Copenhagen: seize the chance
COURTESY THE HINDU DECEMBER 07 2009
Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency. Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting, and last year’s inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world’s response has been feeble and half-hearted.
TOGETHER FOR MEASURES AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time, and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone. The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea.
Few believe that Copenhagen can any longer produce a fully polished treaty; real progress towards one could only begin with the arrival of President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of US obstructionism. Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of American domestic politics, for the President cannot fully commit to the action required until the US Congress has done so. But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty. Next June’s UN climate meeting in Bonn should be their deadline. As one negotiator put it: “We can go into extra time but we can’t afford a replay.”
At the deal’s heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world covering how the burden of fighting climate change will be divided — and how we will share a newly precious resource: the trillion or so tonnes of carbon that we can emit before the mercury rises to dangerous levels. Rich nations like to point to the arithmetic truth that there can be no solution until developing giants such as China take more radical steps than they have so far. But the rich world is responsible for most of the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere — three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emitted since 1850. It must now take a lead, and every developed country must commit to deep cuts which will reduce its emissions within a decade to very substantially less than its 1990 level. Developing countries can point out they did not cause the bulk of the problem, and also that the poorest regions of the world will be hardest hit. But they will increasingly contribute to warming, and must thus pledge meaningful and quantifiable action of their own. Though both fell short of what some had hoped for, the recent commitments to emissions targets by the world’s biggest polluters, the United States and China, were important steps in the right direction.
Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of “exported emissions” so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than “old Europe,” must not suffer more than their richer partners.
The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing. Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. The era of flights that cost less than the taxi ride to the airport is drawing to a close. We will have to shop, eat, and travel more intelligently. We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it. But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. Already some countries have recognised that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs, and better quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels. Kicking our carbon habit within a few short decades will require a feat of engineering and innovation to match anything in our history. But whereas putting a man on the moon or splitting the atom were born of conflict and competition, the coming carbon race must be driven by a collaborative effort to achieve collective salvation.
Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over shortsightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature.” It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too. The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history’s judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it. We implore them to make the right choice.
http://www.hindu.com/2009/12/07/stories/2009120757400100.htm
Stopping climate change
Rich and poor countries have to give ground to get a deal in Copenhagen; then they must focus on setting a carbon price
THE ECONOMIST DECEMBER 4,2009
AT A time when they are not short of pressing problems to deal with, the presence of 100-odd world leaders at the two-week meeting that starts in Copenhagen on December 7th to renew the Kyoto protocol on climate change might seem a little self-indulgent. There will be oceans of planet-saving rhetoric, countless photographs of politicians wearing dark suits and serious faces and, if things go according to plan, an agreement to cut emissions to avert a rise in temperature that might anyway have turned out to be marginal and self-correcting.
CLIMATE CHANGE- REDUCE EMISSIONS
It might; and then again it might not. Uncertainty about the consequences of climate change makes it hard to persuade people to spend money on it, for where the damage is uncertain, so are the benefits of averting it. Yet uncertainty is also why mankind needs to take the problem seriously. If we were sure that the temperature would rise by 2-3ºC, then we could choose to live with that. But we do not know how far the rise might go. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the body set up by the UN to establish a scientific consensus on the subject, puts the range of possible increases by the end of this century at 1.1-6.4ºC. At the bottom end of the range, the difference would be barely noticeable. At the top end of the range—well, guesses about what the world would look like then read rather like science fiction.
Although the benefits of averting that sort of catastrophe are incalculably large, the costs of doing so should not be enormous—as little as 1% of global output, if policy is well designed (see our special report). This newspaper reckons that the world should fork out, rather as householders spend similar proportions of their income on insuring their homes against disaster.
Sharing and trusting
Agreeing that the problem is worth tackling is, however, a small step on the way to doing so. Since the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which spawned the Kyoto protocol, was signed in 1992, global carbon-dioxide emissions have risen by a third. The problem is not a lack of low-carbon technologies. Electricity can be generated by nuclear fission, hydropower, biomass, wind and solar energy; and cars and lorries can run on electricity or biofuels. Nor is the problem an economic one. A percentage point of global economic output is affordable for a worthwhile project. Saving the banks has cost around 5% of global output.
So the problem is both simpler and cheaper to fix than most people think. But mankind has to agree on how to share out the costs, both between and within countries. That splits into two challenges. The first is to get an international deal, which is what world leaders are trying to do at Copenhagen. The second is to implement that deal at a national level, with better policies than those currently in place, including a credible carbon price. Otherwise the cost will be far more than that 1%.
The prospects for Copenhagen look better than those for Kyoto did. Australia, which initially walked away from Kyoto, has now ratified it (though its government may choose to hold an election on the issue—see article). America’s emissions-cutting bill is stuck in the Senate, and may never emerge, but Barack Obama is keen to push on. Some middle-income countries, such as Brazil and Mexico, have announced targets for cutting emissions; China has announced one for cutting the carbon-intensity of its economy.
What it’s all about
The arguments at Copenhagen will focus on two issues: emissions cuts and money. Developed countries are required to produce targets for cutting their emissions by 2020. On the basis of the IPCC’s figures, their emissions need to drop by 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 if the world is to limit the rise in temperature to 2ºC above pre-industrial levels. The offers on the table add up to around 15% compared with 1990 levels by 2020. America, the main laggard, is offering around 4%.
Developing countries are required to come up with “actions” to limit emissions. China, now the world’s biggest emitter, and so the country in the spotlight, has committed itself to cut the carbon-intensity of its economy by 40-45% by 2020. America is dissatisfied with that, because that’s pretty much where China would get to on the basis of its existing policies.
Emerging countries want governments in the rich world to pay huge sums from their coffers for adaptation to, and mitigation of, climate change. China has mentioned $400 billion a year. The EU reckons €100 billion ($150 billion) a year is more like it—some from exchequers, most from capital markets.
On emissions cuts, both sides need to give ground. Developing countries are right that America’s offer is unimpressive compared with 1990 figures, but the trajectory from now on is pretty steep. And, given that the crucial legislation is stuck in the Senate, Mr Obama’s decision to put any numbers on the table is a brave one. Senators react badly to the sense that their country is being pushed around by foreigners—as their pre-emptive rejection of the Kyoto protocol showed. A deal on the basis of the numbers America has offered would be better than no deal. Nor is China’s offer derisory. The Americans complain that China’s existing policies would achieve those cuts with no extra effort. True; but China, unlike America, has already introduced significant emissions-cutting measures.
On cash, money should indeed change hands—both for moral reasons (rich countries are largely responsible for the problem so far but poor ones will suffer most) and for practical ones (some poor countries do not have access to the capital they need to invest in mitigation). But developing countries should not be asking for huge government-to-government transfers. Capital markets are better at allocating resources than governments are. Rich-country governments should help money flow from the markets by subsidising the risk of investing in clean energy in poor countries: public money should be used to prompt larger sums of private capital.
If an agreement is reached at Copenhagen, there will be much relief on all sides; but the job will only just have started. The parties to the negotiation decided to put aside the question of whether, and how, to make the deal legally binding pending the passage of America’s emissions-reducing legislation. And an international agreement is only the first step to emissions cuts. National targets have to be implemented through domestic policies which encourage businesses to invest in clean products and processes, and discourage them from investing in carbon-intensive products and processes. This is the second, harder task.
Effective, efficient or neither
A good policy framework would include some regulation in areas where the market doesn’t work well, such as the energy-efficiency of buildings and appliances. It would include a modicum of subsidy, on research into technologies that are still a long way from being marketable, such as carbon capture and storage. But it would rely largely on by far the most efficient tool in the policymaker’s kit—a carbon price.
A carbon price sends business a price signal to invest in clean stuff not dirty stuff. It doesn’t involve micromanaging business, which regulations do. It doesn’t impose a burden on taxpayers, or require governments to pick winners, which subsidies do. It is, according to an American study, twice as efficient as any other policy.
Economists prefer carbon prices, especially those set by taxes rather than cap-and-trade systems, which are more vulnerable to capture by the polluters they are supposed to penalise. Sadly, though, the views of economists carry little weight. Governments and businesses both tend to like subsidies.
Europe has done best. Its cap-and-trade system has set a carbon price and cut emissions modestly in the sectors it covers. But it relies too heavily on subsidies for renewable energy, and too little on its carbon price. Economists reckon a carbon price of around $40 is needed. Europe’s is around €13. America does not yet have a national carbon price; and its corn-ethanol subsidy, combined with a tariff on cheaper, greener imports, takes the planet’s first prize for the world’s most counterproductive “green” policy. The subsidy-laden bill to establish a cap-and-trade system is a step in the right direction; but, since the carbon price it would set is likely to be around $12, rising to $20 by 2020, not a very large one.
Governments see subsidies as a convenient way of easing in emissions curbs which businesses would otherwise resist. That may be so in the short term. But in the long run they make cutting emissions harder. The notion that dangerous climate change can be averted for a mere 1% of global GDP depends on policy being efficient. If it isn’t, the costs will mount—and so will the chances that the effort will fail.
The leaders gathering in Copenhagen need to come to an agreement, even if it isn’t a very good one. But that will only be the start. The national policies used to implement cuts need to be more efficient than the ones that are so far in place. That requires leadership from the politicians, and support from the voters. The world is, in the end, in their hands.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15017322&source=hptextfeature
IA TO BE HEARD ON 11 DECEMBER ON ARAVALI MINING
ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
I.A.Nos.2532-2533 in WP(C)No.202/1995
T.N.GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (For appln. for impleadment/directions)
I.A.No.D 75191 in W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
and I.A.NO.D 76048 & 76051 in W.P.(C)No.202/1995:
The applicants in these applications, who are licensees of major minerals in the State of Haryana, seek modification/ clarification of this Court’s order passed on October 8, 2009.
The grievance of the applicants is that by the aforesaid order, the Court directed the State to revoke all licenses of major minerals in the districts of Faridabad and Gurgaon even though the major mineral 4 applications were not posted on that date and consequently they did not get an opportunity to present their case before the Court. Office is directed to list all applications relating to licensees of major and minor minerals on December 11, 2009.
The State of Haryana will publish a notice giving general information to all the licensees of major and minor minerals that their matters will be heard by this Court on December 11, 2009.
Orissa mine scam could be worth more than Rs 14k cr
While Orissa vigilance sleuths and mines department officials are scratching their heads trying to find out the extent and dimensions of the mining scam, official documents reveal that the magnitude of the scam could be anything over Rs 14000 crore.
The Central Empowered Committee of the Supreme Court headed by former bureaucrat PV Jayakrishnan would soon start investigating the violation of forest laws following a petition by Orissa-based journalist Rabi Das.
However, CEC chairman Jayakrishnan said the panel has not got the formal notification of the probe order as yet. “We will decide about the modalities of the probe and the dates after we see the notification,” he told The Indian Express.
But the fact is that the scam goes beyond violation of forest laws only. Evidence available with The Indian Express shows the real scam was mining in excess of the limits set by the authorities. This violated the existing environmental laws.
Documents brought under the RTI Act showed that over last 6-7 years more than dozen leading mining and steel companies dug out excessive quantities of iron, chromite and manganese ores in wanton disregard of existing laws and limits. It’s no secret they could do it due to lax supervision of officials of the Orissa Pollution Control Board, Indian Bureau of Mines, state mines department, forest department, district collector and Ministry of Environment and Forests.
Any mining company before digging up even a handful of earth in the ore-rich areas has to obtain a Consent to Operate (CTO) certificate from the Orissa Pollution Control Board which stipulates the amount of ore that can be mined in a year. The limit is specified with an eye on collateral environmental damage that mining brings as the waste and overburden (the earth that needs to be excavated for extracting the ore) is normally 3-5 times of the actual mineral.
When environmental clearance is granted to any mine, the maximum amount of ore which can be mined per year is specified. The quantity of ore that is to be extracted every year is specified in the mining plan which is approved by the IBM. Accordingly, when the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) study is carried out the likely impacts on the local environment are assessed based on the quantity of ore to be extracted every year.
Documents obtained from the Orissa Pollution Control Board and interviews with officials in the State mining department show that the biggest violator could be Aditya Birla Group-owned Essel Mining and Industries Limited. Between 2001-02 and 2005-06, the company mined 206 lakh tonnes of iron ore in excess of its permitted limit of 25.86 lakh tonnes in just 2 mines(Kasia and Jiling-Longalata) of Keonjhar district. By conservative estimates, the total amount of the excess iron ore mined was Rs 4269 crores.
Essel Mining seemed to care two hoots about possible closure of the mines for violation of the OPCB norms. Though a closure notice was issued by the OPCB’s regional office in Keonjhar district on January 24, 2006 for violating the conditions and running two screening plants inside the forest area without mandatory environmental clearance, it did not shut shop. The OPCB also did not press further and did not close the mines.
Ardhendu Mohapatra, the chief residential manager of Essel Mining in Orissa said he was not authorized to comment but added that the company had all the statutory clearances in places. “We have not violated any laws,” he said.
Another major player, SR Rungta Group similarly mined iron ore and manganese in excess of the limit they were allowed by the OPCB. By conservative estimates, the total amount of the excess iron ore mined by the group companies between 2003 and 2006 in 6 of its mines was Rs 2978 crores. Like Essel Mining, Rungta Mines was also not shut in spite of OPCB norm violations. On Dec 18, 2006, the Ministry of Environment and Forests informed the Orissa government about illegal/excessive extraction of iron ore in 6 mines of Rungtas.
A designated committee of the OPCB had also found that excess mining was going on and had ordered closure of at least two mines on March 1, 2007. But the OPCB Chairman at Bhubaneswar did not issue the closure order. None of the officials of Rungta were available for comment.
Similarly, documents revealed that the Thakurani B mines owned by SL Sarda and ML Sarda in Keonjhar with a controlling interest by Jindal Steel and Power Limited mined iron ores in excess of the specified limit worth Rs 1850 crore. Evidence shows that Tata Steel, which has chromite and iron ore mines in Sukinda(Jajpur district) and Joda East (Keonjhar) respectively mined ores worth Rs 1200 crore between 2004-05 and 2007-08.
Even the IMFA group promoted by BJD MP Jay Panda, mined excess chromite ore worth Rs 50 crore in 2004-05 and 2005-06. Officials of Tata Steel and IMFA denied that the companies had violated any provisions of mining and environmental laws.
It appears that even the government companies are no holy saints since Orissa Mining Corporation was found to have mined 9.63 lakh tonnes of excess chromite from its South Kaliapani mines in Jajpur district. During the period between 2004 and 2008, the market value of the excess ore is estimated at Rs 105 crore.
Incredibly OPCB suddenly raised the limits of ore production of the companies in a subsequent year even though the company had violated the consent to operate conditions in the past. No penal action was taken against them. It also appears that OPCB officials never applied their mind to assess the disastrous effects on the local environment by allowing companies to increase their production by 10-20 times from the previous levels.
Orissa steel and mines secretary Ashok Dalwai said he was not aware if excess mining has taken place in Keonjhar and Sundargarh districts. “It has not been proved as yet whether excess mining took place. But we have to verify case by case and see if the companies had got their mining plans modified by the Indian Bureau of Mines. But we are looking into more important facts of the case,” said Dalwai.
This is surprising since the field inspection reports of the Pollution Control Board clearly pointed out the huge scam which was going on right under every body’s nose. Clearly the Mining Department and the Pollution Control Board did not exchange information.
LN Patnaik, who headed the Orissa Pollution Control Board between 2004 and 2008 (when some of the excess mining happened) said he does not remember what happened during those period. “It (excess mining) may be possible, but under what circumstances it happened I can’t say,” he said.
Meanwhile the director of Orissa vigilance, Anup Patnaik said the agency would take several months before it can file a chargesheet. “We are still assessing the magnitude of the scam. So far we have lodged 3 cases and may lodge more in the coming days. We will not spare anybody whosoever is involved in the scam,” said Patnaik.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/orissa-mine-scam-could-be-worth-more-than-rs-14k-cr/541383/0
Discrepancies in information on mining leases given to Karnataka Minister
S. Nagesh Kumar
| Supreme Court panel seeks views of A.P. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests |
HYDERABAD: A Central Empowered Committee (on Environment and Forests) of the Supreme Court has found certain “prima facie” discrepancies in the information furnished by Andhra Pradesh on the actual extent of the three mines given in lease to iron ore companies owned by Karnataka Tourism Minister Gali Janardhana Reddy.
The boundaries of the mines shown in the Survey Report are prima facie different from the sketches on the approved mining leases, the committee said in a communication sent to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests on Friday. A copy of it is available with The Hindu.
In 2001, Mr. Reddy’s family was given leases of three mines, measuring 25.98, 39.50 and 68.5 hectares at Obulapuram and H. Siddapuram villages in Anantapur district. Following the Telugu Desam Party’s allegations that Mr. Reddy’s firms had encroached on land beyond the leased area, the then Chief Minister Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy appointed a Survey Committee, which gave a clean chit to the companies.
The Empowered Committee significantly concluded that “if the village boundary as drawn by the State-level Committee is taken to be correct, at least one mining lease overlaps into two other mining leases. In other words, the combined sketch map of mining leases does not tally with the individual mining lease sketches,” the letter said and sought specific observations from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests.
The official was also asked to submit copies of the show-cause notices issued by the Anantapur Divisional Forest Officer. (DFO Kallol Biswas on October 28 served notices on the Obulapuram Mining Company for suspending its mining licences and subsequently received threats in person). Further, the Empowered Committee wanted copies of the sketch map of the five mines prepared by the Forest Department on the basis of the village boundary as demarcated by the Survey Committee, besides the sketch map of the sanctioned mining leases.
The five mining leases are a reference to the two given to the OMC, one to the Anantapur Mining Corporation, all owned by Mr. Reddy’s family, and the remaining two in the names of Bellary Iron Ore Co. Pvt. Ltd (BIOP) and Y. Mahabaleswarappa & Sons respectively.
The TDP has alleged that the Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka governments had surrendered to the ‘mining mafia’, in a reference to Mr. Janardhana Reddy, while loyalists of Congress MP Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy accused that party of dancing to the tunes of S.K. Modi, owner of BIOP. (The Central Empowered Committee was constituted under Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act on a direction from the Supreme Court in May 2002 in connection with two writ petitions to save India’s forests and wildlife.)
http://www.hindu.com/2009/11/15/stories/2009111557230100.htm
SC ALLOWS MINING IN FARIDABAD UNDER STRICT MONITORING
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
MINOR MINERALS AND CONSTRUCTION MATTERS IN HARYANA MINING:
I.A Nos.839, 840, 850, 853-854, 855-856, 866-868, 869-870, 871-872, 873-874, 875-876, 877-878, 879-880, 881-882, 891-892, 900, 905, 1276-1277, 1590, 1612-1613, 1700-1703, 2007-2008, 1488, 2138-2139 in 891-892, 2205, 2445, 2567, 2574 in 875-876, 2536,2636 in 879- 880,265802659 in 828, 2719 IN 1488 IN 891-92 in 828 and in
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 202 OF 1995
T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s)
AND I.A.No.2198 @ Conmt.Pet.No.125/2006 vide Court’s order
dt.25.10.2007
WITH I.A.No.2269 in W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
AND I.A.No.2393 IN I.A.NO.2269 in I.A.NO.1785 in
W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
AND I.A.No.2270 IN I.A.NO.1785 in W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
AND C.P.(C)No.186/2003 in W.P.(C)NO.4677/1985
AND I.A.No.1866 IN W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
WITH I.A.Nos.1858-1859 IN W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
WITH I.A.No.1886 IN W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
WITH I.A.No.1888 IN W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
WITH I.A.Nos.1891 to 1893 IN W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
WITH I.A.No.1895 IN W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
WITH I.A.No.1896 IN W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
WITH I.A.NO.1906 in W.P.(C)NO.4677/1985
WITH I.A.Nos.1907-1908 IN W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
WITH I.A.Nos.1911-1912 IN W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
WITH I.A.NO.1937 IN W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
WITH I.A.NO.1938 in W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
WITH I.A.Nos.2306-2307 IN W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
WITH I.A.Nos.2308-2309 IN W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
WITH I.A.Nos.2310 in I.A.2269 in 1785 IN W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
WITH I.A.No.1968 IN W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
WITH I.A.Nos.2334-2335 IN W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
WITH I.A.No.2336 IN W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
WITH I.A.No.D.58737 IN W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
AND I.A.Nos.2374-2376 in IA 1785 IN W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
WITH I.A.Nos.2377-2380 in IA 1785 IN W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
WITH I.A.Nos.2381, 2382, 2383, 2384 in IA 1785 IN
W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
WITH I.A.Nos.2386-2387 in IA 1785 IN W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
WITH I.A.No.2390 in IA 1785 IN W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
WITH I.A.No.2392 IN IA 1785 IN W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
WITH I.A.No.2415 in I.A. 1785 IN W.P.(C)No.4677/1985
WITH I.A.NO.2103 in W.P.(C)NO.4677/1985
WITH W.P.(C)No.624/2002
W.P.(C)No.661/2002
W.P.(C)No.428/2002
WITH CONMT.PET.(C)No.568/2002 in W.P.(C)NO.428/2002
WITH CONMT.PET.(C)NO.542/2004 IN W.P.(C)NO.428/2002
O R D E R
Heard both sides.
The Aravalli Hill Range has been subjected to widespread mining activities in recent times. About 1500 ha. of land was given for mining operations in Gurgaon and Mewat areas. Most of the mines were for excavating major minerals but we are told that what the mine operators extracted from the leased area were mostly minor minerals. Vast areas were thus reduced to ditches, some of them going down to a depth below the water level. The C.E.C. has filed a report showing the extent of damage caused by the mining operations in this area. With the help of the National Remote Sensing Centre, Hyderabad, Department of Space, Govt. of India, maps of these areas are prepared by using satellite imagery system. Photocopies of the maps of these areas are produced before us from which it appears that as a result of the mining operations, the entire area has become highly devastated. The C.E.C. has also filed its report indicating the extent of damage caused to this area. There were discussions between the C.E.C. and the State of Haryana as to what steps need be taken in regard to the mining activities in these areas.
All mining operations in these hills were suspended by this Court vide order dated 8th May, 2009. Now it is stated on behalf of the State of Haryana that a complete ban on mining minerals there would cause scarcity of building materials and the construction of roads and buildings and other developmental activities would be seriously affected. It was suggested that about 600 ha. of land be set apart for extraction of minor minerals in the district of Faridabad, including Palwal. The State Government is also facing a problem caused by mining operations carried on in the past over an area 1500 ha. of land in Gurgaon and Mewat. These mine operators did not carry out any reclamation or rehabilitation work though they were legally bound to do so under Rule 27 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 read with Form-K of the Mineral Concession Rules. Most of these places have been simply abandoned. These areas have to be reclaimed and extensive afforestation work needs to be carried out in these areas.
Some of the mining operators, having existing licenses that have not so far expired, raised a contention that due to suspension of all mining operations by this Court they were not able to conduct any mining even though they had not violated any rules or guidelines and hence, they should be allowed to do the mining operations in terms of the lease granted to them, more so as the State of Haryana is proposing a Scheme for setting aside about 600 ha. of land in Faridabad for excavation of minor minerals. We do not think it is feasible or in the larger interest to allow those mining operators to carry out any mining activities on the basis of the earlier licenses. Of course, they would be at liberty to participate in the auction in respect of the 600 ha. of land in Faridabad which would be made available for mining activities.
The C.E.C. and the State of Haryana held a meeting on 7.1.2009 and a report dated 15.1.2009 has been filed before this Court. On the basis of the report, any mining activity in the 600 ha. of land to be identified and earmarked in Faridabad shall be based on the following decisions taken in this meeting :
i) The State shall issue a Notification laying down the guidelines and the procedure for giving licence/lease. The State shall also establish an Aravali Rehabilitation Fund and a Monitoring Committee. In issuing the Notification for allowing mining operations in an area upto 600 ha. in the District of Faridabad, including Palwal, the State must strictly adhere to all the conditions enumerated in the Minutes of the Meeting held on 7.1.2009 between the C.E.C., State of Haryana and the Forest Survey of India regarding mining, colonisation and related issues in Aravali hills. It is hoped and expected that the Notification will be issued by the State Government within a period of three months.
ii) The State of Haryana will take immediate steps for preparation and implementation of Reclamation and Rehabilitation Plan for the area degraded as a result of the mining activities in that part. The rehabilitation of those areas shall be done by the respective leaseholders. The State would also be at liberty to hold the respective leaseholders who had not carried out the rehabilitation work as per Rule 27 of the Mineral Concession Rules read with Form-K of the said rules as liable for the rehabilitation of those areas. The State shall take all reparatory and compensatory steps in this regard.
iii) The actual mining operation in the 600 ha. of land in Faridabad shall commence on submission of the rehabilitation and reclamation plan by the State and its approval by this Court. It shall be done at the earliest and preferably within a period of six months.
iv) The C.E.C. shall submit quarterly reports to this Court in regard to the commencement of the mining activities and its effect on the surrounding areas as also in regard to the progress of the reclamation work in the areas of Aravali range degraded by the past mining operations.
Before any mining operations commence, the leaseholders shall obtain all statutory clearances including environmental clearance in terms of MoEF Notification dated 14.9.2006 and also the approval under the Forest Conservation Act.
The Principal Secretary, Department of Mines, State of Haryana will be responsible to ensure strict compliance of this order. The Chief Secretary of the State shall have supervisory control over the matter. As regards the permission for mining activities in the 1500 ha. of land in Gurgaon and Mewat, the same will be taken up separately considering the progress made in the rehabilitation work to be carried out by the State in the 600 ha. of land.
In case of violation of any of these directions or failure of the rehabilitation and reclamation process to make satisfactory progress, this Court would consider closure of the mining activities which are hereby permitted by this Court.
In case of any such failure, the C.E.C. may file a report as and when required. The State would revoke all licenses in respect for major minerals both in Faridabad and Gurgaon districts.
All I.A.s, writ petitions and contempt petitions relating to minor minerals are disposed of. Consequently, all applications for intervention and impleadment are also disposed of.
List the Construction matters on 11.12.2009.
………………CJI
(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)
……………….J.
(S.H. KAPADIA)
……………….J.
(AFTAB ALAM)
NEW DELHI;
8TH OCTOBER, 2009
SC nod to mining on 600 hectares of Aravalis
SC nod to mining on 600 hectares of Aravalis
Area under mining may go up in Palwal and Fbd
Aravalli mining can go on: SC
Apex court allows limited mining in Aravali ranges
RAPE OF BELLARY
READ A ON THE IMPACT OF MINING ON BELLARY
Rape of Bellary
When the rains fail
IN THE ECONOMIST
RAINFALL last month encouraged Haniya, a middle-aged member of the Lambada tribe of southern Andhra Pradesh (AP), to inspect his one-acre (0.4-hectare) field. Some speckles of green, to show the red earth had held enough water for weeds to shoot, would have tempted him to sow cotton. But, towards the end of AP’s monsoon rainy season, the field was parched and bare. If it rains again, Haniya may sow. If not? He gave the reply of peasant farmers in India and poor, dry places everywhere: “Only God knows.”
THE FAILING MONSOON
Back in his village of Veeralapalam, light-skinned Lambadi farmers gathered. Most had scattered some cotton or lentil seed after the rain. But it had better rain again: none had access to irrigation from a dozen wells sunk 90 metres into central India’s lava bedrock by richer high-caste Hindu farmers. A few expected to buy a dousing or two of costly piped water, brought by the same neighbours from a nearby storm-creek. Even if affordable, said Saidanayak, this would not sustain his hoped-for acre of cotton. Without more rain, it will fail, adding to his 125,000-rupee ($2,500) debt—a big sum, when the dowry for a Lambada bride is $1,200.
With no crop, no money and three daughters to marry off, he would join the only reliable flood in AP in these drought days: of thousands of tough, skinny peasants into Hyderabad, the state capital, in search of a day-wage. Asked what he would do there, Saidayanak pushed out his fists and shifted from foot to foot, as if cycling a rickshaw—and laughter diluted the gloom.
Many Indians share his worries. Around 450m live off rain-fed agriculture, and this year’s monsoon rains, which between June and September provide 80% of India’s precipitation, have been the scantiest in decades. Almost half India’s 604 districts are affected by drought, especially in the poorest and most populous states—such as Bihar, which has declared drought in 26 of its 38 districts. Uttar Pradesh (UP), home to 185m, expects its main rice harvest to be down by 60%. The outlook for the winter wheat crop is also poor, with India’s main reservoirs, a source for irrigation canals, one-third below their seasonal average. That also means less water for thirsty cities, including Delhi, where 18m people live and the water board meets around half their demand in a good year.
Belated cloudbursts in AP and other states have brought relief. But late sowing tends to produce a thin harvest. AP counted some 20 farmer suicides last month, and there will be more. A short drive from Hyderabad, Koteswara Rao watched as four Hindu outcasts and two blue-horned bullocks ploughed his 16 acres (14 of them leased) for cotton. If it fails he will be left with a $4,000 debt and, being of lofty caste, he said, he could never sweat it out as a labourer. “Suicide would be easier.”
No one should starve, at least. None of India’s previous five big post-independence droughts caused famine. And after two bumper years, the government says it has enough wheat and rice in store to prevent serious food-grain price inflation. With agriculture accounting for only 18% of GDP, compared with 30% in 1990, the drought will in fact cause relatively little damage to India’s economy; it should still grow by over 5% this year. Lavish spending on rural welfare since 2004, when the Congress party won power in Delhi, will also help. Almost 30m people have benefited from the government’s chief public-works project, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS).
Yet the drought underlines a grim truth. India’s extremes of hydrology, poverty and population present vast difficulties for water management which it has never mastered. And they are growing. Increasingly frequent droughts may be a sign of this—if, as some think, climate change is to blame. It will accentuate India’s problems, with the monsoon rains, which supply over 50% of much of India’s annual precipitation in just 15 days, predicted to become even more contracted and unpredictable. At the same time, the rapid melting of Himalayan glaciers promises to deprive the great rivers of the Indian sub-continent, the Indus, Ganges and Brahmaputra, of their summertime source. This threatens a triple whammy: of longer dry seasons, in which these rivers do not flow, and more violent wet seasons. That would mean more bad news for flood-prone eastern India, including Bihar, where over 3m were displaced last year when the Kosi river burst a crumbling embankment.
India’s water future was worrying even without climate change. Despite daunting seasonal and regional variations, it should have ample water for agricultural, industrial and household use. But most of it falls, in a remarkably short time, in the wrong places. India’s vast task is therefore to trap and store enough water; to channel it to where it is most needed; and, above all, to use it there as efficiently as possible. And on all three counts, India fares badly. Without huge improvements, according to a decade-old official estimate, by 2050, when its population will be a shade under 1.7 billion, India will run short of water.
There are already signs of the conflict this would cause. Having bickered for decades over their rights to the Krishna river, AP and upstream Maharashtra and Karnataka are now furiously building dams and diversions that the river might not support even in flood. In Orissa 30,000 farmers—for whom over 80% of India’s water is reserved—laid siege to a reservoir in 2007 to try to stop factories using its waters. The desert state of Rajasthan has seen similar protests against the diversion of water to its growing cities. In one, five farmers were shot dead by police.
The government is worried: “2050 is a very frightening sort of a picture,” says A.K. Bajaj, chairman of India’s central water commission, which provides technical support to the state governments who control India’s water. Its main solution is to build more large dams (390 are under construction), and river diversions, including a long-mooted extravaganza of 30 linkages which would unite most of India’s river basins. Indeed, India needs more water storage: it has 200 cubic metres per person, compared with 1,000 cubic metres in China. But given the decrepitude of much of its existing water infrastructure, and its profligate ways with water, its more urgent priorities are to repair and reform.
Worshipping old gods
Famine-prone for most of its history, India’s attachment to dams is understandable. Its ability to feed itself owes much to a splurge on big dams and canal projects in the 1950s-70s—for example, the colossal Bhakra dam in Himachal Pradesh, completed in 1963 and described by the then prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, as a “new temple” of India. The Bhakra brought 7m hectares of north-west India, chiefly Punjab and Haryana, under irrigation. This prepared the way for the Green Revolution of the 1960s, when the introduction of new seeds and chemical fertilisers hugely boosted farm yields in those states and in the coastal region of AP—which was irrigated in the 19th century by a British engineer, Sir Arthur Cotton, who is still worshipped there as a god.
But, the world over, without expensive maintenance to prevent siltation in reservoirs and leakage from canals, grand dams and irrigation schemes tend to be as inefficient as they are environmentally destructive. And India’s corrupt, underfunded and overmanned state irrigation departments—UP’s, for example, employs over 100,000 people—often provide no maintenance at all. As a result, each year India is estimated to lose the equivalent of two-thirds of the new storage it builds to siltation. Bad planning, often as a result of inter-state rivalries, causes more waste. Thus, between 1992 and 2004 India built 200 large and medium-sized irrigation projects—and the area irrigated by such schemes shrank by 3.2m hectares.
The village of Veeralapalam offers a snapshot of this, and of the losers in a political economy where water is the main currency. From the early 1960s it received occasional water in a small canal, at the tail-end of a system off the Krishna river. But this has been dry since 1985 because of leakage up-channel and, the Lambadi farmers say, illegal tapping by members of a more favoured community. The canal was re-dug last year under the NREGS, but seems unlikely to get any water.
A few miles up-channel in Ulisaipalam, a village dominated by high-caste Hindus, there is water, but more problems. Wading shin-deep, P. Venkat Reddy transplants dark green paddy into his two acres of irrigated, but undrained, land. When there is water in the canal, for around four months each year, it is waterlogged, fit only for paddy. But in recent years the canal has held insufficient water for a full paddy crop—forcing Mr Reddy to supplement it with groundwater. He pumps this, with electricity given free to farmers in AP, from a borehole drilled 45 metres into his land.
THE FAILING MONSOON
Since the 1970s, when affordable water pumps became available and electricity reached many more places, millions have done the same. India is the world’s biggest user of groundwater, with some 20m bore-holes providing water for over 60% of its irrigated area. Being entirely in farmers’ hands, this is up to three times more productive than canal irrigation. In 2002, by a conservative estimate, it was worth $8 billion a year to the Indian economy—more than four times what the central and state governments spend on irrigation schemes.
Groundwater irrigation has transformed the lives of millions. It has also rectified problems, of water-logging and salination, caused by canals. But in many places, including productive Punjab and Haryana, whose rather well-off farmers also get free or cut-price electricity, the rate of groundwater extraction is unsustainable. Nearly a third of India’s groundwater blocks were defined in 2004 as “critical, semi-critical or over-exploited”. The World Bank reckons that 15% of India’s food is produced by “mining”—or unrenewable extraction of—groundwater, including in 18 of Punjab’s 20 districts. Satellite maps released by America’s NASA last month showed that north-western India’s aquifers had fallen by a foot a year between 2002 and 2008: a loss of 109 cubic km (26 cubic miles) of water, or three times the volume of America’s biggest man-made reservoir.
This is storing up trouble. As bore-holes run dry, as those over the hardrock aquifers of southern-central India do on a monthly basis, many poor people may be deprived of safe drinking water. Currently, 220m Indians lack this. Not all India’s groundwater is potable anyway; in places, it is getting seriously polluted. And India’s groundwater reserves will be especially missed when climate change makes surface-water sources even more sporadic. Their depletion will accentuate this, with springs, which could have provided a trickle of run-off during the extended dry seasons, increasingly failing.
Pump and be damned
Some excuse this resolute destruction by saying that India’s farmers do not understand groundwater. But they know when it is running out, as an impromptu conclave in the Punjabi village of Lubana Teku showed. “Punjab will become a desert, like Rajasthan,” said Jarnail Singh, a stately, orange-turbaned grower of rice. When Mr Singh began pumping groundwater in 1973, turning his 14 acres from cotton to paddy, it took a three-horsepower engine to bring it up from 1.5 metres. Now the groundwater is 20 metres down, and he requires a 15-horsepower pump to sluice his green paddy-fields. “We know the water is going,” said Mr Singh. “But we’re not going to change our ways unless the government makes us.”
Rather, it encourages him to keep pumping. Besides paying nothing for his water or electricity—seven hours of it a day—Mr Singh knows the government will buy all the rice he can grow, at a pre-ordained “minimum support price”. Set against this package, Punjab’s efforts to conserve its groundwater, mainly by telling farmers not to transplant paddy before the monsoon rains, are rather puny.
State governments know that this is madness. Over a quarter of India’s electricity is given free or cut-price to farmers. As a result, the state power utilities are bust. Understandably, however, politicians balk at reform. Two chief ministers recently tried charging farmers for electricity, in AP and Madhya Pradesh, and were kicked out of office. The Congress party chief minister of Haryana, which is going to the polls in October, will not make that mistake. He is demanding $200m from India’s Congress-led central government as a contribution to Haryana’s agricultural-power subsidy.
The subsidy raj is not confined to farmers. Many municipal governments price water well below cost, and therefore struggle to supply it. Delhi, where the water board’s revenues cover only 40% of its operating costs, should have plenty of water. It draws 220 litres per citizen, more than Paris. But half of it disappears from leaky pipes. To mend these, workmen, having no underground maps, must dig up and sift through a tangled mass of pipes and cables, like untrained surgeons manhandling intestines.
THE FAILING MONSOONS
Predictably, for a couple of hundred rupees a month, posh south Delhi gets the best water supply. When its taps run dry, the locals, including India’s political and bureaucratic elite, pump groundwater—often illegally. By one estimate, bore-holes provide 40% of the capital’s water; and south Delhi’s groundwater, which underlies the offices of India’s Central Groundwater Authority, is being depleted by up to three metres a year. But tube-wells, which cost around $600, are no option for Delhi’s poor, including 4m slum-dwellers. To augment their supply they must buy water, of dubious quality and at extortionate prices, from a well-connected water mafia.
In fiery June residents of Sangam Vihar, a poor suburb of south Delhi, rioted after getting no water for two weeks. In normal times, according to Vishnu Sharma, a 36-year-old resident, he and his family receive, at unpredictable times, around an hour and a half of muddy piped water each week. They pay $2 for this, he said—and another $20, or a quarter of his factory wage, to private water-sellers in cahoots with corrupt water-board officials. “So why bother complaining?” he said angrily.
Who could deny that rich Delhiites must pay more for water, so the city’s poor can get more? The rich, of course. In 2005 a World Bank-sponsored effort to reform the water board was shot down by local NGOs. As well as worrying, reasonably, about the bidding process for contracts, they were outraged to discover that, in return for round-the-clock clean water, the targeted households would be charged about $20 a month—or what Mr Sharma pays his local water don.
Pay more, use less
To make farmers use less water, they must pay, or pay more, for electricity. The longer state governments wait to institute this, the higher the cost of pumping groundwater will go—and the more difficult reform becomes. Nor is pricing alone a panacea. According to a World Bank study, farmers are already paying rather a lot for subsidised but poor-quality electricity. In Haryana, farmers with electricity spent 25% of their incomes on it and on repairing burnt-out pump-engines; those without electricity spent 31% of their incomes on diesel. To charge farmers more for electricity, utilities will have to improve supply. And farmers must learn to use water more efficiently.
Selling groundwater to cities, as farmers outside Chennai have done, is one possible answer. Another, to keep up India’s food production, is to spread the use of modern seeds and other technologies—such as an improved system of paddy cultivation that uses half as much water and has boosted yields in Tamil Nadu and AP. Ideally, commercial cultivation of thirsty sugar-cane and paddy should also be shifted eastwards, to the poor and sodden parts of Bihar and West Bengal. For now, alas, the political trade-offs and mammoth infrastructure development this would require make it seem unimaginable.
Farmers on arid, rain-fed land need help of other sorts. Even if they had electricity—which 400m Indians do not—they could hardly pay for it. Nor would it be altogether desirable for them to pump groundwater unless they could be enjoined to sow appropriate crops, such as pulses and millet, and water them wisely. In dry areas, where profligate water-use by one farmer can make many wells run dry, farmers have been persuaded to share information on rainfall, groundwater levels and cropping, and so collectively regulate themselves. One attempt at this in central AP involves 25,000 farmers.
And India must have more dams. These need not be large; indeed, given problems of maintenance and resettlement, it would be better if they were not. For these and other reasons, most experts also seem to want the ambitious river-basin-linkage idea to be scrapped. In most places, urban and rural, India’s state governments would do better to concentrate on building and restoring millions of small water storages, tanks and mini-reservoirs, and put local governments in charge of them. There is no simple solution to India’s complicated water crisis. But if prayers are necessary, let them be offered in small shrines, not vast concrete temples.
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14401149
India’s environmental situation alarming: PM
The “multiple environmental crises that confront our country have created an alarming situation”, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said in New Delhi on Tuesday, while asking state governments to curtail pollution, clean rivers and fight climate change.Opening a daylong conference of environment ministers from all state governments, Manmohan Singh said: “Climate change is threatening our ecosystems, water scarcity is becoming a way of life and pollution is endangering our health.”
“We have to make fundamental choices about our lifestyles,” the prime minister said, assuring his audience that the “challenges are not insurmountable”.Describing climate change as a “major global challenge”, he said India was conscious of its “responsibility to present and future generations” and would ensure the “ecological sustainability of its development path”.
Manmohan Singh sought the cooperation of all state governments to implement the eight missions that the centre has outlined under the National Action Plan on Climate Change. He asked the assembled ministers to have state level action plans in concordance with the national plan. The prime minister also called upon state governments to modernise their forest departments and to fill up vacant posts, pointing out that many states would now get huge funding for compensatory afforestation projects, as the Supreme Court has recently unfrozen over Rs 9,000 crore meant for this. The money was lying in escrow accounts for over seven years
Welcoming the prime minister, Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh said the first tranche of these funds, Rs 400 crore, had been transferred to 10 states on Tuesday morning, and Rs 1,000 crore would be transferred “in the next few days”.
Manmohan Singh underlined the “need to ensure that local communities benefit from forest conservation. Tribals have guarded our forests for centuries. Their wisdom and experience should be utilised for conservation rather than turning them into environmental refugees”.
He said the Tribal Rights Act was the best way to guarantee these rights.
The prime minister expressed concern that rivers all over India were still being degraded. He referred to the increased allocation in this year’s national budget to clean rivers, and asked state pollution control boards to curtail release of industrial effluents into waterways, “which account for 25 per cent of total pollution in rivers”.
Manmohan Singh felt that India’s mandatory environmental clearance rules had led to a “licence raj” and had become “a source of corruption”. But he expressed confidence that the National Green Tribunal bill would change this by setting up an independent regulator. The bill was introduced in parliament during the last session.
“India’s energy needs will increase sharply,” the prime minister pointed out. “We have to ensure we meet this demand in an environment-friendly way.” He sought more investments in green technologies and a boost to research and development in this field.
“Environmental degradation threatens our economic security and our well-being,” Manmohan Singh warned the assembled ministeRs
While welcoming the prime minister, Ramesh appealed for more money for river and lake conservation and to set up joint effluent treatment plants in industrial estates.
The minister referred to an anomaly in the rules, due to which states had to transfer the water cess they collected to the centre, which then sent 80 per cent of the amount back to the states. It would make more sense for the state to simply send 20 per cent of cess to the centre, he pointed out.
Ramesh also sought “special bonuses” for states that maintained their green cover, and wanted this institutionalised through the Finance Commission or the Planning Commission.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=eba16eae-30a5-4100-a7e9-a89553b8ddb5
INDIA LAW RESOURSCE CAUTIONS:
MR PRIME MINISTER ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION IS NEVER A CONCERN OF YOU POLITICIANS. YOU ALL WANT TO MAKE MONEY AND THAT IS WHY THE CORRUPTION IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARNCE. IF YOU ARE VERY SERIOUS ON THESE ISSUES DONT MAKE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE EASIER.MAKE IT TOUGHER.
MAKE THE AGENCIES WHICH GRANT THESE LICENSES STRONGER WITH MORE PARTICIPATION OF THE CIVIL SOCIETY.MAKE IT TRANSPARENT.
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION IS A SERIOUS ISSUE STATE GOVT CARE A DAMN ABOUT ENVIRONMENT. MONEY PAID TO THE STATES WILL GO INTO THE HOMES OF FAT BUREAUCRATS AND MEGALOMANIAC POLITICIANS WHO CUT 30000 TREES TO HAVE A PARK TO INSTALL THERE STATUES.
THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CLEARED THE FUNDS FOR SUCH USE.
THE CENTRAL GOVT NEEDS TO MAKE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A CENTRAL SUBJECT. STATES WILL EAT AWAY THE MONEY.
WE DONT NEED PROGRESS AT THE COST OF ENVIRONMENT. IF YOU WILL NOT PAY HEED TODAY NATURE WILL GIVE YOU ALL A RESOUNDING REPLY.
PLANET IS GETTING HOTTER . THE MONSOON ARE GETTING WEAKER EVERY YEAR. IT IS YOU ALL POLITICIANS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE AND A HANDFUL OF INDUSTRIALISTS AND MONEYED PEOPLE WHO RAPE THE ENVIRONMENT TO GAIN MONEY AND THEMSELVES STAY IN COOLER PARTS OF THE WORLD.
A CLARION CALL NEEDS TO BE GIVEN FOR PROTECTION OF INDIAS ENEVIRONMENTAL HERITAGE.THE PRIME MINISTER AND HIS ENVIRONMENT MINISTER NEED TO FIRST THROUGH OUT VEDANTA WHO ARE HELL BENT TO RAPE NIYAMGIRI MOUNTAINS IN ORISSA.
EVEN THE SUPREME COURT GREEN BENCH PROVIDES JUSTICE TO ONLY INDUSTRAIALISTS AS THEY ONLY CAN HIRE THE MONEYED LAWYERS. THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE VOICES OF THE ENVIRONMETALISTS. MANY SENIOR ADVOCATES ARE HAND IN GLOVES WITH INDUSTRAILISTS AND GET PAID MILLIONS OF RUPEES FOR GETTING THE CLEARNCE FROM THE GREEN BENCH.
THE WHOLE SYSTEM STINKS.
PEOPLE WHO RAPE THE ENVIRONMENT SHOULD BE GIVEN THE DEATH PENALTY AS THEY OVER THE YEARS KILL THE RIGHT TO LIFE OF FUTURE GENERATIONS TO COME.
leave a comment