Great point. Though I agree to the comments overall; I have a slightly divergent view. Would highly appreciate if readers could pitch in with their views as well.
India has the second largest population in the world. It has one of the largest middle class, youth population. Of the billion plus population, close to 70% are dependent on agriculture. The per hectare yeild of India is amongst the lowest. Hence 70% of India's populance is engaged in inefficient work. We can also conculde that the roughly 50% of total land mass in India which is used to agriculture is used least optimally.
With Indians aspiring for better standard of living, we can expect the current strain on resources to grow. In midst of all these push and pull, how rational thinking / conservation friendly can we be? Is it really possible (tactically) to stop developmental work even if it has the slightest impact on the environment? This brings forth a bitter choice - whom would you save? the roughly 5.6 million children who die due to malnutrition in India or the tracks of forest which are home to Indias' wildlife? Infact, why do we have to make that choice?
Its my personal opinion that the continuing rut in environment will continue till we reach some kind of an equilibrium in terms of quality of living - here I am talking abt the 70% who do not access to basic amenities that we take for granted. As Sabyasachi mentioned, the focus has to be on renewable source of energy and "greener" vocations. But the effort has to start yesterday. We got to make it affordable on a mass scale.
Today we have enough programs to save / protect India's natural treasures. But these good intentions are crumbling in front of forces of "human development". Efficiency and good intentions are missing. I am wondering if the furture of conservation - especially the next 10yrs - ought to be focused on a more manageable scale. And lastly as Sabyasachi suggested a high degree of risk assessment and mitigation got to be done for Indian forestry.




Reply With Quote

Bookmarks