ephemeris - oikonomikosblog.files.wordpress.com page ii from the hod’s desk we have come to the...

EPHEMERIS

Environmental Perspectives

Volume 7, Issue 4

Page i Volume 7, Issue 4

EDITOR’S NOTE

The dependency of economies on the environment throws light on the

indispensable need to preserve it and to adopt a path that balances the

acts of progress and sustainability. Over the years, it is apparent that man-

kind‟s progress has often been at the expense of the environment. This

gives rise to a platform to discuss and debate various solutions and

measures that can be taken by governments, institutions and individuals

across the world in conserving the most vital aspects of the global natural-

resource base. With the environmental resources and its services consid-

ered as a public good, the idea of improving its quality its crucial to main-

taining and enhancing aspects of well-being- both economic and non-

economic. With this in mind, the final issue of Ephemeris celebrates the

normative aspect of the environment by incorporating perspectives of stu-

dents supported by their opinions and knowledge of facts.

We aim for this final release for the year 2016-17 to bring about an

awareness of the most significant area of our existence and pattern of

growth and the strategies in place to balance its use. We hope that

through this issue, our understanding and academic interest in the field of

„Environmental Economics‟ is enhanced with goals of taking its cause fur-

ther ahead in our individual aspirations.

With that said, we are grateful to all the writers who contributed with

their articles and ideas to make this publication possible. We extend our

thanks to Mr. Santosh Bezalel Jose from I MA Economics for his help on

the design. We are also extremely thankful to Prof. Sheetal Bharat for her

support as faculty coordinator and to Prof. Joshy K. J. for his guidance. We

are thankful to all the faculty members of our Department for their sup-

port and encouragement as well. We hope to keep up the spirit of writing

as always and aim to reach new heights in the process of learning with

every release.

Page ii Ephemeris

FROM THE HOD’s DESK

We have come to the end of a dynamic and momen-

tous academic year, which has enriched us through

diverse curricular and co-curricular programmes and

initiatives. This edition of „Ephemeris‟ centres around a

very pertinent issue faced by all economies, particular-

ly all the fast-growing ones, including India- which

experiences high volumes of expansion in economic

activity year by year. In fact, it is the need of the hour

to share „Perspectives on the environment‟ in the context of uncompro-

mising growth targets of economies. Global warming, climate change and

ecological destruction are just a few of the many outcomes of the way

human beings choose to live their lives today. Moreover, it is a known fact

that if we continue to lead our lives unsustainably, the most significant

drivers of human survival and existence within the environment would be

at stake. Therefore, it is a careful selection to highlight the most crucial

and pressing issues the world faces at large in relation to environmental

changes and the need for immediate intervention to preserve the re-

sources.

As learners of economics, we are constantly made to contemplate on the

phenomenon of economic growth as it signifies the value of goods and

services produced in the economy over a period. In this connection, the

importance of sustaining the changing patterns and needs of production

and consumption, keeping in mind the increase in population and prefer-

ences has been highlighted. The idea of growth is seen as a primary con-

tributor to economic stability and well-being with the assumption that

growth enhances the income level and purchasing power of people. How-

ever, it is also a known fact that overt emphasis on economic growth

without paying the needed attention to the level of resources it extracts

from and its impact on overall stability would pave an uncertain future for

coming generations.

Page iii Volume 7, Issue 4

Living in a developing country like India and in a fast-growing city like Ben-

galuru, we are witness to the phenomenon of environmental instability and

degradation almost every day- in the air, water, soil quality and in the ris-

ing levels of heat year by year. This brings us to the question of whether

growth and environmental quality have a trade-off between them which

implies that one can be increased only at the cost of the other. The fact

that we are a population of millions, with numbers increasing day by day,

no amount of growth can be sacrificed if our levels of living are to be sus-

tained. Policy- makers in India and world-over have hence provided suffi-

cient attention to the idea of 'Sustainable Development' in which both

growth and environmental quality can be kept up and both can be seen as

co-existing rather than mutually exclusive. This issue of Ephemeris is a

toddler‟s step to uphold the ideal of 'sustainable living and growth', realis-

ing that raising awareness on aspects that govern the environment is the

first step towards creating a better future for those who live in it. We

hope to make a mark in raising that awareness through this issue. In this

light, we wish you a successful completion of your academic year and wish

the graduating classes the very best for what lies ahead. Let the message of

protecting your environment be a part of your goals and endeavours

wherever you live. We wish you the very best in that pursuit.

This is also an occasion to remember many people around with immense

gratitude for making this academic year highly productive and memorable.

The Director, Dr. Fr. Varghese, the Deans, Dr. John Joseph Kennedy and

Dr. Mallika Krishnaswamy, the Academic Coordinators, Dr. Divya Pradeep

and Dr. Mahesh. E, and all the faculty colleagues who deserve special ap-

preciation for taking this journey one step ahead in a more fruitful and

meaningful manner. I also acknowledge the efforts of the faculty Coordina-

tor, Dr. Greeshma Manoj and the office bearers of AMARTYA (the Eco-

nomics Association), Mr. Alan Abraham, Ms. Melita Menezes, Mr. Deepu

Joseph Varghese, Ms. Gayatri Kunte, Ms. Lakshmi R.B, Ms. Bonny Mathew,

Ms. Sonali Beeraka, Ms. Shibika Bose and other student leaders at various

levels.

Page iv Ephemeris

It remains a glorious year in terms of releasing four issues of Ephemeris

including a special issue during the National-level conference held in De-

cember 2016. A much needed note of gratitude to the team who worked

very efficiently behind the timely release of the newsletter, Prof. Sheetal

Bharat, the faculty Coordinator and Ms. Gayatri Kunte and Ms. Lakshmi

R.B, the student editors. Besides, the department is grateful to the faculty

members and students who have contributed immensely to the newsletter

in different ways- through articles, ideas and thoughts.

Wishing each one of you a wonderful year ahead in carrying this flame

forward..

Regards

Joshy K J

Head

Department of Economics

Page v Volume 7, Issue 4

Economic growth and sustainable development are

mutually exclusive. Do you agree or disagree? 1

The loss of biodiversity (The decline in the Cheetah

population across countries and the coral bleaching

of the Great Barrier Reef as examples) has an im-pact on the economic growth of nations around the

world. Do you agree or disagree?

6

The 2011 agreement in Durban to allow individual

countries to determine their own levels of green

house gas emissions is a dilution of the principle of

common environmental responsibility as envisioned

in the CBDR-RC (Common But Differentiated Re-

sponsibilities and Respective Capabilities). Do you

agree or disagree?

13

Too often, we think of corporations as being re-

sponsible for pollution and governments as agencies

responsible for cleaning up. Individuals also con-

tribute to environmental degradation by ignoring

externalities. However, environmental sustainabil-

ity can only be achieved through individual respon-

sibility. Do you agree or disagree?

18

The idea of Sustainability in Development 23

Inside this issue:

Ephemeris

Economic growth and sustainable development

are mutually exclusive. Do you agree or disagree?

To a large extent I do agree that economic growth and sustainable devel-

opment are mutually exclusive. Sustainable development is the judicious

use of resources in the present generation without compromising on the

needs of future generations. There exists a trade-off between sustainable

development and economic growth and in order to achieve one the other

must be compromised. For an economy to grow, it is crucial for sectors

such as the industrial sector to develop, which is notoriously responsible

for the emission of waste that pollutes the air and water within the vicinity

of the industry causing harm to the area‟s inhabitants. From the perspec-

tive of the environment, economic growth can be considered a negative

externality. The natural resources that promote growth such as oil and

minerals have an elaborate extraction process which would add costs to

the economy. Thus, continuous emphasis on the economic growth of a

nation is indirectly proportionate to achieving sustainability and hence a

balance must be achieved between the two factors in order to eliminate

its inherent trade off and compromises. In the light of that, the Millennial

Development Goals have been formulated by the UN to enable the

achievement of sustainable development in all nations without compromis-

ing on economic growth. This can be achieved by incorporating the princi-

ples of sustainability in various economic policies and programmes of the

nation which could create a balanced nexus between the two opposing

phenomena.

Sanjana Udaiver

III EPS

Volume 7, Issue 4

If one were to say that economic growth and sustainable development

were mutually exclusive, I would strongly disagree. This is because of the

complementarity of both phenomena. Economics is the study of how to

allocate scarce resources that have alternative uses to satisfy maximum

human wants. In recent times, people have started to give importance to

utilising resources sustainably to make them available for future genera-

tions. Economic growth is the increase in an economy‟s real GDP in the

production of goods and services. Sustainable development is the process

of meeting human developmental goals, which include economic growth,

by sustaining the limited resources that are required to meet the needs of

the future generations. Thus, economic growth and efficient utilisation of

resources includes the importance of sustainable development.

Some people argue that if an economy focuses only on one of the phe-

nomenon, then it is difficult to achieve the other. These arguments imply

that if an economy wants to grow in economic terms, it must utilise all its

resources efficiently, thus, ignoring sustainable development. However,

there have been cases wherein this argument has been proven wrong. For

example, Singapore has the third highest per-capita GDP in the world in

terms of Purchasing Power Parity. At the same time, it adopts many prac-

tices that help in sustaining its resources. The country has committed itself

to recycling 80% of its waste by 2030, has set several green targets includ-

ing a 35% improvement in energy efficiency, has 80% of its buildings certi-

fied as green and uses exceptional methods to help bring about air quality

control, sanitation and wastewater treatment.

Thus, I would like to conclude by saying that economic growth and sus-

tainable development encapsulate each other. For economic growth to be

brought about and to be prolonged, sustainable development is a necessi-

ty.

Malavika Prasad

II EMS

Ephemeris

A Russian biologist named Vladimir Vernadsky was the first to formulate a

theory of interdependence between life and quality of environment.While

some regard economic growth and sustainable development as paradoxi-

cal, others propose them to be consistent. However, it may be close to

insuperable to arrive at a mutual consensus between the two opposing

schools of thought.

There is no doubt that in order to achieve high economic growth, an ex-

ploitation of resources would occur and the delicate balance between eco-

nomic growth and sustainable development would be perturbed. On the

contrary, the Environmental Kuznets curve depicts that the initial stages of

growth would lead to environmental degradation but after a peak point,

there would be increasing pressure for cleaner technologies and environ-

mental protection would be induced. On the one hand, while the US and

EU (high income nations) continue to top the charts for CO2 emissions,

according to the Global Cleantech Innovation Index 2014 which is a part-

nership between the Clean Tech Group and WWF, it is these very nations

that stand tall in terms of quality of life and environment. This shows that

there is a correlation between greater wealth and the development of

clean technologies.

However, it is a known fact that the First World countries are what they

are today because of the exploitation of resources from colonies and dec-

ades of pollution which contributed to their high economic status which

compromised gravely on environmental quality. In the era of development

of the Third World countries, it almost seems unfair that developing na-

tions must cut emissions which would mean that growth would be imped-

ed only to correct the environment-degrading activities of the West in the

past.

It is only fit that the West contribute to cleaner technologies to correct

the errors of their past which must be shared with the developing coun-

tries which would help them become greener economies while meeting

their poverty reduction goals. But the West continues to be hesitant, as

Volume 7, Issue 4

highlighted through the continuing dilemma amongst the US Congressmen

over the legality and rationality of the various climate change agreements.

Vishal Kumar

Joanna Geroge

III HEP

Economic growth and sustainable development are mutually exclusive.

This statement especially in Trump‟s tenure holds true. Followers of US

politics would be aware of Trump disregarding climate change as just a

„phenomenon‟ and promoting industrialization instead. This is because

even Trump agrees that the two cannot go hand in hand. If he supports

the environment, then the large funds allocated for industries would be

lost. As a result, the manufacturing sector would face huge losses, jobs

would reduce, consumption would decrease, and the economy would face

overall setbacks. One understands that resources are scarce and thus, the

way they are used and allocated is of vital importance. On the other hand,

one is also aware that with the exponential increase in the world‟s popula-

tion, the scarce resources are on a rapid decline to cater the needs of all.

Economic growth leads to the exploitation of the environment. The envi-

ronment is a provider of resources and a sink for the waste generated.

Thus, increase in economic growth will lead to large extraction of re-

sources and would also put a heavy burden on the environment‟s assimila-

tive capacity, reducing its productivity.

However, even though economic growth exploits the environment, it is

vital for overcoming social problems. Hence, the question to be asked is

whether countries should continue to embark on the path of high eco-

nomic growth that would help solve issues related to poverty alleviation

and employment generation or whether they should focus on preserving

the environment instead. On the flip side, if economic growth continues,

the environment would degrade further. This degradation in the long-run

would deplete the resources available for economic growth and would

Ephemeris

generate more waste, in turn harming the health of society. This makes us

question if the two are actually mutually exclusive. It is a confusing thought

because one can happen at the cost of the other but in the long run, both

will cease to exist due to a fall in one. Thus, the need of the hour is to

practice the sustainable development measures and develop policies of

resilience in line with inclusive growth.

Sonali Beeraka

III ECO HONS

Volume 7, Issue 4

The Environmental Kuznets Curve or the EKC attempts to provide a simi-

lar explanation on the basis of an inverted U-shaped relation between en-

vironmental degradation and economic growth. In this context, economic

growth is said to impact environmental degradation. It has been observed

that biodiversity loss involving complex ecosystems belongs to a special

class of environmental degradation, which may or may not be recovered

through technological advancements and growth.

Biodiversity is directly affected by the size of habitat, population pressure,

climate, the level of income and composition of output of a country, as

well as by institutional factors such as the level of economic freedom and

the macroeconomic policy environment. It was observed that economists,

hence, developed an inverted U- shaped curve suggesting that each of the-

se factors have a significant impact on biodiversity loss. These observations

were particularly alarming and caused scientists to suggest measures to

reduce the loss.

Several examples of different forms of environmental degradation have

been quoted to validate the significance of the EKC. However, some oth-

ers attempt to critique the EKC on several grounds. For instance, in the

deepest trenches of the Pacific Ocean, the presence of certain toxic chem-

icals have been observed. These chemicals spurred by some form of eco-

nomic activity impact the well - being of marine life which in turn causes

serious health hazards to humans as well. This also means that dangerous

forms of pollution led by activities of growth may be pervasive even in re-

mote places. Plotting an EKC for this may show a continuously increasing

trend instead of an inverted U-shape indicating continuous environmental

The loss of biodiversity (The decline in the Chee-

tah population across countries and the coral

bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef as examples)

has an impact on the economic growth of nations

around the world. Do you agree or disagree?

Ephemeris

degradation and loss of biodiversity due to the presence of such toxic

chemicals.

From the view-point of the impact of biodiversity loss and degradation on

economic growth, the phenomenon of climate change and rainfall patterns

can be quoted as the best examples. The loss of biodiversity primarily in

the form of the loss of forest cover in the most densely forested areas of

India and the world has been the driving force behind rising temperatures

globally. Temperature changes impact migration and population patterns,

productivity, property, infrastructure and security. The phenomenon of

global warming triggered by biodiversity loss and ecological imbalances has

increased the severity and frequency of extreme weather conditions which

has caused damage to property and infrastructure. The likes of Hurricane

Katrina and Hurricane Sandy are prime examples of the economic destruc-

tion extreme climate change can cause. The phenomenon of rising sea lev-

els can also cause harm to economic output as businesses are impaired

and people suffer damage to their homes.

Though the Environmental Kuznets curve has been a path breaking analysis

to the understanding of the relation between biodiversity loss and its re-

spective indicators, it fails to explain the impact of the former on the lat-

ter. The theory being a boon to the field of environmental economics,

should be used effectively by economists world-over for a better under-

standing of the relationship between biodiversity and indicators of eco-

nomic growth. A theory stating the impact of the former on the latter also

deserves development in the field of economics and the environment.

Shruthi Menon

II MA ECO

Human greed for material gain has taken a heavy toll on the environment.

This is particularly true for the two marine species Totoaba and Vaquita,

endemic to the Gulf of California‟s territorial waters of Mexico. The Vaq-

uita is the most endangered marine mammal alive today. The estimated

Volume 7, Issue 4

population of the Vaquita was about 200 in 2012, and in 2016 it was re-

vealed that the number came down to 60. The Totoaba, formerly found in

abundance was categorized as „endangered‟ in 1979, due to large scale fish-

ing of the species for illegal trade.

The impact of this practice on the economy of China and Mexico is vast.

The dried Totoaba bladders are smuggled into China, where it is a major

delicacy and is also considered a treatment for infertility. The swim blad-

ders are largely bought by wealthy Chinese as “collection items or gifts”

and even as financial investments. A single swim bladder is sold on the Chi-

nese black market for upto $10,000 and is even termed to be „Aquatic

Cocaine‟. Delicacies containing the bladder are prized nearly at $25,000 in

China. Mexican smugglers too are heavily benefitted from this trade. In

2013, Mexican regulators seized illegal Totoaba bladders worth an estimat-

ed $2.25million. Other factors responsible for the extinction of these spe-

cies include loss of its habitat, pesticide pollution and commercial fishing.

Though the impact of illegal trade on the level of Gross Domestic Product

is unknown (since it constitutes a major portion of the underground mar-

ket), its overall economic impact has been a negative one calling for policy-

making and intervention.

Though, fishing in the region has been banned in order to avert the threat

to the species, it still continues illegally on a large scale. The steps taken by

Mexican government in this regard are considered to be insufficient and

intermittent. In order to save the species, rigorous measures are needed

along with the practice of imparting awareness globally about the ripple

effects of species extinction on the environment and on human life as a

whole. Hence, non-submission to material greed is pertinent in bringing

about any foreseeable change.

Aishwarya Desai

II MA ECO

Ephemeris

The process of degrading and depleting the stock of biodiversity through

human actions has gained momentum in the recent past. Its impact has

been felt in terms of significant social and economic costs. However, the

losses still go unnoticed because most of the services provided by ecosys-

tems like soil retention or spiritual well-being (as examples) are classified

as public goods and services. As pointed out in The Economics of Ecosys-

tems and Biodiversity (TEEB) Report, understanding the problem of biodi-

versity loss in its complex economic dimension is a prerequisite for any

proposed solution. This makes it important to understand the economic

benefits and costs of biodiversity and ecosystem services and the conse-

quences of its loss.

The coral bleaching of The Great Barrier Reef, for instance, could cost $1b in lost tourism

which supports between 39,000 and 45,000 jobs, as suggested by research done

by the American Institute. The economic value of marine and coastal biodiver-

sity to the economy of the Maldives is evident from the fact that

“biodiversity-based sectors contribute 71% of national employment (78,500

jobs), 49% of public revenue (Rufiyaa{Rf} 2.5 billion), 62% of foreign exchange

(US$ 435 million), 98% of exports (Rf 1.7 billion) and 89% of GDP (Rf 135

billion).” – as per IUCN statistics. In the first instance, the coral bleaching

of The Great Barrier Reef would directly have an undesirable impact on

the livelihood of those in Australia who derive their income from tourism.

As a consequence, this would bring about a direct impact on economic

growth to the extent of losses incurred due to a potential decline in reve-

nue.

Hence, it can be concluded that the presence and absence of biodiversity

affects our way of life in some way or the other. From an economic per-

spective, there is an inextricable link not only between lower economic

growth and loss in biodiversity but also between economic development

and the preservation of the environment.

Aasawari Sinha

III ECO HONS

Volume 7, Issue 4

The origin of the EKC (Environmental Kuznets Curve) has stemmed a va-

riety of debates about the relationship between economic growth and en-

vironment degradation. While the EKC is still a hypothesis that is yet to be

verified, it doesn‟t talk much about the dependency of economic growth

on the environment by itself. With that, I believe that there are strong

links between GDP and the loss of biodiversity. This is because countries

like Australia or Africa rely heavily on tourism which comprises a major

chunk of their GDP. (10.8% and 9.4% in 2015 respectively). These coun-

tries also boast of flora and fauna which are exclusive to their region. In

fact, The Great Barrier Reef is estimated to contribute nearly AUS$6 bil-

lion to the country‟s economy, counting only the value of tourism, other

recreational activities and commercial fishing. Similarly, nature-based tour-

ism in Africa generates approximately the same amount of revenue as

farming, forestry and fisheries combined. (UNEP, Convention on Biological

Diversity, 2010). A loss of biodiversity like the bleaching of the coral reefs

or the loss of the Cheetah population would imply that tourists might not

be induced to visit these countries. When tourists don‟t visit, the tourism

industry of the respective countries wouldn‟t generate enough revenue,

and when this happens their GDP would fall. Therefore, there is a direct

relationship between the loss of biodiversity and GDP.

Lakshmi R.B

I MA ECO

The field of agriculture is highly reliant on the services provided by biodi-

versity and its ecosystems. This is proven from the heavy dependency

faced by agriculture on crucial environmental factors like the water reten-

tion capacity of land, soil nutrient recycling by microorganisms, genetic

variability of crops and pollination, stability in global and local climate con-

ditions and pest control services provided by insects and other animals.

Moreover, how much ever modern agriculture becomes, it still remains

dependent on the pool of biodiversity and its services. The ongoing

Ephemeris

relationship between biodiversity, ecosystems and agricultural production

is a complex one and is subject to instability. These instabilities increase

almost exponentially when the most inherent systems are shaken. The

dependency of agriculture on biodiversity is explained by the adaptation of

agricultural processes in turn being dependent on the inherent diversity

within plants. Essentially, biodiversity forms the foundation of agriculture.

The following cases illustrate the economic cost of the loss of biodiversity

and ecosystem services on agricultural supply chains. Climatic stability is a

major factor that influences agricultural yield. It has been researched that

a rise in temperature by 4 degrees centigrade results in a 25-40% decline

in staple crop yields in the agricultural-driven regions of South East Asia

and Africa. Also, the Australian drought of 2002-03 caused agricultural

income to fall by 46% in the area. Almost 70% of the most productive

crops, including most fruits and oil seeds are animal pollinated and the loss

of bee colonies in 2007, in the U.S, resulted in producers losing $ 15 bil-

lion. A whooping cost of $ 23 billion has been linked to the cost of flood-

ing on account of deforestation which destroyed 25 million crops in Bang-

ladesh, China, India and Vietnam in 1998. 1.5 billion hectares of cropland

were abandoned due to soil erosion in the past 40 years in the same re-

gions. The economic cost of this abandonment was estimated to be €53

per hectare per year, in Europe. The continuous loss of biodiversity has

increased the need to adopt the practice of seed banking to prevent the

loss of genetic variability. The approximate cost of maintaining current

crop samples in 1,500 gene banks across the world is $ 6 million. These

increasing costs affect the chain of supply by providing producers a re-

duced crop income, causing interruptions in supply processes and increas-

ing input prices.

The loss of biodiversity, hence, impacts our raw material supply chain

which in turn impacts agriculture. Hence, practices that support the life of

biodiversity and its ecosystems need to be scaled up. If this is done, there

is still hope that a nations‟ agricultural output can be met without causing

Volume 7, Issue 4

irrevocable damage to the future productive capacity of ecosystems.

Archita Kailas

II MA ECO

Ephemeris

UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres, in the 2011 agreement in Durban,

asserted that “not all countries share”, entailing the fact that global chal-

lenges are shared national responsibilities that need to be addressed with

utmost willingness, commitment and persistence by all member nations

and, not through the efforts of only a few. The Durban platform opened a

plethora of burning debates about the “legally binding” deal on greenhouse

gas emissions by the developed and developing nations.

The proposal that countries‟ greenhouse gas emissions ought to be volun-

tary and not legally binding is an enormous setback to the rudimentary

standings of the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibility

(CBDR). The impact can be addressed in two ways. Firstly, the fundamen-

tal outlining of the principle about the “common responsibility” of the

states to protect the environment is challenged. The proposal gives the

recently polluting developing countries like India, China and Brazil the right

to pollute more on the pretext of their development strategies and eco-

nomic growth. For the historically biggest polluting developed countries

like USA, Japan and Russia, the proposal would limit their obligation to-

wards curbing emissions. The developed countries would thus, have no

hegemonic influence in combatting climate change. Secondly, the attribu-

tion given to “different circumstances” to contribute to global climate

change by member nations would be misinterpreted. This entails the fact

that developing nations would put forth their economic development

agenda to shy away from reducing greenhouse gas emissions while the

The 2011 agreement in Durban to allow individual

countries to determine their own levels of green

house gas emissions is a dilution of the principle

of common environmental responsibility as envi-

sioned in the CBDR-RC (Common But Differenti-

ated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities).

Do you agree or disagree?

Volume 7, Issue 4

developed nations would emphasize on the stability of their „developed‟

reputation to do the same, and thus there would be minimal contribution

from both the parties in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the long-

run, this would lead to the tragedy of the commons with the environment

as the „common‟ or public good, affecting all parties.

In all, the proposal to individualize the greenhouse gas emission levels is

thus an illusionary step towards a planned and secured way to combat

climate change. It would prove baneful in the future due to the lack of set

emission levels and also due to the paucity of a sense of unity in endeav-

ours to reduce the impact of climate change.

Deeksha Pande

III Eco Hons

I believe that the 2011 agreement in Durban was not a dilution of the

CBDR-RC, but actually a step towards achieving the ideals behind it.

To justify this stand, we must first deconstruct the underlying idea of the

CBDR-RC. The central idea of the CBDR-RC is that all countries share a

common responsibility with regards to safeguarding the environment, but

they do not all share equal obligations to that common goal. Their obliga-

tions are differentiated based mainly on their respective contributions to

the current issues surrounding the environment.

The 2011 agreement in Durban resulted in the „Durban Platform for En-

hanced Action‟, and the fruits of the 2011 agreement were ultimately seen

in the Paris Agreement in 2015. One of the defining features of this agree-

ment was the concept of NDCs, or Nationally Determined Contributions.

What this means is that participating countries would set their own goals

with regards to controlling greenhouse gas emissions. While there are no

binding numerical targets, the agreement calls for developed countries to

engage in “absolute” reductions in emissions, while calling on developing

ones to “continue enhancing their mitigation efforts”.

Ephemeris

While some opponents view this lack of absolute and binding numerical

targets as a dilution of the CBDR-RC, I see this step as a textbook exam-

ple of what the CBDR-RC is about, at its core.

The CBDR-RC is about dividing the combined, shared responsibility of

mankind towards the environment, equitably among nations. In line with

this ideal, developed countries must have more of an obligation towards

fighting climate change as they have historically played a larger role in caus-

ing climate change than developing countries. However, it is impossible to

quantify exactly the responsibility of a nation towards climate change, and

this is what binding numerical targets attempt to do. What we need in-

stead, are not binding targets, but binding procedures that ensure trans-

parency and accountability, and this is exactly what the Paris agreement

aims to do.

The Paris Agreement does not focus on the execution of certain set tar-

gets. Instead, it provides binding, procedural rules for the preparation and

assessment of NDCs, which ensure that every country is putting their best

foot forward and constantly updating their goals to the “highest possible

ambition”. This includes requirements that all Parties report regularly on

their emissions and on their implementation efforts, which brings to the

table a sense of accountability. In addition, developing countries will re-

ceive monetary support from developed countries to help them mitigate

and adapt to climate change, which also supports the idea that developed

countries must bear more of the burden, but in a more collaborative way.

The backbone of the CBDR-RC is that every single country has an obliga-

tion and responsibility to the environment. Therefore, when countries are

left out, especially major players such as the US in the Kyoto Protocol, this

is in complete violation of the ideals of the CBDR-RC. One of the biggest

strengths of the Paris Agreement is the involvement of essentially the

whole world in the agreement, which is an unprecedented achievement

for a treaty of its nature. This in itself is a huge step towards achieving the

goals of the CBDR-RC.

Volume 7, Issue 4

In conclusion, while I concede that this agreement is in no way a perfect

realization of the CBDR-RC, it has come the closest to this as compared

to its predecessors, through the widespread involvement of nations in it,

as well as policies that target fair and equitable distribution of environmen-

tal responsibility, and therefore is by no means a dilution of the principles

envisioned by the CBDR-RC.

Meghana Shetty

I MA ECO

The Durban Agreement of 2011 was indeed aimed at repealing the princi-

ple of Common but Differentiated Responsibility primarily because the

developing countries were kept out of the purview of the Kyoto Protocol

and also did not encompass the world‟s two largest emitters- United

States of America and China. The Kyoto agreement thus began to act as

an impediment to the global solution of climate change. Based on the Dur-

ban Conference proceedings, two new actions were undertaken:

I. All the countries agreed to start negotiating on a new binding instru-

ment for reducing the green house gas emissions

II. The European Union along with ten other industrial nations promised

their obligation to the Kyoto Protocol for an extended period (2013-

2017 or 2013- 2020).

The Durban conference recognized that reducing a nation‟s emissions can

have negative implications on its industrial development and can also pose

serious economic as well as political challenges. This led to the creation of

the idea of green growth that formed the basis of 2011 Durban agree-

ment. However, only when countries restructure their growth models to

simultaneously achieve economic and environmental progress, on a com-

mon basis, will a nation be able to attain sustainable development. There-

fore, revoking the CBDR and implementing the green growth strategy was

Ephemeris

one of the main aims of the Durban proceedings.

Gopalika Sreekumar

III ECO HONS

The idea of „Common but Differentiated Responsibility‟ works on the

basic principle of equity and on the „common heritage of mankind‟. It rec-

ognizes the difference between developed and developing states, especially

with respect to their economic capabilities in mitigation policies.

The UN Climate Change Conference in Durban in 2011 was the last straw

that the world seemed to cling onto after a decade of not so successful

climate change negotiations. It also was to set stage for the new proposals

for the ending of the first phase of Kyoto Protocol in 2012. This, hence,

paved a pathway for developing and developed states to convene and out-

lay a roadmap to decrease GHG emissions within the next two decades.

The Durban Conference tried to overcome climate apartheid, through

which polluters in developed countries always evade responsibility and the

developing poor suffer the consequences of this evasion. Therefore, the

discussion came to see mitigation policies in the light of a bottom-up ap-

proach, where every country enjoyed the luxury of deciding their own

GHG emission level. This may seem to be a dilution of CBDR and rightly

so.

The Durban Platform for Enhanced Action failed to mention CBDR or

even its basic principle of equity. They defended this exclusion in light of

economic realities, where emerging economies seemed to overcome the

firewall dividing the developed from the developing countries. Durban,

hence, saw a decreasing importance to CBDR and its fading influence on

climate change discussions.

Saumya Malhotra

III ECO HONS

Volume 7, Issue 4

The point of concern regarding environmental conservation is that with-

out a robust monitoring system, the entire spirit of the initiative is being

undermined with all the corporations set up to fulfil the demand of the

masses and thereby routing the profits back to their coffers by depleting

resources available to society. The enticing advertisements by producers

of consumption goods have been successful in luring the consumers and

increasing the market demand for their products. That being said, it is defi-

nitely each individual‟s responsibility to keep a check on their consumption

patterns and also contribute extensively to sensitization campaigns. With

the levels of pollution and environmental degradation hitting historic highs,

we must unite to contribute in simpler ways, such as consuming organic

goods, adopting water management, switching to renewable energy, using

public transportation, practicing cleanliness drives and plantation drives

and myriad such personal goals.

At the societal level, we may promote eco-living and create eco-villages.

When each individual is aware of the need for and demands a “clean envi-

ronment” as his or her right, the corporations and the government would

come together to promote the same. Thus, for all the things that we get

from society for free, there is a stronger need for us to respond with even

greater vigour to give back to society if we want to sustain in the long run.

Sanskriti

I MA ECO

Too often, we think of corporations as being re-

sponsible for pollution and governments as agen-

cies responsible for cleaning up. Individuals also

contribute to environmental degradation by ig-

noring externalities. However, environmental sus-

tainability can only be achieved through individual

responsibility. Do you agree or disagree?

Ephemeris

Environmental degradation is one of the most pressing issues that threaten

the very existence of mankind today. This is attributed to large establish-

ments engaged in production activities that release thousands of tonnes of

effluents into the environment faster than the environment can decom-

pose them. These corporations do contribute heavily to the degradation

of the environment. However, we often forget that corporations comprise

of many people and hence, individual contributions to pollution are often

overlooked. The externalities that come about as a result of our activities;

like driving a private car to work every day, excessive consumption of wa-

ter and electricity, etc. play a far bigger role than we would like to think in

environmental degradation. Individual carbon footprints help us in estimat-

ing the amount of carbon emissions that individuals are responsible for. A

cumulative of these carbon emissions would reflect how much we pollute

the environment as a society, as individuals together form a society.

Environmental sustainability can be achieved only if individuals as a com-

munity decide to reduce their consumption levels which would conse-

quently reduce society‟s consumption levels. Individuals should be held

accountable for their own actions and the results thereof. An example: A

company that manufactures leather bags is induced to do so only because

of the demand for leather bags by individuals. If individual consumers de-

cide not to buy the leather bags because of the risks it poses to certain

endangered species, the level of demand would decrease and the company

would shut down owing to low sales. Hence, we can conclude that unless

individuals take voluntary actions towards environmental recuperation,

our very existence and standard of well-being would at stake.

Amrita Jayraj

II MA ECO

We are well aware of the concerns about the environment. For the long-

est time we have been taught how we contributed to the degradation and

how we are supposed to fix it. The importance of being responsible

Volume 7, Issue 4

citizens and doing “our share” has been imbibed in us, but how often do

we really implement it?

The Government of India has taken many initiatives, the biggest of them

being the Swachh Bharat Abhiyaan where it has taken up the responsibility

of cleaning up after our nation‟s 1.2 billion people. The process begins with

us and should end with us as well.

We know that industries generate tonnes of waste which results in pollu-

tion, creating high carbon footprints and other negative externalities that

impacts society at large. However, amidst all this, we overlook the equal

amount of waste generated by thousands of people which goes unnoticed,

simply because it doesn‟t make the morning news. The corporates are

beginning to pay for their share by reducing their carbon footprint and by

being socially responsible. On the other hand, however, the people have

been living in denial and forget that the garbage generated every day and

the externalities created has been accumulating over time and poses equal

harm. The initiatives taken up by government agencies need to be imple-

mented both by corporates and by individuals with equal efforts to ensure

results. Hence I firmly believe, environmental sustainability will be fully

achieved only when the common man takes matter into his own hands and

empowers the will to change.

Mitali Sangal

III EMS

I am a strong proponent of individual participation in environmental man-

agement. My main argument lies in the endowment effect of behavioural

economics. However, the definition of “individuals” in this context matters

to this article. Let us look at two such definitions.

One, of “individuals” as households: Many case studies have shown that

household participation – examples being, the Chipko Movement, Narma-

da Bachao Andolan, etc and closer home, the Puttenahallli Lake Trust –

Ephemeris

has improved environmental quality in a span of time much lesser than that

endorsed by governmental policies. I believe this is because of the endow-

ment effect. This is helpful in formulating public policies but relies on the

government as the central entity and narrowly demarcates between

households, governments, and industries as three polarized entities and

participants.

Two, of “individuals” as each and every citizen in our country: This re-

quires not policy instruments, but an inter-disciplinary approach to spread

awareness of the problem, a positive perception of one‟s ability to affect

environmental outcomes, social influences, and an acceptance of reasona-

ble sacrifices to be made. These results will then translate into any activity

we undertake – sorting waste or using public transport (households), pro-

ducing environmentally friendly products and services (industries) and for-

mulating policy instruments (government).

Both these definitions yield the desired result, but the second alternative

shifts the burden away from the government, which I believe is the need of

the hour. Persuading and empowering people in the management of our

common and contested resource is the way forward and will definitely

achieve the sustainable development goals.

Sanjna Ullal

III ECO Hons

Development that ensures environmental sustainability in my opinion is

not the responsibility of the individual, the corporation, or the government

alone. It is impossible to treat corporations, government bodies, and the

average citizen as entities whose functioning is completely divorced from

each other when in fact they are intricately intertwined. The beliefs and

convictions of individual citizens are reflected by the policy makers they

elect. Policy makers ensure the functioning of institutions that act as

checks on corporations. Corporations, furthermore, in order to achieve

their goals and targets strive for efficiency and in the confines set by

Volume 7, Issue 4

government bodies tend to come up with much needed innovation that is

the bedrock of sustainable development. Agreed, the building blocks of

society are after all the individuals and if individuals feel a sense of respon-

sibility towards their surroundings and the environment, the effects of

such collective thoughts would eventually make itself evident in the way

that corporations are run and in the kinds of policies passed and imple-

mented. However, this bottom up approach I feel is both extremely ideal-

istic and bound to be too slow to make the desired impact. The need of

the hour is both grass-root advocacy as well as grass-top advocacy for the

sake of the environment.

Hence, while it is important for everyone who stops at a traffic junction in

Bangalore to turn their engines off in order to save fuel and to cut down

on pollution, it is also important for the government to ensure that regular

maintenance of the roads and traffic signals is carried out and investment

in public transport is being made. At the same time, corporations should

be striving to create the vehicle which produces the least possible emis-

sions, made possible due to the growing demand of such products by an

environmentally conscious public and a government that is willing to pro-

mote such innovations.

Pritika Fernandes

II MA ECO

Ephemeris

Mainstream economics has largely kept away from discussions on the envi-

ronment for a very long time. Classical economists such as Smith, Ricardo

and Malthus have emphasized the constrain of natural resources on

growth but their ideas were not specifically concerned with the environ-

ment. New economists, especially environmental, ecological and resource

economists have specifically stressed on the impact of environmental-

resource constrains on development. In order to achieve sustainability, it

is very important to view the economy as a subset of the large ecological

jigsaw rather than an entity on its own. Further, sustainability becomes

very important as no man-made capital is a perfect substitute for environ-

mental capital.

The ideas of preservation, conservation and development have had a very

complex relationship in the twenty-first century. Environmental resources

and their use has been the focal point of many controversies. The use of

resources and environmental services that we get for free, sustainable or

not, has been the issue haunting many policy makers.

The idea of sustainable development, which has gained international prom-

inence since the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and

Development after being mentioned in the 1986 World Commission on

Environment and Development's „Our Common Future‟ has to be looked

into more seriously. The concept of sustainable development becomes all

the more important as it includes beliefs in nature as a community to be

respected, a place for personal growth, a medium for demonstrating self-

reliance, and a rallying point for grassroots- activism. Further this idea is

very complex as there are no complete yardsticks to measure it. Sustaina-

bility concepts always tend to oscillate between measurable and non-

measurable aspects of the quality of life on the planet. A minimum neces-

sary condition for the maintenance of sustainability is to maintain a level of

environmental resources that would be able to replenish the extraction

patterns. The constancy of the available environmental capital calls for

The Idea of Sustainability in Development

Volume 7, Issue 3

such a measure as exploitation above a particular limit would destroy the

equilibrium of life on earth.

The complexity of the available sustainability measures further hampers

their use in developing concrete policy measures to protect the environ-

ment. If the idea of sustainability of the environment has to be maintained,

proper information on resource exploitation and the associated damages

has to be made available. This further calls for ideas such as information

decimation and information symmetry among the academic and scientific

community coupled with the spread of information understandable for the

non-scientific community. The large scale involvement of the non-scientific

community would help in maintaining a healthy environment in the long

run.

The idea of environmental sustainability is also a bone of contention for

the technological optimist who believes in the power of technology as the

answer to all resource constrains and the technology pessimist who does

not see much scope for the role of technology, as resources are being

depleted at a rate that technology will never be able to bring back.

The core of sustainable development has to revolve around the idea of

total available natural capital. The measure of total natural capital is very

complex and its accuracy would always be debated. Any talk of sustainabil-

ity can only be complete if the motivation behind it is bequeathed to fu-

ture generations. Whether future generations use environmental capital

that we bequeath to them and whether it leads to their development or

demise is beyond our control. Yet, we are responsible to provide for a

future that can use all available resources for our betterment and happi-

ness.

Godwin V P

Faculty

Department of Economics

Ephemeris

FACULTY IN CHARGE

Sheetal Bharat

EDITORS

Gayatri Kunte

Lakshmi R B

SUB-EDITORS

Ekta Sawant

Zainab Rehan

DESIGN

Santosh Bezalel Jose

CONTRIBUTORS

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Block 3, Christ University

ephemeris - oikonomikosblog.files.wordpress.com page ii from the hod’s desk we have come to the...

Documents