Good job bringing this to light. People won't realise how huge the problem is and municipalities are woefully ill equipped to...
Agreed; mining can never be sustainable, but then how do you get the metals to make all the things you need in the course of...
Very good piece.
it is unusual for the powerful real estate lobbies to be brought to their knees in India. But such a thing happened in
Gujarat in 2002. The high court was hearing a petition on saving the lakes of Ahmedabad, and it came out that several of the new housing projects
sponsored by 'promoters' had come up on the bed of what were once tanks that watered Gujarat's commercial capital. (The city suffers water
scarcity every summer and flash floods every monsoon. That's because the new townships, passed by qualified city planners, do not take drainage
into account--the old walled city of Ahmedabad never gets flooded because it's design accounted for drainage.) The court restricted all construction
activity within a given perimeter around former tanks. Ahmedabad's all powerful real estate industry reeled for more than one year. Then, typically,
the case petered out after the judges who had taken an active interest moved on.
Now, housing projects worth an estimated Rs 40,000
crore in Chandigarh's suburbs are stuck because of a two-year-old decision by the Punjab Pollution Control Board to have a 500-metre strip of land
between factories and residential blocks. The board took this laudable step as part of its brief: regulating the living environment in the interest of
public safety. What it did not anticipate was the cost of land. As Chandigarh's master plan does not allow private construction within the city, the
real estate pressure is on suburban farmland. Farmers are willing to sell land to builders provided they get good rates. The builders are willing to pay
for land that will earn them money from property buyers. But a half-kilometre strip of land that has to be kept green doesn't profit either the farmer
or the builder. So, who pays for environmental safety?
Nobody. The board got pressured to ease the safe distance to a ridiculous 15 metres. And then precluded the possibility of residents of these
housing blocks complaining against industrial pollution. Not only was this dereliction of duty, it violated the basic tenets of environmental regulation.
It is hardly surprising that the real estate market does not value a clean environment. But a regulatory authority can creatively build in clauses that
forces the market to value it--in public interest. Surely, people paying lakhs of rupees for a dream house wouldn't mind paying extra for better living
conditions. But for the market to put a value on environmental safety, the regulator has to put a price on it. The Punjab board failed to do just that.