Narendra Murty

This is Narendra Murty. I am writing to you to explain why I have been silent on this platform for a long time. Dwijo included me in this group knowing my seriousness and concern about climate change. I am very passionate about the subject. To the extent that I devoted four years of my life studying and researching to write a book on the subject. The book is titled Nothing Fails Like Success and is available online as a Kindle eBook. If any of you are interested I can send you the link. However, I am not writing to you to sell my book. That is why I am not providing the link right now.

For me, climate change is a symptom of a disease that our civilization is suffering from and that disease is called THE CRISIS OF VALUES. Not environmental, social or economic crisis, but a crisis of our thinking itself. For we have deceived ourselves into believing that mere economic prosperity would solve all our problems. The sick economic system that devised a fourteen hour work day is normal for us because we don’t see ourselves as exploited individuals but as “temporarily embarrassed millionaires”, to use Steinbeck’s phrase.

The environment is dying but we are sure that technology would save us. We even have a bunch of scientists in the pay roll of fossil fuel giants who sing the tune that global warming is a hoax. They churn out data to argue that there is nothing unusual about the unusually hot summers we are facing and about the oceanic storms that get more and more catastrophic with each passing day. Why do they do that? Because they cannot admit that economic activities and endless economic growth is leading to ecological catastrophe. We all talk about tackling global warming, pollution, the menace of plastics but we cannot see the simple fact that the planet cannot take anymore economic growth. We have breached all the tolerance margins of Nature and now we are going deeper and deeper into the danger zone. And none of our economic growth models provide for this scenario.

Friends, our faulty and toxic Economics is the key and that is where the battle field lies. All our profit maximising economic models which do not contain environmental and social impact of economic activities is what is creating this problem of global warming and environmental degradation. This is the disease. Climate change, pollution, deforestation, methane emission, thawing of the permafrost, mass extinctions, the plastic menace – all these are merely symptoms. The disease is our profit maximisation models of economic growth without any regard to environmental impact. You people talk about reducing carbon emissions. How are you going to do it? By giving moral lessons to the companies? The battle field lies in the academia, in the business schools, in the colleges where they teach economics. We have to confront them and tell them plainly that they are teaching an outdated, toxic version of economics which is a threat to the existence of the planet. We have to confront the professors, policy makers, bureaucrats and those gentlemen in pin-stripe suits who would be converging for the World Economic Forum at Davos this winter for another round of empty entertainment and an equally feigned concern for the future of the planet.

In this battle we have foot soldiers in plenty. The activists who would actually get down to the streets to protest with flags and banners. The likes of Greta. We have plenty of those. What we don’t have are the ideological warriors. Who would carry out the battle of ideas with the academicians, economists and professors of the business schools who are teaching a toxic brand of economics to the policy makers and who are the apologists for the corporate leaders who want profit maximisation at the cost of the planet. But this kind of battle involves risks. We may be attacked, victimised and made to pay for speaking up. Because everybody is silent on this. Even the media. I am interested in this kind of an intellectual confrontation with the economic establishment – in the academia, in the business schools, in the media and even in cyber space. Let us ask the economists to show their economic growth models. Do they contain environmental and social costs built into them? They don’t? Only profit maximisation? Let’s tell them on their face that they are teaching shit! Let’s appeal to the students not to enrol for this kind of fraudulent economics courses.

Trying to reduce pollution, plastics, adopting a green life style – all these of course have their place and importance. But according to me they are Band-Aid cures. The disease is not being addressed. The disease is profit maximising economic models. Unless we attack them at every forum, we are finished. No amount of activism on the streets and cleaning the plastics is going to save the planet. Because the global warming and damage to the environment would continue unabated.

Friends, it’s an ideological battle. But if you want to carry on with your discussion and plan of action about influencing policy makers as to how to reduce carbon emissions, how to remove plastics, how to deal with arsenic contamination etc. you are welcome to do that. It could be a feel good factor and give us a high but I don’t have the time for such activities. Because the causes remaining untouched, nothing is going to change. I still wish you the very best and I know that your intentions are true and honest. But I won’t be able to devote time to this. I am sorry. Please forgive me.

Dwijadas Ghosal

You must have gone through the write up of Mr Narendra Murthy. I am sure you all will appreciate his deep understanding about the environmental issues and his analysis regarding the root cause of the problem.

As he is a very good friend of mine, we discussed and debated many issues of climate change and environmental degradation so many times albeit on different context.

Although I respect and value his viewpoints, still we agree to disagree on many issues as always. This time also I feel I should discuss his observations and put the context in right perspective with no holds bar, as far as our objectives are concerned. Being my friend, I am sure he will not mind that.

The following are the key points of his write up

Climate change is a symptom of a disease and that disease is called the Crisis of Values.

Profit maximizing economics is creating this problem of global warming and environmental degradation.

Foot soldiers who are in plenty like us are not ideological warriors, rather harping on some activities which can give feel good factors

Since causes remaining untouched, nothing is going to change and global warming and damage to the environment would continue unabated.

I agree to his statement regarding crisis of values…but there is an important distinction between values that is personal and psychological, and values that is institutional and organized. It is well established that fossil fuel companies have long known about climate change, yet sought to frustrate wider public understanding on account of business interest. Individually they are glimpsing the horrible reality, but defending themselves against it institutionally for obvious reasons.

I disagree to his view point regarding profit maximization as the root cause of environmental degradation. To my view, this is not addressing the truth and considering profit maximization as a root cause for environmental degradation is the trivialization and over simplification of the problem. If you study the history of humanity, propensity towards profit maximization was always there. During industrial revolution, impetus towards profit maximization was even more prominent. You know that business used to be done with enormous risks even at the cost of human lives, mass scale murder, slave trading and what not. Situation is very much humane at present times. Let us not forget , it is the business which integrated entire Europe even after two world wars. Let’s not undermine the very psychology of expanding human possibility , which is very much ingrained in nature of existence as it supports our survival instinct. In lower plane , it finds expression in so called Profit Maximization. This is not a moral issue but reality of existence that drives majority of human population. The conventional theory of economics may assume profit maximization as the sole objective of organizations. But profit is indispensible for organization’s survival and may be justified reward for their saving ,risk-undertaking and innovation. As opposed to Narendra’s observation, in the real world other objectives are also fulfilled by many organizations like sales maximization, growth rate maximization, retention of market share or Image in terms of sustainability and social responsibilities. Exploitative perspective of profit as surplus as per Marx who believed that the market will transform values into prices beyond labor-determined values of goods, is not necessarily always tenable because of Ricardian reasons like population growth, resource crunch, and the Stationary State of economics.

Can we really curb human aspiration by moralistic diktat against profit maximization ? Possibly No and that will be against the human drive towards higher order of civilization, barring few segments of population who will be spiritually driven to offer service beyond survival instinct.

Then what is the root cause ? Ever since I started studying Environmental problems , I clearly understood one fact that the burgeoning population figures is the root cause of environmental degradation. All other causes are the consequence of the same. I rather emphasize uneducated population because behaviour of the uneducated populace towards the environment resulted in havoc in the environment. It is proved beyond doubt especially in India that Land degeneration and Population growth is directly linked. It is the increasing population figures combined with poverty that is creating more damage to the environment.

Let me justify the statement with evidence. As for water shortages, Indonesia with one of the world’s highest freshwater endowments per person faces worst water shortage. India and Pakistan is facing severe water shortages amidst population growth and water subsidies for vote bank politics. All these phenomena has got nothing to do with Profit Maximization or stuff like that. With billions of people living below the poverty line and considering that their first priority is to survive, environmental protection does not mean much to them. Like population growth, poverty seems to exacerbate environmental problems in the presence of market and policy failures. Rather once a country becomes economically prosperous, "environmental Kuznets curve" is applicable for the country. As a result, it enforce environmental regulations more strictly and spend more money on the environment. Once effective policy decisions are made to ensure that economic growth is harmonised with the surrounding environment, environmental degradation levels off and gradually declines. Most parts of the Europe , Newzealand etc are testimony to my statement.

Now let us try to understand the meaning of Ideological Warriors and so called Foot soldiers.

What is an ideology? It's a set of value-laden beliefs or possibly moral values and standard. For example, moral systems are ideologies. Since the ideological warrior is committed to values which they cannot justify through reason, logic or fact, this makes them morally compromised. History shows that so called Ideological Warriors as moralist moron committed horrendous atrocity in the planet. Reasons are simple….the ideological warrior will never be convinced by the avalanche of facts and arguments you bring to bear against them on the subject matter in question unless you defeat their ideology with cold logic. Especially when so called Ideological Warriors have God given purpose, then we are gone. Not even logic will prevail on them. That is the reason as to why you will find religious people are frequently ideological warriors, their faith constantly renewing their ignorance of disproofs of religious arguments. Do environmental activists need to ideological warrior? Definitely No. Better still , if they remain on the stand instead of being on court like Foot Soldiers. Because so called Foot Soldiers are the opposite of an ideological warrior who consciously reflects on their values, explicitly justifies and reasons about their values, and in general maintains end to end consistency.

Let’s analyse whether so called Foot Soldiers as Environmental activist are merely harping on feel good factors or contributed significantly to save this planet.

You will be surprised to know that the modern conservation movement was first manifested in the forests of India during pre-independence India with the participation of some British people. Unless that movement took place, most of the forest would have gone before independence itself.

We all are aware of mid-1970s anti-nuclear activism that saved the planet from Nuclear proliferation by virtue of SALT.

We all should appreciate that Safe Drinking Water Act, First Emissions and Efficiency Rules for Vehicles,Phasing Out Toxic PCBs, Protection act for Endangered Species, banning of DDT Pesticide ,regulation of GE crop, CFCs in Aerosol Sprays, Return of Mass Transit ,banning of single use plastic in India,Conservation and Utilization of Resources,Land and Water Conservation Act, Clean Air Act, G7 agreeing to phase out fossil fuels by 2100 and so on so forth did not happen automatically , all these happened because of Environmental activists as Foot Soldiers. We all should appreciate spontaneous environmental movements in South Korea and Taiwan regarding biologically dead rivers on account of industrial pollutants. The people were able to force the government to come out with new restrictive rules on toxins, industrial waste, and air pollution. Ongoing struggle within India in respect of Environmental and public health resulted in Chipko movement, campaign against Coca-Cola and Pepsi Cola plants , Jhola Aandolan , Eco Revolution movement, Rally for River and Kavery Calling initiatives and of course the anti-dam movement. Not that it happened because some ideological warrior wrote some thesis and Government was willing listen to that. Game happens on the court, not on the stand.

When I argued with Rajkapoor Sharma ( he is in the group) that Dam should not be built as 60% of stored water gets evaporated, he talked about brilliant solution on putting solar panel over dam. There are so many technological fix like direct air capture for carbon sequestration, as it is being done in Switzerland, Wind Mill/Turbine for which Denmark is famous, Fuel Cell Battery Technology etc. etc. We all need to assess what sort of technological fix we should adopt for the solution functionalities considering realities of the situation.

I see a point in Narendra’s recommendation in terms of creation of New Economic Metrics that does not fetishize growth assuming that a bigger economy is not necessarily a better one. Like Gross National Happiness Index in Bhutan is much better that economic superpowers. Only difference is that I am more propelled by network thinking with science –oriented core and Scientific Monism compared to his unflinching reliance on Schumacher’s “Small is beautiful”.

But I must admit that all of successes of foot soldiers are limited in scope. None will magically transform our society into a sustainable utopia. The world still faces a host of complex problems, from our ever-expanding population, which places manifold stresses on the natural environment, to the stubborn growth of GHG emissions in our atmosphere.Yet however small and insufficient these achievements have been, the sustainability movement has had successes—successes that can serve as inspiration and a basis for meeting bigger goals.