “…..as Cuban poet Jose Marti said about poetry, either we save ourselves together or we all lose ourselves. This is the nature of “global” game in which what is at stake is not the wealth and comfort of few but the lives of everyone, in Cuba, in Barundi, in Ceylon, in Venice, in California…..”. Let me end this very long (thanx for the patience!!. Not that I give a damn!!) article with a line I read somewhere : we are not getting along with each other if we are not getting along with the planet.
