| |

Sunita Narain on the Tata Nano

nano.jpg Unless you have been living under a rock recently (hey, nice way to start a blog post, insult your reader(s)), you must have heard of the Tata Nano, the much ballyhooed cheapest car ever built. People ask me (after all, I am Indian and pretend to know a lot about the environment) what I think of the Nano. Well, it’s hard to summarize in an elevator pitch. Obviously, given the state of public transportation in the cities, people want private vehicles to travel in, more convenient, fewer people to jostle against, etc. People previously riding scooters and motorcycles (and carrying entire families in a two wheeler) would prefer this car. But, traffic’s going to get worse, and cars occupy a lot of road space while not carrying that many people.

Anyway, my thoughts aside, Sunita Narain (one of India’s most famous environmental activists) and director of  The Center for Science and Environment (India’s most active Environmental NGO) writes one of her typically insightful editorials in Down to Earth, the CSE’s flagship publication.

Let’s take the ‘affordability’ question first. The fact is that cars—small or big—are heavily subsidized. The problem is that when economists (including those who run the government) fret and fume about mounting subsidy bills, they think of farmers—fertilizer, electricity and food—not our cars. But subsidy is what they unquestionably get.The subsidy begins with the manufacture of cars. When we read about the Singur farmers’ struggle to stop government from acquiring their land for the Tata car factory we don’t join the dots. We don’t see this as the first big subsidy to motorization. The fact is, in Singur the manufacturer got cheap land, interest-free capital and perhaps other concessions—the Left Front government in West Bengal never made public full details of its attractive package. This brought down the cost of production and allowed the manufacturer to price the Nano at Rs 1 lakh

The Nano-flyover syndrome | Editor’s Page | Down To Earth magazine

All very true. Cars are heavily subsidized, taxation, parking, you name it, money quote…

Since cars take up over 75 per cent of the road space, even though they move less than 20 per cent of the people, it is obvious whom this expenditure benefits the most.

Yes, cars are not a very efficient way to move people, they’re convenient because Indian cities are not being planned to prioritize public transport that is convenient, safe and clean. India’s  per capita income (nominal) is about a $1000 per year and the nano, even in its cheapest form, is about 3 years worth of the average income. So, your average Indian, even if she lives in a city and makes twice this average, will not buy this car. So, she’s stuck on the bus which crawls ever so slowly due to all these nanos flitting about. Or, she’s on a scooter/bike facing ever increasing pollution due to these cars and risking life and limb as traffic pushes vehicles closer and closer together.

But of course, this seems to be the pattern of development and optimists will argue that at some point in time, the infrastructure will catch up to the point that there will be room for all these cars and money for all the people to buy all these cars. But as Ms. Narain points out, 20% of Delhi is already covered with roads (hard to get that number in context though, I have no idea what percent of NYC is road covered, for instance!), so finding room to build more roads is going to be hard.

Something’s gotta give, I don’t know what!

Tags: , , ,

Similar Posts

  • Voluntary Priority and Toxic Chemical Reduction – US EPA

    Priority and Toxic Chemical Reduction | Resource Conservation Challenge | US EPA

    Priority and toxic chemicals make up a fairly limited volume, yet potentially hazardous portion of the nation’s waste stream. We are working to eliminate or reduce priority chemicals and other chemicals of national concern from commercial products, waste streams, and industrial releases through pollution prevention, waste minimization, and recycling/reuse.The 31 priority chemicals are federal priorities because they are persistent, bioaccumulative, and highly toxic. We’re focusing on reducing priority and toxic chemicals to better protect human health and the environment.

    By substituting or eliminating certain chemicals in their manufacturing processes, companies produce less waste and thus lower their waste disposal costs. Our goal is to substantially reduce the volume and toxicity of priority chemicals in waste by asking companies to voluntarily:

    • Substitute safer alternatives when they can;
    • Minimize the amount of priority chemicals they use, if they can’t substitute for them;
    • Maximize their recycling efforts;
    • Practice cradle-to-cradle chemical management; and
    • Design products to minimize exposure to, and release of, priority chemicals during manufacturing and use.

    Sounds good, and Worldchanging has more:

    But nowhere near the progress some companies are making on their own in cleaning up toxic emissions — not simply to be good guys, but to reduce their costs, liabilities, and exposure to activist and shareholder pressures. And, in some cases, to meet their customers’ growing demands for less-toxic or nontoxic alternatives to business as usual.

    Read the whole post, which sounds ambivalent about the scheme. The idea is Environmental Good Sense 101, use less, or none at all, practice cradle to grave economics and minimize exposure. Simple stuff, huh. The biggest problem, however, is that by setting limits on a voluntary basis, you always run the risk of setting the bar too low, and then indulging in relentless and pointless self congratulation about how the “market” solved everything, and how rules are so, well, 1970s?

    you need a good mix of

    1. Regulation, which sets a minimum, health based bar
    2. Flexibility to the business on how to achieve their targets
    3. Market systems to trade emission credits, etc
    4. Voluntary industry-government initiatives like the one above
    5. Relentless citizen activism that forces governments/business to act
    6. Community outreach and education so consumers can make informed choices
    7. Costing mechanisms that actually reflect free market efficiencies (no stupid subsidies, accurate costing of “externalities”, etc. )

    Yeah, this does not fit neatly into the Mano a Mano, you’re with us/you’re against us false dichotomy of choice that seems to beset almost every policy debate (environmental or otherwise). It seems that you never have to do one or the other, but a bit of both, or all of them at the same time.

    In the meanwhile, the voluntary program will work, but only in areas in specific instances where it is to a company’s advantage.

    BTW, I think that good old fashioned regulation in Europe – See Reach and many many more existing regulations, such as this one for PCBs and Dioxins which I know a little too much about, have a little more to do with American companies reducing POP levels that they care to admit!

  • The emperor's "new" climate policy

    You mut have heard by now that the emperor of the US (I call him that because he thinks he is above the law and rules by fiat) announced a new meeting to tackle climate change issues. David Roberts of Grist broke it down and concluded that it was worse than nothing. It rejects targets, groups China and India with the developed world, which ensures that nothing will ever come out of his “meeting”, kicks everything down the road until after he has abdicated his throne in 2009, and tries to take advantage of climate change to push for free trade deals.

    But this article by Dana Milbank of the Washington Post caught my attention for the rather surreal exchange between a CBS reporter and the White House spokesman.

    Dana Milbank – As the World Warms, the White House Aspires – washingtonpost.com

    In this instance, you have a long-term, aspirational goal,” Connaughton answered.

    Aspirational goal? Like having the body you want without diet or exercise? Or getting rich without working?

    “I’m confused,” Axelrod said. “Does that mean there will be targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions, and that everybody will be making binding commitments?”

    “The commitment at the international level will be to a long-term, aspirational goal,” the Bush aide repeated.

    Axelrod had his answer. “Voluntary,” he concluded.

    “Well,” said Connaughton, “I want to be careful about the word ‘voluntary.’ “

    Yes, please do be careful, let’s not over promise and under deliver like we always do!

    Connaughton may want to be careful, but the plan the White House outlined yesterday listed no concrete targets or dates, no enforcement mechanism and no penalties for noncompliance. It also wouldn’t take effect until four years after Bush leaves office. It was, rather, a call to spend the final 18 months of the Bush presidency forming an aspirational goal.

    Umm, we’re not in 1985 any more, aspirational goals have long since been established, stabilization at 450 ppm C anyone?

    I love the emperor and his merry band of climate advisers!

  • Hansen Utters the M word

    Well, I for one am glad that the world’s most famous climate scientist has called for a moratorium on coal fired power plants.
    Top scientist seeks halt on coal plants – Yahoo News

    In prepared remarks to be delivered at the National Press Club Monday afternoon, NASA scientist James Hansen, who has been one of the earliest top researchers to warn the world about global warming, will call for a moratorium on building new coal-fired power plants.

    Hansen’s call dovetails with an edict by the private equity group buying TXU, a massive Texas-based utility. The equity group, led by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and Texas Pacific Group, agreed to stop plans to build eight new coal-fired power plants, not to propose new coal-fired plants outside Texas and to support mandatory national caps on emissions linked to global warming.

    Hansen’s presentation to the press club says all coal-fired power plants that do not capture and bury carbon dioxide “must eventually be bulldozed (before mid-century).”

    The director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, who was speaking as a private citizen, said Congress should adopt these coal cuts and if not, “citizens must accomplish this.” He said increased efficiency can make up for the cutbacks in coal.

    Hallelujah!

  • The LA Times does Ambassador Cars

    Please, we don’t need any sentimentality! These cars need to go away, they’ve done their bit for 50+ years, it’s time to retire!

    India’s ugly icon of the road – Los Angeles Times

    TO describe the most famous car strutting along India’s roads today, think of some of the qualities associated with hot automotive design.

    Sleek. Sporty. Sexy. Fast.

    Now throw them out.

    None of those words applies to the Ambassador — in fact, quite the opposite, many say. Its boxy shape, like a derby hat on wheels, is an aerodynamic nightmare. It can have trouble overtaking wandering cows, let alone more powerful rivals. It’s not the car you’d pick to impress someone on a first date, or a fifth.

    Yet everything the Ambassador is not doesn’t change what it is: an icon of modern India, a national treasure that epitomizes the country’s last 50 years, which is how long the car has been rolling off the same assembly line in eastern India, day in and day out.

  • Duke Energy wants your money to pollute you

    Charlotte Observer | 06/06/2007 | Green groups lose effort to block Duke plant

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!! STOP BUILDING COAL POWER PLANTS NOW!!! – NO MORE COAL WITHOUT SEQUESTRATION!!

    How’s that for a bumper sticker?

    The N.C. Utilities Commission upheld its March decision to allow Duke to build one 800-megawatt unit. The commission in March had rejected Duke’s request to build two units. Environmentalists subsequently asked the regulators to reconsider their decision allowing one unit.

    The commission’s ruling shifts the battle over Duke’s proposed Cliffside project to the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the agency that is considering an air quality permit for the proposed power plant. When the draft permit is issued later this year, the organizations will likely contend that the Cliffside project is not using the cleanest technology available and is falling short of federal air quality standards.

    “We’re using all available legal tools to stop a dirty power plant from being built,” said Michael Shore, a senior air policy analyst at N.C. Environmental Defense. “Everything is an attempt to delay and hopefully prevent construction.”

    In their appeal to the utilities commission, the environmentalists contended that the Cliffside project is not the most economical choice, but rather the “worst-cost” option. Last year, the capital cost of two Cliffside units was estimated at $2 billion, but this year Duke revised the costs, saying that building one unit would cost $1.8 billion.

    The cost of building, financing, maintaining and operating power plants is paid by utility customers through electric rates.

    Note that this project at the enormous cost of 2 billion dollars is funded entirely by increases in NC utility bills. So, not only are they shafting us thoroughly, they’re using our money to do it, the temerity. I am pissed off, and I have no choice to buy power from anyone other than the morons at Duke Energy where I live. it’s Duke, or candlelight for me!

    The battle shifts to the NC-DENR, which will need to issue an air quality permit. It’s time for all groups involved to delay this project until NC comes up with a viable climate change mitigation policy that wil make plants like these completely unviable. It’s a good thing that this is the exact strategy they’re going for! Maybe our legislators and regulators should take the time to read their local paper.

    On some days, stretches of Nags Head have no dry beach, and visitors have to sit under the front-row houses at high tide. The resort that once thrived by the sea is being swallowed by it.

    “We are losing the town,” Cahoon said. “As sea level rises, our tax base goes away.”

    Other, more subtle changes are under way along the coast, not just on the fragile barrier islands. As salt water pushes farther upriver, some rivers are widening into estuaries, tidal bodies of water where fresh and salt water mix. Freshwater swamps are changing to salt marsh.

  • Indian Idol creates Kashmir stir

    Not a big fan of reality television, but, there’s no denying the effectiveness of pop culture and mass media in fostering normalcy. Indian idol is like American Idol.

    BBC NEWS | South Asia | Indian Idol creates Kashmir stir

    Hundreds of young people have ignored militant threats in Indian-administered Kashmir and auditioned for the popular television show Indian Idol.

    A large number of girls were among those who turned out for the auditions in the state capital, Srinagar. Indian Idol, based on the popular UK programme Pop Idol, has run for two years but this is the first time auditions have been held in Srinagar.

    Militants called the Sony TV programme vulgar and against traditional values. Al Madina Regiment, the militant group which warned hopefuls to stay away from the auditions, has been behind several attacks in recent years.

    In recent years, various militant groups have attempted to enforce Islamic values, particularly a dress code, in the region.

    Lost in all the legitimate talk about self determination and border politics is the subversion of the Kashmiri struggle by these reactionary fundamentalists who will ensure that even a free/autonomous Kashmir will be a miserable one. Unfortunate. But, let’s hope a Kashmiri woman wins Indian Idol!

4 Comments

  1. “Since cars take up over 75 per cent of the road space, even though they move less than 20 per cent of the people, it is obvious whom this expenditure benefits the most”

    Sunita Narayan probably doen’t know that this 20% of the population (who the roads serve) constitute approximately 100% of the taxpayers.

    BTW ppl who make $1000 or less anyways are exempted from any taxes, in spite of the fact that they use the road and electricty and everything else.

    And lets face it, if Tatas stop making cars for Sunitas and Mamtas of India, someone else will. Better that an Indian company makes cars for Indians and pollute the Inidian skies.

  2. Ahish: Everyone who buys anything in India pays tax, whether it is in the form of a VAT, or a sales tax. Consumption taxes, as opposed to income taxes, do not have any income level adjustments.

    The health effects of pollution caused by one activity (cars) and not paid for in full by the users of the activity (the drivers) also constitutes a tax burden on the poor.

    Anyway, you’re right. There’s no getting around the fact that people need cars now, and somebody’s going to have to make them, and it is better if Tata makes a small cheap car so the profits and jobs stay in India. The issue is that the internal combustion engine based private transportation model is now shown to exacerbate climate change, and increase other air pollution effects. One can hope for a different paradigm of development, which is all I can do.

    BTW, if I lived in India, I would drive a car as well, no questions asked, and so does Sunita Narain. It is not hypocritical to realize that something you’re doing (along with the rest of the world) is not necessarily great, but the alternatives are all worse.

  3. Hey…
    I, for one, don’t get the argument behind “The car pollutes, occupies space, carries fewer people – therefore, it should not be cheap and affordable”

    Yes, it is priced above the per capita income – but it sure cheaper than the rest – and therefore, a considerable option to a lot more people.

    So, is the ‘average Indian’ at risk only because the traffic is gonna increase thanks to the Nano?

    Finally, if only all those environmentalists give up their cars and SUVs…it would be a lot easier to buy their argument!

    Note: Came across ya blog while searching for info abt the Turtle walks in Chennai

  4. what’s the end result of the enquiry being conducted by the environment ministry into the harmful effects of mobile towers upon the environment does the govt. have the guts to take on mobile co. titans if there is positive proof that the signals being emitted from mobile towers is decimating the avian population of the country which way is the enquiry heading

Comments are closed.