5 links to follow, and why

1.  M Rajshekhar on Food Security

When we consider policies meant to insure 'food security' for all people, we find the problems are enormously complex.  But it's something we all need to think more about. M Rajshekhar's excellent piece in the Economic Times looks at some of what has--and has not--worked in Chhattisgarh’s 'right to food' programme. Rajshekhar covers interesting ground, and his piece raises important questions...How does Chhattisghar's flagship food programme affect different kinds of farmers and farm labourers? How does it impact the economy in general? Is it making food crops more or less diverse?  Are these effects given, or could they be modified under a modified food distribution regime?  This is good reporting; read it and pass it on.

2. and 3.  A personal narrative and a photo essay on children at Commonwealth Games construction sites.

When I read 'Footpath,' Mridula Koshy's short narrative about her walk through the CWG construction zone on Khel Gaon Marg, I immediately thought of 'Bricks for Bread and Milk,'  a photo essay, which ran in Foreign Policy earlier this year. When I went back to look at that essay last week, I was surprised by something I hadn't noticed before: many of the people leaving comments couldn't believe the photos or tried to minimize their impact.  One said, "These pictures cannot be from India. They must be from Pakistan, or Bangladesh or from some other downtrodden place...." Another compared the children of CWG workers, who spend their days at construction sites, to the children of reporters, who spend the occasional Saturday in the newsroom with one parent when the other can't mind them. 'I'm a journalist, and I have seen many of my colleagues bring their kids to the office on a Saturday just like that.' Just like that--except of course that the children of his colleagues don't get struck down by trucks hauling construction material as they play in the newsroom. Whether or not you've seen the kids on Khel Gaon, you won't think of them in the same way once you've read Koshy's piece and looked at the FP photo essay. 

4. Frontline on Unilever's poisonous factory in Tamil Nadu

With the flu and dengue going around, thermometers are getting a lot of use.  'Poisoned Ground'--the cover story in the current issue of Frontline about the continuing problems caused by an old Hindustan Unilever thermometer factory in Kodaikanal, Tamil Nadu--reminds us that even good things like thermometers often come with a price.  Back in 2003, Unilever had to admit it had a problem and went so far as to ship tonnes of mercury contaminated soil back to the US.  But Unlilever seems to be having a hard time accepting their responsibility for the contamination and health problems that remain.  I know Frontline has a reputation for being boring.  I prefer the word 'thorough,' though I can't say I read it cover-to-cover.  But this article--and the102 footnotes that accompany it-- remind us why it's good Frontline is still around.  Let's hope the mainstream press gives this issue the attention it deserves.

5. What research says about how--and how not to--study.

 It's exam time in many Delhi schools, so this article, which ran in The Hindu, but was originally published here in the New York Times, is timely. It's gotten a lot of attention for a lot of different reasons.  Students, if you read it, you may actually take away a few useful study tips.  Did you know that you will learn better if you study the material in more than one location than you will if you study only in one location? And teachers, this article is a reminder to give mixed practice:

Varying the type of material studied in a single sitting — alternating, for example, among vocabulary, reading and speaking in a new language — seems to leave a deeper impression on the brain than does concentrating on just one skill at a time. Musicians have known this for years, and their practice sessions often include a mix of scales, musical pieces and rhythmic work. Many athletes, too, routinely mix their workouts with strength, speed and skill drills.

In other words, endless word problems (or just sums) that only use subtraction is not good practice--and there's research cited that proves this.  Far better to give less work and mix it up.  And last minute mugging (something I'm seeing a lot of this week in my own home) may work--but not for long:

Cognitive scientists do not deny that honest-to-goodness cramming can lead to a better grade on a given exam. But hurriedly jam-packing a brain is akin to speed-packing a cheap suitcase, as most students quickly learn — it holds its new load for a while, then most everything falls out...“With many students, it’s not like they can’t remember the material” when they move to a more advanced class, said Henry L. Roediger III, a psychologist at Washington University in St. Louis. “It’s like they’ve never seen it before.” 

The problem, of course, is that our whole system is built on cramming for high-stakes tests.  Testing itself is not bad--and this article makes that clear.  But it's much better to ask students to demonstrate deep understanding of a smaller amount of content than it is to ask them to study a huge amount of content in a shallow manner.  Parents, teachers, and older students would do well to read and consider this article.

Activists Win Against Pesticide Industry in Supreme Court Free Speech Case

Large and powerful corporations don't typically take criticism well. In places where the military rules, there are often fairly straightforward ways to muzzle opposition-- I'm not going to go into those here, but if you want to read an interesting book on the subject, try The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. 

Of course there are times when the Indian state intervenes directly on behalf of big companies--sometimes for it's own reasons, sometimes under pressure from powerful "allies".  This may involve the forcible displacement of poor people or forest dwellers. It may involve the protection of corporations, like Union Carbide/Dow, from paying the true cost of the crimes they've committed.  Sometimes the state even goes so far as to save corporations from having to worry about the crimes they may commit someday--the Civil Nuclear Liability Bill is an example of this.

At times, corporations also try to use the legal system to punish people who criticise them.  This strikes at the heart of freedom of expression.  The BRAI Bill is a particularly stark example of this. More common is the practice of censorship through Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP). SLAPP involves the use of lawsuits to punish and intimidate people for what they say. Imagine having to get legal help, go to court, etc. because of a frivolous lawsuit.  Not something most of us want to do.  

Given all this, it was very nice to hear that a group of environmentalists (including Ravi Agarwal, who we've featured here at the Dhaba) recently beat a SLAPP suit brought by an association of pesticide manufacturers. Here's an excerpt from the press release: 

A two Judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, on 20th July, 2010, quashed the case criminal defamation case against 11 activists initiated by the Crop Care Federation (a consortium of pesticide manufacturing companies earlier known as Pesticides Associations of India) in the Magistrate Court of Warangal for publishing a report titled "The Killing Fields of Warangal" in 2002. The report which was a preliminary investigation of pesticides caused deaths in the cotton belt of Warangal district of Andhra Pradesh (India) was termed defamatory by the largest and most powerful pesticide companies in the country. In its judgement on 20th July 2010, the Honourable Court observes that, "The general tenor of the report indicates that the report meant to focus the harmful effects of exposure to pesticides. It is quite evident from the report that it was not meant to harm, hurt or defame any individual or the manufacturing company." The ruling marks a landmark judgment favouring freedom of speech and transparency and was fought for by the very well known Indian environmental lawyer, Mr. Raj Panjwani.

This SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) type litigation, brought upon by one section of pesticide industries, was filed in Warangal and would have resulted in a long and expensive trial lasting for years, which had begun over 5 years ago. The Warangal court had also issued non-bailable arrest warrants against some of the accused, in 2007, after Andhra Pradesh High Court had dismissed the appeal to quash the proceedings.

This is one of the first times that the Pesticide manufacturers, who have been filing many civil and criminal defamation cases against environmentalists, for speaking or writing on pesticides, have lost.

This is very good news, and we should celebrate.  But it should make us aware of a deeper problem.  If activists who write a good faith report about the affects of poison on people end up having to prove their innocence by taking their case all the way to the Supreme Court, then we are in trouble.  Many people will not be able or willing to speak up if that is the price they have to pay.  I'm not sure what the answer is, but it seems to me that there should be some penalty for corporations and people who bring lawsuits that are obviously frivolous.  

One penalty we might hope to make corporations pay for this kind of suit is bad publicity.   I'd love to see a major paper look at the SLAPP issue and how it works in India. It's an important story in itself.  And the very act of shining the light on this kind of misuse of corporate power could be an important deterrent against this kind of behavior in the future. That's the kind of thing we would all benefit from.

For more information please contact:
New Delhi: Ravi Agarwal 9810037355
Warangal: P. Damoder: 9849346491 
Hyderabad: Dr.D. Narasimha Reddy: 9010205742 
Chennai: Madhumita Dutta: & Rajesh Rangarajan: 9840113028

Worldwide BP Protest Day: Virtual Laugh-In (New Delhi)

I spent a LOT of time earlier this week explaining in a somewhat uncharacteristically serious tone the reasons I don't like the Indian government's plan to cut fuel subsidies and decontrol the price of petrol. Still I don't want to give you the impression that I'm fan of Big Oil!  I just don't like schemes that result in massive transfers of wealth from poor people to rich people.

In fact, I'd decided to make my feelings about Big Oil clear by unilaterally declaring this past Thursday, "Make-Fun-of-BP Day." Then, just before I hit the Publish Post button, I learned that today, Saturday, July 10 had already been declared, "Worldwide BP Protest Day!" Not wanting to go against the grain needlessly, I moved my post to be part of the action, as it were.

So today at the Dhaba, we are hosting a virtual New Delhi Laugh-In Against BP, as part of the Worldwide BP Protest Day!  If you are looking for a real world event, sorry I don't know of any in South Asia yet, but there is a list of events here.

To prepare for the Laugh-In, my kids and I did some internet research into the BP situation.  And we found there are a lot of people making very funny videos about BP.  I've always enjoyed making fun of bad guys, so today I'm linking you to the funniest BP videos that we could find.

If these videos don't get you laughing, I don't know what will!:

Here is my 10 year old's favorite: this explains where BP gets it's best ideas.

 

Here is another very funny video that is getting millions of hits: BP Spills Coffee. Tip:Amruta Patil
 

Here are some BP commercial spoofs that made us laugh out loud at least once:

Here's BP CEO Tony Hayward making a very funny apology.

Rich Fish: BP explains the "bright side" of the spill!

Here's an apology from BP's "Excecutive Vice-President in Charge of Oil Spills."

And here's a BP spokesperson explaining why oil spills are "natural."

If you don't like videos, here are the entrants in a contest Greenpeace held to redesign BP's logos.

And you really want a serious analysis of what BP means in an Indian contex, read this post:

Bhopal, BP, Cobalt-60: Will there be Enough Magic in this Toxic Confluence to Kill the Nuclear Bill?

Finally, for the record, here is what the real Tony Hayward looks like in action

Bhopal, BP, Cobalt-60: Will there be Enough Magic in this Toxic Confluence to Kill the Nuclear Bill?

The news that the Obama administration has gotten BP to pay $20 billion into an independently administered fund charged with compensating victims of the Gulf oil spill has gotten mixed reactions in the US. Many give Obama credit for wresting such a big "down payment" from BP, while others emphasize the fact that BP could--and may have to--pay much more in the long run.  And some are actually outraged because they think BP has been treated unfairly; this blogger has posted a clip of a US representative apologizing to BP for what he calls an illegal "shake down." This be-nice-to corporations approach may seem hard believe, until you read that the representative in question has received very, very large campaign contributions from BP and other oil and natural gas companies involved in the Deepwater disaster.  (He later woke up to political reality and took it all back.)

There is room to be critical of the BP-Obama agreement, but the plan does accomplish some important things: BP has had to put on hold plans to pay out dividends to shareholders this year, and many of the victims of the disaster will receive substantial relief without having to wait  years for a court settlement. Importantly, the agreement does not preclude the imposition of further fines or settlements against BP.

Now contrast this to India's approach to disaster management.  As we argued here last week, for many years that approach has been concerned, first and foremost, with sending an "appropriate signal" to foreign investors.  As we all know by now, Bhopal is the clearest example of this. After 26 years, very little has happened: the original settlement against Union Carbide was completely inadequate;people thus far tried for their role in the disaster have received ridiculously small sentences; and successive governments have failed to extradite Warren Anderson in large part because the signal they sent to the US were that extradition was not a priority. 

Oh, and one more small detail: the disaster at Bhopal continues, thanks to left over toxins at the old Union Carbide plant that neither Dow/Union Carbide nor the GOI have bothered to clean up. (For more on this story, read this piece in the Economic Times.)

Though it's taken a very long time, it is good to see the Bhopal issue getting some of the attention it should have gotten years ago. In fact there are new and important revelations being made every day.  And The Hindu reports that, after doing nothing for a very long time, the Bhopal Group of Ministers is actually meeting over the weekend.  The article states that "the mood at the meeting, sources said, was that something should be done, and done quickly.” It is hard to resist the temptation to make fun of this sudden change in "mood," but I'm going to sit on my hands and do so.  Instead I'll make three short, serious points:

1. Anything good that comes out of all this will be thanks to political pressure made possible by the insulting nature of last week's Bhopal verdict and the many organizations, both here and abroad, who have been working on this issue for years. The government is only acting because it feels it has to; otherwise it would have done so years ago. 
2. Congress/UPA governments and leaders deserve a large share of blame for this fiasco over the last quarter century; and their responsibility goes far beyond letting Warren Anderson escape in 1984. (In fairness, the BJP should be careful about what they say until they can explain why they did little or nothing to take care of this problem when they were in office.)
3. This is not a problem without a solution! A broad coalition of groups working on this issue has put together a remarkably sensible and clear "Roadmap for Justice and Dignity."  Let's hope the Group of Ministers take heed of these demands.

It is eerie the way the uproar around the Bhopal verdict, the BP oil disaster, and the radioactive Cobalt-60 incident in Mayapuri have all happened so close together.  One speaker at last week's No More Bhopals rally in Delhi called this coincidence of toxic events, "magic."  And maybe it is magic: if nothing else, all these events are making it more difficult for the government to justify its be-nice-to-foreign-companies-even-if-they-cause-disasters attitude!

Last week, for example, the government withdrew an amendment to the Nuclear Liability Bill which would have further weakened the already ridiculously weak bill.  The revised bill wold have offered further protection to US nuclear equipment suppliers from liability in the case of a nuclear incident that “has resulted from the wilful act or gross negligence on the part of the supplier of the material, equipment, or his employee.” It's just a bit difficult to justify that kind of language, given the current climate, no matter what message you want to send to corporations!

But let's not forget the really stupid part of the Nuclear Liability Bill is its ridiculously low liability caps.The bill limits the overall amount of liability for each nuclear accident in India to about US $450 million or Rs 2100 crore.  This happens to be less than the courts awarded in the Bhopal disaster way back in 1989!  But that's not all; the bill limits the liability of the private companies who would operate nuclear plants in India to mere 500 crores--(about $110 million). In the case of a big accident, the Government of India would generously make up the difference between the 500 crore that the responsible company would be liable to pay and the 2100 crore overall limit--a very nice gift to the operators of faulty nuclear power plants.

The government wants this Nuclear Liability Bill very badly; after all, it is part of the Nuclear Deal that UPA I was willing to risk a no-confidence vote over.  If I'm right, even if we kill it once it will return in a new form. And though the magic seems to be going our way this week, we're going to need more than magic to kill this bad bill!  Spread the word; let's stop it while we can!  Sign this online petition, if you haven't already. And while you are at it, sign this one from Greenpeace!

Reviewed: Our Toxic World

Our Toxic World

Project by Toxic Link

Script by Aniruddha Sen Gupta

Illustrations by Priya Kuriyan

Sage Publications (2010)

Four Green Stars (very good indeed)

Most of us don’t like to think about the poisons that surround us.  Oh sure, we may get worked up about radioactive material being sold in the scrap market.  But the stuff that kills us slowly is somehow easier to ignore.  As dirty as Delhi’s air is, we have to breathe, after all.  And even though we know that all kinds of toxic substances can be fatal, the ways in which they kill are typically not as easy to identify or understand as, say, a swift blow to the head with a blunt object. 

No, toxics are not exciting; they do their damage over a long period of time, through complex chains of events and interactions.  Because of this, they provoke both anxiety and boredom: a deadly combination for those trying to educate the public on the subject.

Toxic Link, a Delhi based NGO, has used a novel approach to confront this problem.  Working with Sage Publications, they’ve come out with Our Toxic World: A guide to hazardous substances in everyday life.  Our Toxic World is part informational text, part graphic novel. The narrative follows the Sachdeva family and other residents of Rohini East as they confront, in different ways, the toxins that surround us all.  From air pollution to heavy metals, from household waste to industrial pollution, this book covers a lot of ground. 

I read Our Toxic World in one sitting—it took just about two hours. It probably won't win the next Commonwealth Writers' Prize, but it held my interest throughout, which is quite an accomplishment, given the subject.  And I learned a lot.  Did you know that washing your vegetables thoroughly in running water is the best way to deal with the high level of contaminants they almost certainly contain? It's nice to know there are some things we can do that will help. I also learned that by the year 2050, residential, commercial and institutional buildings are expected to account for up to 38 percent of global energy consumption. Investing in green buildings makes more and more sense.

Our Toxic World is organized into sections that cover broad topics. Most include a short narrative, followed by some condensed informational text. Honestly, when I saw this book’s subtitle, “a guide to hazardous substances in our everyday lives,” I expected the stories in it to be…painful.  Fortunately, I found Aniruddha Sen Gupta’s script surprisingly effective.  The stories make sense; the dialogue works.  And the book is populated with a large cast of interesting characters.  They include a government factory inspector, an environmental activist, a housewife, an architectural apprentice, and a high school student. We get cameo appearances from a thoughtful auto rickshaw driver, a clean cop, several waste pickers, and many others.

Part of what makes this book work as well as it does is Priya Kuriyan’s art.  Without the illustrations, Our Toxic World would be nowhere near as interesting or easy to understand as it is.   I love the opening “City of Bones” sequence and the panels that show the widow of a construction worker remembering a visit with the Doctor who had treated her dying husband.  "Dust had eaten him away, transforming him into itself." This is powerful stuff.

I attended the Delhi launch of Our Toxic World back in April.  There was some debate about whether the book could be used in schools, and about whether it would be helpful to students.  I find myself agreeing with the people who said that it would work for children, if presented in the right way.  As one woman said, none of us understand everything we read, but we can all learn a lot by reading challenging things anyway.That includes children.

I suspect that many children will find the illustrations simply irresistible.  Though this book would probably be most effective for students 12 and up,  my own ten year old read it on his own,  just because he liked the pictures.  Later, when I asked him about it, he admitted he’d skipped most of the “complicated stuff” and “just read the stories.” But he volunteered several important things he’d learned, including three ways toxics can make kids sick (pesticides get into rivers and poison the fish people eat; children eat lead paint dust; and children suck on toys made out of poisonous stuff.). 

And if that’s not proof enough that this book can work with children, last night I overheard my sons debating the mosquito coil I offered: “No way, it’s toxic!” said one.

“That’s easy for you to say,” said the other.  “The mosquitoes don’t bite you!”  Yes, life confronts us with many difficult questions.  Our Toxic World won’t answer them all.  But it will get you thinking!

 ***

Buy Our Toxic World at Friends of Books 

To learn more about the things that poison us, check out the Dhaba's brand new Toxics & Trash page.  And do check out theToxic Link website.  It's full of detailed, helpful information from people who have been working on this issue for years.

Nuclear Liability Bill: worse than stupid

Back in March, I argued that the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill was a stupid idea.  Two recent events make me rethink that position.  After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that word stupid may not strong enough to describe this bill.

Consider what we've learned from the radioactive Cobalt 60 which was sold by to a West Delhi scrap market, and which killed at least one trader and exposed many more to unsafe levels of radiation. Yes, Delhi University should get a large part of this blame--if we can't trust universities to take care of their radioactive waste, then it's hard to imagine who we can trust.

But the Cobalt 60 tragedy also revealed the utter incompetence of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) which is charged with regulating nuclear installations and equipment.  It is the job of the AERB to make sure that accidents like this don't happen.  Unfortunately, recent investigations suggest that accidents are the rule, rather than the exception when it comes to the disposal of radioactive material--which means "accident" may not be the right word to use--I'd suggest "negligence" as a place to start, but that also may not be strong enough.  

Writing in the Financial Chronicle, Praful Bidwai explains the consistent failure of the AERB to even keep track of the nuclear facilities supposedly  regulates and monitors:

Worst of all, AERB conducted a laughable total of 110 inspections in the 62,000 plus installations under its charge last financial year. AERB rarely responds to urgent requests from laboratories about final disposal of radioactive material. Nor does it have sound advice to offer them.

In an article in Frontline, Bidwai goes over the same ground in more depth.   And he adds this disturbing information:

Many scientists who handle radioactive material – and I have interviewed several from three institutes – complain that the AERB routinely ignores requests for guidance on storage and disposal. Often, inquirers are told to dump the material, “informally”, of course.

Given that, it should come as no surprise that the recent Cobalt 60 incident was not the first of it's kind. In another article in Frontline this month, we learn that shiploads full of recycled Indian steel have been rejected abroad for being radioactive.  And we've even exported recycled steel that resulted in radioactive French elevator buttons! If we are careless enough to export radioactive steel, one has to wonder about the condition of our domestic steel.  This may well be of many factors that led the Times of India to recently say, "India may truly be on the verge of a cancer epidemic."

What does the AERB's incompetence have to do with the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill? For one thing, under the Nuclear Liability Bill, the AERB would continue to be responsible for regulating nuclear facilities; and as we have seen, they are not doing a very good job at that.  (For more on the ineptitude of the AERB and the Department of Atomic Energy, read this article by Praful Bidwai--it is chilling stuff.)   Not only that, under the Nuclear Liability Bill, the AERB would be would be charged with determining whether a nuclear accident has occurred or not. Scary stuff.

It should be clear that it makes no sense to go ahead with this bill--or with an expansion of nuclear power at all--until we have a regulatory body capable of ...regulating.

The other huge problem with the Nuclear Liability Bill is that it caps  liability at ridiculously low levels.  You can read about those levels here, or in many other places. This clause was apparently required by US multinationals, who want to avoid liability in the event they sell us faulty nuclear equipment. 

The liability issue is not new. But the huge oil leak at British Petroleum's (BP) off shore oil rig in the US should give us pause for two reasons. The BP leak reminds us that the cost of major industrial accidents--like Chernobyl, Bhopal, and Exxon Valdez--can be huge.  It is clear that the BP leak has already caused billions of dollars in economic damage--not to mention wildlife habitats that may never recover. Major nuclear accidents are potentially just as expensive--and let's not forget that radiation sticks along a lot longer than oil slicks.

 Frontline reports that  BP did not install expensive backup safety equipment on this rig partly because the US regulators--operating under rules set up by Bush and Cheney--said it wasn't necessary. That goes back to weak regulation.  Of course limiting liability also encourages companies to take more risks, because they know in the worst case they'll be bailed out.

Yes, weak regulators and limited liability are two good reasons why the Nuclear Liability Bill is a disaster waiting to happen.  The PM is pushing it hard this week--and he's making a big mistake.  Let's stop it while we can!  Sign this online petition, if you haven't already. And while you are at it, sign this one from Greenpeace!

Greenpeace Helps Clean Up Mayapuri Market

If you are in Delhi, you know how hot it is.  So hot that I'm taking a holiday from serious essay writing for the day.   There are a lot of really serious things I've started writing about, but haven't finished, and they'll have to wait another day. 

I figured I'd just run a silly video, until I opened The Hindu this evening when I got home.  It seems the good people at Greenpeace have identified some remaining hot spots in the Mayapuri market in West Delhi.  And now they are helping the Department of Atomic Energy clean them up.  This is not as easy to do as you might think, since trying to cut open a chunk of Cobalt 60, which looks just like a lot of other kinds of scrap metal, results in tiny particles of radioactive mixed in with the regular Delhi dust.  And we all know how hard it is to clean up Delhi dust!

There is poison all around us, and it's no small matter.  Having seen lung cancer up close, I can tell you that it is no fun at all, and it has many causes--smoking is only the most popular and fashionable of them.  Someone you know will most likely get it from the Delhi air, even if they don't inhale tobacco smoke or radioactive dust. (And I'll never say this to you at a party, because nobody likes to hear it, but the fact that we all breathe poisonous air is actually NOT a good reason to continue smoking like a chimney!  That's like someone who can't swim saying, "Hey, this water feels great, and since I'm already up to my neck in it, going a little deeper won't hurt!)

Back to the latest development in our radioactive scrap markets, no big organization is perfect, but you have to admire the way these Greenpeace guys show up when you least expect it.  So hats off to them!

And if all this has been too serious for you, here is the Onion, making fun of Americans who outsource their jobs to places like India.  I'm pretty sure there must be some environmental connection in there somewhere, but I'm not going to look to hard for it. 

Read, rage, laugh. And above all, stay cool!

What the radioactive trash found in a West Delhi scrap market says about Nuclear Security

The news that at least 6 people are in critical condition from exposure to the pieces of radioactive Cobalt 60 that wound up in a West Delhi scrap market has to be an embarrassment to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as he prepares to leave for the Nuclear Security Summit being held next week in the US.  Of course, if it turns out that the radioactive material came from in an illegal shipment of trash sent to India from abroad, then other countries may also find themselves with some explaining to do.  Early reports suggest this is likely, because the radioactive material came in a form not manufactured in India.

There are so many ways in which this is disturbing.  The symptoms of radiation poisoning are horrifying: hair loss, burns, blackened skin, damage to bone marrow and organs, etc.  And for those who survive initial exposure, the long term consequences of radiation exposure can fatal as well.  The "good news" is that you can't make an atomic bomb with Cobalt 60, and it has a relatively short half life of just over 5 years.  Of course, that only means half of it will break down in 5 years; it will take much longer for the radiation to dissipate completely. Still, it could be worse; the half-life of uranium-235 is 700 million years.  


Of course, the much-reported bad news is that it is possible to make a conventional "dirty bomb" with Cobalt 60, and that could contaminate a large area with radioactive poison.  Nuclear terrorism is what the Americans plan to talk about at next week's Nuclear Security Summit.  But after what happened in West Delhi last week, perhaps the PM should seek to broaden the scope of the talks to include more than just dirty bombs. Shipments of trash containing radioactive material can kill people, bomb or no bomb.


If you think about it, this incident is also disturbing because of what it says about how we handle hazardous waste generally.  Radiation poisoning is dramatic, but too much exposure to more mundane things, like the mercury in CFL light bulbs, can be just as deadly in the long run.  Rather than write a long essay on the subject, here are a few numbers that may help put things in perspective:

Green Light Toxic Trash Index:

Minimum number of people in critical condition as a result of West Delhi radiation leak: 6

Number of shops that showed "high levels" of radiation on Friday: 5

Number of Indian institutions with "nucleonic gauges": 1,485

Total number of nucleonic gauges in those institutions: 7,850

Number of inspections of these institutions carried out by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) during the 2008-2009 year: 16

Number of industrial radiography units in the country: 505

Inspections of those units done by the AERB during the 2008-2009 year : 39

Number of Delhi hospitals that currently follow safety guidelines set out by the National Disaster Management Authority for dealing with patients exposed to radioactive materials: 1

Minimum number of radioactive sources the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has reported losing track of since 1996: 1,500 

Fraction of those sources that were found to be "untraceable": more than half.

Metric tonnes of waste paper imported by India during 2005-2006 year, according to a recent story in Telhelka: 1,680,000

Number of metric tonnes of hazardous waste that a recycling plant in Roorkie was recently given permission to import from the US and UK: 8,000 

Estimated number of tonnes of hazardous waste produced in India annually: 6,000,000

******

For reports on the Independent People's Tribunal, go to the Indian Youth Climate Network's blog.  The most recent post is here.  You can find more reports on the blog's home page. If you are reading this on Sunday, you can try watching a live web cast of the proceedings here.  There will be a press conference today (Sunday) at 4 p.m. at the Constitution Club, Delhi.  For more information contact: Sherbanu (9953466107); Purnima 971178868

Why Let's Do It! Delhi Can't Solve this Court Ordered Crisis

I had planned to name this post, "Three Really Stupid Ideas," but I've decided instead to write about one really stupid idea and one pretty good idea that will almost certainly deliver less than it promises. As for the other two really stupid ideas, well, you'll just have to wait a few days for those.

The Delhi High Court ruled last week that local authorities must once again enforce a ruling the Supreme Court made back in 2000.  Though this ruling will affect other industries as well, the Indian Express makes it clear that it is aimed at plastic recyclers in particular.  I've been thinking a lot about the plastic recycling industry since I reviewed Of Poverty and Plastic and interviewed its author, Kaveri Gill, last month.  If previous experience is any guide, this ruling will fail to bring an end to plastic recycling.  It will, however, cause a great deal of needless hardship to people who have enough hardship already.


It is common knowledge that Delhi does an exceptionally poor job at managing it's solid waste.  There is litter everywhere, but more than that, there are large sections of the city where formal solid waste management and recycling systems are nonexistent.


We would literally be drowning in trash if it were not for the informal sector: the waste pickers, the kabadi wallas, the traders and the small recycling factories that do much of the work that the state takes responsibility for in most other countries. 


This is not a perfect system, but it can boast impressive achievements.  India recycles 60-80% of it's post-consumer plastic, as compared with 7% in Europe and 10% in China.  Most of this recycling takes place in Delhi, making our city the de facto recycling capital of the world. The benefits of all this recycling means less use of petroleum, but it also means that poor people all over the country have access to inexpensive plastic products: buckets, mugs, footwear, and more.  And the plastic recycling industry has created lakhs of jobs that would otherwise not exist.


It is true that the recycled plastic industry pollutes.  So does the new plastic industry, and so does burying plastic in the ground.  But three points should be made.  First, the government has never followed through on it's plans to relocate this industry in a systematic and sustainable manner.  If this industry must move, then a well-organized, humane approach would be the way to do it.  Second, many factory owners have made efforts to reduce their environmental impact. Sealing them up and scattering them even further from the center of Delhi will simply shift pollution to new areas--where things may be worse.    Third,  arbitrary and sudden government sweeps  like the ones that devastated this industry a decade ago are unlikely to end plastic recycling, but they are almost certain to cause enormous amounts of suffering in an industry that is already marginal and risky in the best of times.


Let's Do it! Delhi
Perhaps the justices of the High Court felt they could get away with such a drastic attack on the industry that helps keep Delhi as clean as it is because they've read about the Let's Do It! Delhi campaign, which aims to clean up Delhi in just one day on March 20.  A similar campaign worked in Estonia, organizers say!  Why not Delhi?


I'm sorry, but I think this is such a sweet idea.  In fact, Mrs. Batti has me and the kids signed up for some kind of clean up work on that day, and I'm really looking forward to it.  You should sign up, too!  But I have to confess that every time I hear the Delhi effort compared to the Estonian campaign, I find myself giggling uncontrollably!  Please, don't take this the wrong way!  I hate litter.  I don't litter-- I even pick up other people's litter sometimes, which, I might add, almost always embarrasses my children.  But I watched a video about what happened in Estonia, and I just have to break this to you: DELHI is NOT ESTONIA!


The Let's Do It! Estonia campaign was amazing.  In the weeks leading up to their one-day clean up drive, they used GPS gizmos to map out every pile of trash in the country.  The airwaves were flooded with free public service announcements featuring all kinds of famous Estonians.  On the day of the clean up, Estonia, a country of 1.3 million people, produced 50,000 volunteers, who cleaned up 10,000 tons of trash.  Wow!  Those guys are serious about cleanliness! So what if most of that trash went to landfills, not recycling centers--you really have to give them credit for doing an incredible job.


The Let's Do It! Delhi organizers are impressive and hard working.  They are doing a very good thing.  I support them.  But no matter how we try, we will not be able to clean up Delhi in one day.  To approach the level of civic involvement that the Estonians had, Let's Do It! Delhi would need to mobilize more than a half million volunteers on March 20.  To be successful, they would have already had to have mapped every trash pile in every slum and public park, and all the plastic floating in every nallah and river in the city. And, of course, the MCD would have to have laid the ground work for a trash collection system throughout Delhi so that those piles of trash wouldn't just reappear next month.  


Of course the fact that we will fail does not mean we should not try.  But there is too much irony here to go unspoken: this month, as people from all over Delhi come together to spend a day picking up litter, the courts have put at risk the livelihoods the lakhs of hard working men and women who spend all of their days collecting and recycling our trash for us. Let's do it better than this, Delhi!

Saturday Special: Plastic, Trash, and Stuff

We've been talking trash again this week.  If you missed it, don't forget to read our interview with Kaveri Gill or our review of her important new book, Of Poverty and Plastic. (Find out how you might win a free copy of the book at the end of this post.)

Trashy links:

The Story of Stuff: The big picture, simply put.

Midway: plastic at sea. 
Plastic on your plates: is this green?




This is not green: broken ships at Alang. 
Pulitzer Prize winning series on ship breaking by Gary Cohn and Will Englund. 
William Langewiesche's article on ship breaking, originally published in The Atlantic.

Gas from Garbage: International Energy Agency report on getting methane from landfills in India. 
Can one American couple give up trash for a year?
Can bio gas help save Ranthambhore's tigers? 

What if a whole city turns out to be trash? Thanks to pRiyA at the (hibernating) Plum Tree for sending this story about the Darker Side of Dubai.
"Wonderland" of junk at The Plum Tree.
 

Trashy Dhaba leftovers, reheated: 
The Trouble with Trash (it's not just the condoms we should be worrying about)   
Floating Poison: The Platinum II is only a small part of a very dirty problem 

Interview: Economist and Author Kaveri Gill

On Tuesday, we reviewed Kaveri Gill's book, Of Poverty and Plastic. Gill uses an interdisciplinary approach to poverty analysis in the Indian plastic recycling industry.  In the process, she gives us important insights into the ways in which poverty, development and the environment interact in urban India. You can read our review here; we think that Of Poverty and Plastic is a rigorous, ambitious book that will be appreciated by both activists and academics alike.  Today, we are pleased to follow up our review with an interview with the author.

Tell us how you became interested in plastic recycling in the first place. 

Well, more than plastic recycling, as an economist I have always been interested in poverty and employment / labour markets. And in fact, that remains the key focus of the book, as suggested by the title, which alludes to Steinbeck's 'Of Mice and Men' and its themes of poverty during the Depression, migrant workers, and their dreams of a better life. Informal plastic recycling, as one of many informal sectors, provides a 'free' livelihood to lots of migrants to the city in the context of liberalisation , and I was struck by the great irony of these people - especially those at the lowest levels of the chain - not passively accepting of their poverty and expecting handouts, but instead exerting great agency through a market to better their lot in life, even as they contribute to the greening of the city. And yet they come up against an unhelpful state, and prejudiced judiciary and civil society.  

Your book is based on interviews, surveys and focus groups conducted in slums and markets where many of Delhi's plastic workers live and work . Can you tell us a little about that experience? Any moments or lessons that stand out for you in particular?

Well, I spent more than fifteen months at a stretch in the slums of Jwalapuri and the Mundka recycling market, a decade ago now.....and have returned regularly since. During this time, I have made good friends, and really seen the view from the other side. The thing that struck me most, and remains with me, is how the opposite of powerless and passive these people are in accepting the deal handed out to them by life. As development economists and specialists, we spend our lives hearing about the importance of the poor 'exerting agency and voice'. And that is exactly what these people have painfully wrested for themselves. In a context where they are given no security and certainty about the legality of their slum plots, are rarely the recipients of regular service delivery of water or electricity -- ironically, they are underserved by the municipality as regards solid waste management and are instead themselves the free providers of the same! -- have no access to the formal labour market or any social security from the state, they have managed to painfully negotiate all of the above through creating this informal sector work, and establishing hegemony over it, thus gaining some measure of economic and political power. This they use to overcome the social stigma they face on the ground of their doing 'polluting' work, in a ritual as opposed to environmental, sense!  

You argue that middle class urban environmentalists tend to privilege “green agenda” issues like climate change and biodiversity over what what you call “brown agenda” issues like safe water, sanitation and housing. Do you see these agendas as exclusive, or is their room for common ground?  

Well, I don't see the 'green' and 'brown' agenda as mutually exclusive. By all means, let the middle classes be concerned with both! But in privileging the former over the latter, we are in danger of internally reflecting the developed country / developing country hierarchy and divide so clearly in evidence at Copenhagen. Our elites and expanding middle classes cannot wish away the 50% of the other half forming our largest metropolitan cities, like Mumbai and Delhi. And unless we take their basic needs -- housing, safe water, sanitation -- into account as a matter of priority, even as we increase our own conspicuous consumption, we are setting ourselves up for great inequality and trouble.  

Your portrayal of waste pickers and the small godown owners for whom they work is complex, but you seem to agree that society could do better by them. Given extremely low margins of profit in this commodity chain, is it possible to imagine an effective system of plastic recycling that provided these workers with a better standard of living?

Yes, first, the state and judiciary and civil society shouldn't hinder the work they are doing. If we can't help them, leave them alone - but don't create unnecessary obstacles and hurdles by banning the recycling (again, great irony but no surprises there, we have never considered banning the primary production and consumption, which would solve the environmental problem far more effectively!), by requiring they fulfill expensive regulatory requirements which would render this low value added industry economically unviable (like printing recycled content and polymer type on each product, which even the primary industry is not yet enforced to do, as it is in industrialised countries!)

If we want to help them improve their standard of living, then there are means -- give them technological aid; make banking and microfinance loans available to them etc.

You point out that lion's share of the job growth that has occurred in the past 20 years has occurred in the informal sector. You seem ambivalent about this. On the one hand, the informal sector has been the source of a lot of innovation in areas like plastic recycling; and in many cases it does the work the state seem incapable of doing. On the other hand, informal sector work offers little security, and often reinforces the "hard bar" of caste. Do you see a way out of this? 

Let me be clear about my position on the informal sector. The reality is, it accounts for 93% of the labour force in our country at present. In an ideal world, it would be far less and many more would have formal sector employment, with social security and other benefits. But we are far from that point. In the meantime, none of my informal waste worker groups fall below the official state poverty line for Delhi, not even the waste pickers working on dumps. This is perhaps the most key finding of my book, yet it has been overlooked by many. This means they are not eligible for any handouts from the state. It is against this backdrop, and in this context, that they are delivered to the doors of the informal plastic recycling 'market' to survive and make a living for themselves. To take that away from them without offering a viable alternative is to consign them to the life of even greater destitution. Of course, one hopes in the long run, as the economy grows and develops, and more numbers are able to participate and benefit from an inclusive economy, this kind of work dies a natural death, as it did in post-industrial societies of the west. In the meantime, let them survive through an independent, and in it's own way, dignified employment and market opportunity. 

To find find out more about Of Poverty and Plastic see  review from Tuesday.  There you will also find out how you can enter our contest to win a free (and well-used) copy of the book--but hurry, you've got less than two weeks!  Want a brand new copy?  Here are the links you need:

Buy Of Poverty and Plastic in India from Flipkart

Buy Of Poverty and Plastic in the USA from Oxford University Press

Buy Of Poverty and Plastic in the UK from Amazon

 ****

Don't forget to celebrate to India's refusal to allow Bt Brinjal into the country!  If it hadn't been for the thousands and thousands of people who marched, testified, fasted and petitioned, the outcome would have almost certainly been different.  Hats off to the people who worked so hard to make this victory possible.

Reviewed: Of Poverty and Plastic

Of Poverty and Plastic

by Kaveri Gill

Oxford University Press (2010)

Four and a Half Green Stars (excellent)

A few years back, my son, who was then in Class III, was told by his teacher to write an essay on a "real-life hero.”  With no input form me, he chose to write about the kabadi walla, because “the kabadi walla helps us all recycle.”  One winter evening, we wandered through a south Delhi scrap market, interviewing itinerant buyers and the owners of small godowns who were just finishing their day’s work.  I think it was probably one of my finer moments as a father, and I've always been proud of my son for being willing to go into such unfamiliar territory.

That experience sparked my interest in Delhi’s solid waste management system, which seems to be badly broken in some ways and extremely effective in others.  So last month when I saw Kaveri Gill’s book, Of Poverty and Plastic, I couldn’t resist buying it, in spite of it’s relatively steep price tag.

I was not disappointed.  Gill’s book is ambitious, engaging and meticulously researched.  It reveals much about what is wrong –and right—not just with India’s solid waste management system, but with our post-liberalization economy as well.  This is not an easy read: it is an academic monograph, and as such it is concerned with issues of theory and methodology that the lay reader may find challenging.  But for those who work on issues related to poverty, development, waste management or recycling, this book will be worth the effort it requires.

Gill did her research in slums where plastic workers live, and in the markets where they work.  She draws her conclusions from a mix of quantitative household survey data and qualitative material gathered from focus groups and interviews.  Gill accepts the idea made popular by Amartya Sen that a real measure of poverty must look at much more than just income.  But she points out that this “capability approach” presents researchers with many problems when they set out to measure and compare poverty levels within and across countries. While Gill does not claim to answer every question she raises, she does manage to present us with a compelling picture of work and life in Delhi’s plastic industry.

This isn’t the place for an exhaustive discussion of her conclusions, but there are a few lessons that stand out.  Regarding poverty and development, it is true that the kabadi wallas, the itinerant buyers who buy and collect dry recyclable scrap, do better overall than waste pickers, who collect plastic from trash and “wet waste.”  But Gill finds that when one uses the government's poverty criteria as a measuring stick, no group of workers in the Delhi plastic industry, including waste pickers, qualifies as “poor.”  Given the work waste pickers do, and the conditions they live in, this finding suggests there may be something wrong with how the government measures poverty.

Gill finds that, overall,  workers in the informal plastic industry do somewhat better in terms of income than other informal sector workers living in the same slums.  And if anything, the plastic industry is more equal in terms of income distribution than many other informal sector industries. It is thus not possible to blame the poor conditions of waste pickers on super-exploitative middle men.  Careful analysis reveals that there is simply very little money to be made in this system, and that the owners of the plastic godowns are, like those who work for them, limited in both power and life choices.  Scavengers and godown owners alike understand that their lack of social mobility results, in large part, from the “hard bar” of caste oppression which continues to exist in urban India.

It is interesting to note that most post-liberalization job growth has occurred in the informal sector; this has reduced the access many of the most oppressed workers once had to formal jobs in the industrial and government sectors.  This dynamic—growth based on high wage jobs for a very few, well-educated members of the elite, and informal subsistence wage jobs for the rest—raises important questions about the model of development we’ve been following for nearly two decades now.

Turning to environmental issues, the book makes clear that India does an exceptional job recycling plastic: 60-80% of post consumer plastic is recycled here, as opposed to 7% in Europe and 10% in China.  This should be celebrated, Gill argues, because instead of dumping our used plastic in landfills, we now turn it into cheap buckets and new shoes.   Certainly the workers at the lowest levels of this industry deserve more respect and support from government and society at large.  But Gill also argues that by the logic of capitalism, those who are at the highest level of this industry are not the villains they are often made out to be.  Gill suggests they have played a vital social function by inventing--at considerable financial risk--new techniques and markets for environmentally friendly products.  Gill argues that they are entrepreneurs in the best sense of the word.

However, rather than celebrate this industry, too often elite groups and even middle class environmentalists endorse policies that do the opposite.  Gill looks at the mostly unsuccessful drive to ban plastic bags in Delhi in 2000 and asks why it was aimed primarily at recycled plastic. Gill argues that this was true in part because middle class environmentalists in India, as in the West, tends to privilege “green agenda” issues like climate change and biodiversity over what she calls “brown agenda” issues like safe water, sanitation and housing. But one can't just blame the environmentalists.  To some extent, Gill suggests, the ban the bag movement of a decade ago was hi-jacked by elite interests that were interested less in “green” or “brown” issues and more in making the city look “world class” by removing (or moving) unsightly plastic litter, slums and factories.

Like many of us, Gill sees the problems in the system as it exists, but isn’t sure exactly what to do about them in the long run.  Modern market economies are full of problems, she seems to say, but they are a reality we have to live with.  Our post liberalization market economy, in particular, is producing unequal growth and is distorted by many things, including continuing caste oppression. Gill doesn’t tell us how to remake, or "recycle" this system.  But she does a great deal to help us understand it.  For academics and activists alike, this book and the questions it raises are well worth engaging with.

Buy Of Poverty and Plastic in India from Flipkart

Buy Of Poverty and Plastic in the USA from Oxford University Press

Buy Of Poverty and Plastic in the UK from Amazon

 **** 

It's really difficult for me to do this, because I love to hold onto books once I've read them.  But because Of Poverty and Plastic is about recycling, among other things, I'm going to offer my used copy (full of my pencil marks) as a prize to the person who writes me the most compelling email explaining why they just have to read it.   Send it here: haribatti123@gmail.com

I'll get a panel of eminent people together to judge the entries.  Let's make the deadline two weeks from today.

We'll be spending the rest of this week talking trash.  On Thursday, we'll follow up this review with an interview with the author, Kaveri Gill.  On Saturday, we'll have all kinds of trashy links.