JOIN HANDS TO PROTECT OUR MOTHER EARTH -ENVIRONMENT FOR FUTURE PROGENY -------------------------Dr. AMAR NATH GIRI
During a recent speech, President Obama said, "This is the global threat of our time." What is that threat?
1) more severe storms
2) famine and floods
3) coastlines that vanish
4) oceans that rise
5) climate change
Could the Uttarakhand tragedy have been avoided, or at least minimised?
There is no simple answer.
Environmentalists
describe the death and damage as a man-made disaster while geologists
say the extent of destruction could have been far lesser if stricter
regulations had been put in place and the authorities equipped to deal
with the situation.
Importantly, the events focus
attention on the debate on the December 18, 2012 notification of the
Ministry of Environment and Forests, which declares the entire watershed
around the 135-km stretch between Gaumukh and Uttarakashi, along the
Bhagirathi river, as an eco-sensitive zone under the Environment
Protection Act, 1986. This, in practice, bans all construction activity
in the area. The State government has been opposing it stoutly, arguing
that such an order will adversely affect development and the economic
progress of the region.
The notification, if
implemented, would result in the closure of hydropower projects of
1,743-MW capacity along the Bhagirathi and a ban on mining and
construction, especially of hotels and resorts, and land use conversion.
Power projects and mining and construction activities are the main
causes of preventable environmental degradation. The Uttarakhand
Assembly passed a resolution against it, and Chief Minister Vijay
Bahuguna met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh last month to urge him to
cancel the notification.
The former Deputy
Director-General of the Geological Survey of India, V.K. Raina, told The
Hindu that natural calamities such as cloudbursts and flash floods
could not be prevented, but deaths and damage could be contained if
there were laws to regulate construction along the rivers, and
authorities were equipped to deal with the situation. “Construction in
Uttarakhand is not planned. The owners have taken a calculated risk and
paid for it.”
Had India Metrological Department
alerted the State government, authorities should have been prepared to
deal with the threat, or they would have stopped more people from going
to these places. “There seems to be no accountability and no
coordination,” he said. “Such things will keep happening in future, and
people living in ecologically sensitive areas also have needs which have
to be fulfilled…, but there needs to be enough restrictions on the
activities, including the movement of pilgrims and tourists.”
Suggesting
that the States along the Himalayan ranges reconsider their development
models, Sunita Narain of the Centre for Science and Environment, said
that while there could not be a blanket ban on development activities in
these fragile zones, given the needs of the people, “we need to look at
ways of development without destroying natural resources.”
Terming
the Uttarakhand tragedy a “man-made disaster,” Ms. Narain said
development in the ecologically sensitive areas had to be different from
the plains. “We cannot have roads on the Himalayas like the ones on the
Alps. The Himalayas are young mountains,” she said. Technology was
available for this, and one need not depend on the Border Roads
Organisation as it outsourced construction works.
Calling
for conservation of ecological heritage, Gopal Krishna of Toxiclinks
Alliance said no agency should be allowed to build permanent structures
in ecologically fragile zones. “Development fundamentalism, combined
with religious tourism, is eroding ecological heritage.” “In the
aftermath of these disasters, if lessons are indeed learnt, all ongoing
development projects must be reviewed, and their carrying-capacity and
cumulative impact on the Himalayan ecosystem should be assessed and the
ecological integrity of the Himalayan watershed made non-negotiable.”
Studies
conducted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Kunming and the
University of Delhi on the impact of the dams planned in the Himalayan
region predicted that “about 1,700 square kilometres of forests would be
submerged or damaged by dams and related activities.” “Stage-managed
and faulty environmental clearances in India and China contributed to
the colossal crisis that is staring us in the face,” Mr. Krishna said.
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/a-manmade-disaster-say-environmentalists/article4834607.ece
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/a-manmade-disaster-say-environmentalists/article4834607.ece
No comments:
Post a Comment