Nuclear crisis in Japan: more lessons

Japan's problems continued with another quake hitting this week.

I know I wrote about the nuclear disaster in Japan last week, and I know many of you are ready to move on to the next 'big story', whether that be Wikileaks-comes-to-India or the war in Libya.  Still I think it's important for us to revisit what's going on in Japan because it is so easy to learn the wrong lessons from it. And I promise to be quick and not too technical.


First, most of us have learned or been reminded of the fact that nuclear power is not safe. The guy cutting my hair said so this weekend, as did at least two auto walas.  Most people see that if things could go this wrong in a Japanese nuclear plant, there is a good chance they could go wrong here also. I remind people that anyone who followed the incident last year when radioactive trash ended up in a west Delhi scrap market knows that Indian authorities are simply not capable of monitoring the nuclear industry effectively (yes, I said that last week, but it bears saying again). 


But the problem with the automated--and correct--'nuclear is dangerous' response is that the other major sources of energy--coal and oil--are also dangerous. VERY dangerous. Does anyone remember that spill in the Gulf of Mexico last year? Deadly and environmentally destructive. Oil is getting more dangerous to extract because it is getting harder to find. If we keep using oil like we are, we are bound to have more big spills in environmentally sensitive places, because much of the world's remaining oil is in environmentally sensitive places.  Simple, really. And coal, well coal is also very, very dangerous. In fact, George Monbiot over at the Guardian argues convincingly that for a variety of reasons coal kills far more people every year than nuclear energy. (Of course there are the climate-change related deaths, but coal plants also release more radiation than nuclear plants--assuming the nuclear plants don't melt down.)


The only way out of this mess is for us to drastically reduce consumption of both energy and things. That's going to be painful, but it's got to happen. Except it won't--not with the political leadership we have. The western world seems happy to blame India and China for oil scarcity, even though they've historically consumed most of it. And Indian politicians are quick to use the fact that we have a lot of poor people to excuse the over-consumption of our super-elite. Not a pretty picture.


Oh yes, one more thing. When we talk about green building, the events in Japan remind us that responsible construction--whether it be low-income housing or high-end malls--must be earthquake-safe. As I said last week, far, far more people die from badly built buildings than from nuclear meltdowns. And the solution to that problem is not as expensive as we think--especially considering what we have to lose through inaction. 

Can you tell me what we building here?

I'd just like to know, because something in this picture just doesn't look right.

Priyanka Chopra: do we really need role models like this?

When you think about it, Priyanka Chopra  gains from her association with green causes than the greens she says she's supporting

I have a drawer filled with newspaper clippings that frustrate me. I write about some, and some end up in the kabadi--there's just not enough time to do justice to all the outrageous things going on in the world these days.  I was sorting out those clippings the other day when I found this lovely piece in The Hindu about NDTV's "green ambassador," Priyanka Chopra. On behalf of NDTV and Toyota, Chopra was giving out cash awards and certificates to motivate green activists. This from the article:

Ms. Chopra said ever since she became a green ambassador, a number of netizens were actively following what she wrote and said.  “It feels great to be part of the campaign. For the past two years, Greenathon has been doing amazing things to protect our environment; it brought light to 150 villages. When we, as actors, get acknowledged with an award for our acting skills, then it motivates us to put our best foot forward. Similarly, when we would honour unsung heroes who are contributing in their own special way to make our plant environment-friendly it would encourage them to do more.”

I won't complain about anyone giving cash money to green activists, though I'm not convinced it will do much good. Cash money to fund green research, or subsidies to help farmers grow food more sustainably, would make more sense. Or maybe scholarships for students who have demonstrated an interest in green issues or technology. Most of us green activists do what we do because we understand that being green is in all of our long term interest; we don't need cash prizes to convince us.


What's more, if we environmentalists ever start relying on car companies or TV stations to provide the motivation or funding for our movement, then that will be a sad day indeed. TV stations and car companies are not the kind of organizations we can rely to support anything more than superficial change--they have too much riding on the current system. Obviously.

At least this tacky hanky is reusable...

As for Ms. Chopra, well she has a pretty face, she claims she pays her taxes, and my kids loved the Krish, so I don't feel I should be too hard on her. After all, the article in The Hindu that I quoted above also says she is against killing tigers. In fact, she's even against litter:

[Ms. Chopra] said the film fraternity in Mumbai had also become environment-conscious. Earlier, film crew used to litter the sets with plastic mugs and napkins but now they dumped it in a big bag that went for recycling...“This is a cause that is close to my heart. My colleagues with whom I hang out also share my concern for doing our bit to save our planet from ecological degradation. 

But when all is said and done, being against tiger killing and litter does not qualify one to be a 'green ambassador.' And I say that not only because I hate the phrase 'brand ambassador.'  
The problem is that even while she is being called a 'green ambassador', Priyanka Chopra is serving as the poster girl for unsustainable overconsumption. It's not just Samsung and Levis--Indian Express has called Ms. Chopra the "'Face' of a million products," stating that she represents, "practically every second FMCG [Fast Moving Consumer Goods] product!" 


But Ms. Chopra is not just advertising overconsumption; she is practicing it! In the wake of the recent income tax raids on her flats, she was quoted in the Times of India as saying:

Also, it was said that I have ten flats. These are all accounted for flats and I am very proud that I bought these from my hard-earned money. I am very proud that I started so young and that at my age, I can afford so much with my hard work. And it's all accounted for – all my homes, five of which I am currently living in...

I could go on, but I don't think it's necessary. The green movement doesn't need role models like Priyanka Chopra. But it's not surprising she feels like she needs us. After all, it takes a lot of greenwash to cover 10 flats!