Reader TTS

Vilfredo Federico Damaso Pareto (1848-1923), an Italian Polymath (trai – ned in physics and mathematics) whose genius radiated into the major fields of knowledge especially, sociology, civil

engineering, economics, political science and philosophy had made several contributions to economic theories. One of his major contributions to welfare economics had been a unique theory

famously known as Pareto efficiency, Pareto Optimality or Pareto equilibrium which signifies a stage from where no further improvement is possible without making someone worse off. Taking a

cue from Pareto Optimality, Indian economist Bhabatosh Datta defined economic development in simple language as “some gain somewhere without any loss anywhere.” The question is: can there be

real gain or economic development without adversely affec – ting humans, nature or environment? Or is there a win-win situation while undertaking development projects? Perhaps no, because

there is always a tradeoff and achieving Pareto efficiency is an impossibility. Jeremy Bentham (1748- 1832), English philosopher, jurist and social reformer propounded an ethical theory

known in economics as Utilitarianism which enunciates a principle: “it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong”. Any action or policy for the

improvement of the lot of humans would be ethical and desirable if it bestows maximum good for the maximum number irrespective of questions of equity. Advertisement Therefore, the trade-off

was accepted as normal. This is understandable. In an era when life was “nasty, brutish and short” in the entire European continent, any economic gain anywhere for alleviating human

suffering was welcome. Therefore, the trade-off between economic gain and the environmental fall-out was never given any importance although there was, as Charles Dickens said, “ugliness,

ugliness, and ugliness” everywhere, especially in the early stages of coal-fired industries in England. During the first half of the twentieth century, the world badly battered by the First

World War, the Great Depression and the Second World War which destroyed western Europe and many parts of Africa and Asia, didn’t have breathing time to think about environmental damage

because of the urgent need for reconstruction, rehabilitation, de-colonisation and providing food to hungry millions. It is only after the 1960s that awareness about the deleterious impact

of war and economic development on humans and the environment started to emerge. During the post-WWII period and the next five decades the world changed beyond recognition as this period

witnessed unprecedented progress of man – kind, not achieved during the preceding five thousand years. Advertisement New discoveries and inventions in medicine, mining, engineering,

transport, science and technology and entrepreneurship ushered in a new industrial civilization creating mega structures, mega industries, mega container ships, mega airplanes, mega carriers

and also mega weapons of destruction, which had disastrous effects on environment everywhere in the world ~ wanton destruction of the forests and wildlife, pollution of the wetlands, the

lakes, the rivers and the oceans, poisonous emissions from the vehicles and thermal power stations, mindless use of plastics creating all-round pollution, industrial effluents polluting air,

water and soil in every country and choking the cities, seriously affecting the quality of life giving rise to various diseases, pandemics and sudden deaths. Ironically, the greatest

discoveries and inventions of man like fossil fuel, motor vehicles, plastics, aircraft, internet, smart phones and AI have also been the greatest bands of modern civilization. International

consciousness about environmental disaster and the need to save the world took concrete shape only in the 1990s when the Kyoto protocol was signed in Japan in 1997. So far, 30 major

international conferences including the impending 2025 Belem Conference of UNFCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) in Brazil have or will be held. Five mega conferences

~ Stockholm, 1972, Rio Earth Summit, 1992, Earth Summit-II, New York, 1997 and World Summit on Sustainable development, Johannesburg, 2002 culminating with the Paris Agreement on Climate

Change in 2016, which was signed by 196 countries, had seen major decisions taken on a global scale. Unfortunately, pious statements and platitudes of the top world leaders and the ‘Resolute

Resolutions’ passed year after year have yielded very few concrete action plans including funding and no visible impact on environment and climate has been noticed except worsening global

warming, erratic monsoons, frequent cyclones and tornadoes, deadly earthquakes, melting of Arctic and Antarctic ice and the receding snowlines and the glaciers of the Himala – yas.

Tragically, the United States which consumes about 25 per cent of the world’s energy and resources has walked out of the Paris Agreement. Therefore, it has been left to the individual

nations to take whatever action they think fit without international support to transition from fossil fuels to green energy and fight against global warming. Accordingly, they are required

to re-calibrate the trade-offs between economic development and environmental damage keeping in mind a national-view and a world-view about climate change with the shared responsibility to

protect the earth. Since economic progress is a sine qua non for a nation’s survival and sovereignty and the process of multi-modal economic development cannot stop, the trade-off with the

environment is inevitable and an on-going fight. Economists and engineers have to assu re policy-makers that the social cost-benefit analysis does not show a negative result; in fact, the

benefits should far outweigh the losses elsewhere. To achieve Pareto optimality may not be possible as it is too idealistic but one can ensure Pareto minimality, which will mean minimal

damage to others ~ the humans and the environment. Hence, Bentham’s Utilitarianism (ma – ximum good for the maximum number) comes into play and becomes a bitter truth. National and

international social activists and civil societies (the NGOs) have the proclivity to project a picture of environmental disaster for all the development projects undertaken by government and

private players. This may be true for certain highly polluting industries like thermal power plants, steel plants, drugs and chemical factories, fertilizer plants, paper mills, sugar mills,

tanneries, dyeing activities, etc. However, there have been many projects which have done tremendous good to humanity with minimum damage to the environment. For example, the Tennessee

Valley project in the United States and the Damodar Valley project and the BhakraNangal Dam in India have benefited people in a variety of ways ~ flood control, irrigation, drinking water

and electricity ~ enriching entire basins. Even the much-disputed Sardar Sarovar project, which was halted for a long period following sustained protests by NGOs, ultimately dragging the

case to the Supreme Court of India for a final verdict, brought benefits far outweighing the perceived losses. One could see the entire arid region of Saurashtra turning green and into a

granary thanks to the project. On the negative side, the tribals and the locals whose homes and lands were submerged under the waters of the Narmada are believed to have been well

compensated and rehabilitated. There can be a near win-win situation for development projects provided they are planned and executed with a human face and also with an environmental face

without worrying about Pareto Efficiency. Another example of a win-win situation could be seen in “Project Tiger” in a few national parks of India. While taking care of the human population

within and around the parks, the project has succeeded in protecting (barring stray incidents of man-animal conflict) the tigers and the forests leading to a welcome increase in the tiger

population. One important aspect concerning environmental degradation which is often lost sight of, is that more than the development projects, it is human behaviour, urban life-style and

the consumption pattern of the people that are responsible for greater pollution of the environment. The mega-cities and the urban centres producing humongous amounts of solid waste,

effluents, vehicular emissions, emissions from air-conditioner plants, home appliances and eateries and unrestricted use of energy pollute the air, water and soil. Changing food habits,

uncivic behaviour and unconscionable use of plastics also pollute the environment, protection of which demands more civilized behaviour and a simpler life-style of humans. The trade-offs

between development and environment will go on till humans survive on this planet. But the lessons learnt from the past will certainly educate and guide the policy-makers, industrialists,

administrators and consumers to behave responsibly and not to harm others, especially the environment, and that the trade-off does not fall into the domain of negative results. Pareto

efficiency or Pareto optimality may never be achieved but all future plans and programmes for development have to be dovetailed with the firm resolve to protect the environment and achieve

at least Pareto minimality, that is, to minimize damage to Mother Earth. (The writer is a former Dy. Comptroller &Auditor General of India and a former Ombudsman of Reserve Bank of

India. He is also a writer of several books and can be reached at [email protected]) Advertisement