THE issue of over consumption is really serious irrespective. Both the Global North and the Global South look responsible for the crisis. As a result, the path towards sustainability is not to be seen anywhere.
The prevalent consumption patterns have impacted the ecology in North in particular. The governments there are on the forefront to destroy some of the last fragments of ancient forests. Is not it happening only to meet the over consumption of paper, timber and heating wood? No doubt that some conscientious organisations there are campaigning for the protection of the depleting old-natural forests but the question is why they have not been able to stop their governments from exporting timber to other countries?
It is a matter of concern that the new technologies for destroying nature, and consuming natural resources, are being adopted increasingly while the efforts and technology for protecting and regenerating nature are not so focused. Much of this ecological irrationality is inherent in an inequitable social system, where only a privileged few can enjoy the benefits of destroying nature, while most others face only the consequences. Why the US is allowed to consume devastatingly? Most of the petroleum products are consumed in that country and emission of hazardous gases is among the highest levels there. And, there are no signs of re-thinking on the issue. This re-thinking has to come from the US society, if not from the government there.
Besides, we need to reverse the development model and economic system that have added fuel to the fire. The present patterns of development and economic system have only encouraged consumerism and the resultant waste of natural resources. Strange but true, only the economic aspect has mostly dominated the discussion on sustainability. Mainstream thinking is that economic growth is the first step so that people can come out of poverty and thereafter take care of the environmental sustainability also. The environment has been considered primarily as fine-tuning of industrial processes so that the adverse impact could be lightened. For most of us environmental activists like us, this is not satisfying as the contemporary global economy is causing irreversible damages to the nature that should not just be acceptable.
Neglect towards sustainable cultures of the Indigenous peoples inhabiting forests or remote areas is a matter of shame for the so-called civilised world. Could we all – from the Global South to the Global North – come together to join a comprehensive and common dialogue on these issues and collectively bring in a paradigm shift?
An example is of the Devavana – forests devoted to the Goddess Nature or the local deities – by village folks of India. Such forests diligently protect forestlands consisting of rare trees, herbs, and medicinal plants and are spread all over India. Ayurveda or the organic, non-chemical Indian life science tradition has undoubtedly developed due to herbs and medicinal plants found in such forestlands.
What Gandhi or Thoreau had said about ecological austerity can be found in a Central Himalayan hamlet: Some thirty-five years back in my small village in the Central Himalaya or the state of Uttarakhand, everybody would fell trees in the community forest in violation of the traditional practices. Practically, there was no check on anybody and as a consequence, the oak and rhododendron trees started disappearing fast. Also, the moisture regime lost its sheen and vegetation including small bushes, herbal and medicinal plants, wild fruit trees, berries, grass etc., started disappearing. The concerned village elders had to decide to apply brakes on the new trend of felling trees indiscriminately. Today, the same forest is again dense and has turned out to be a good habitat for the wildlife. Nobody has the courage to enter the forest all alone now, where we used to roam around freely and play hide-and-seek some three to four decades back. Besides, the water bodies down below have enough water unlike most of the villages in the area. My village, called Unchir, has been enabled by the dense forest to supply water to several other villages in the area. This example also gives a picture of what happens when society or people participate in taking responsibility of preserving forestlands.
Here it would be appropriate to quote Shekhar Singh, an eminent Indian environmental academician, who is of the view that the enlightened and progressive societies must develop a broad social consensus on the environment, especially on what needs to be conserved, where, and how, as natural environment in the world is under severe and increasing threat due to the large-scale destruction of forests, pollution, and overuse patterns. According to him, the society must also develop a systemic, institutional and individual capacity, and the political and administrative will, to carry forward an agenda vis-a-vis environment. Besides, a social consensus on the environment must be based on a realistic appreciation of the status of the environment and a proper understanding of the implications of environmental degradation.
The point is that the Global South, which has the largest population, is not the biggest threat to the environment. It is the level of consumption that threatens the environment and not the number of people or animals. All know that much smaller population of several countries of the Global North have much higher rates of consumption; thus, they have to think about ecological austerity and ecological sustainability.
In a nutshell, the key to social justice is the equitable harnessing of natural resources, both locally and globally. Equitable distribution automatically strengthens the symbiotic relationship between human and nature and contributes towards the ecological democracy by reinvigorating environment that has the ingredients to ensure better dignity to humans. To say the least, no real democracy can take place as long as there is threat to the ecological sustainability.
