This question of alternative comes up with every discussion - on dams, on the recent nuclear energy discussions, on interlinking of rivers. It is an important question and must be addressed. Here is one opinion.

Working for a large corporation with diverse portfolio is quite interesting since it brings up a diverse set of problems. However, many of these problems are not unique – they occur in different variations in all phases of our lives, our world. The question is how we deal with these.

Let us be more specific. Consider a product that annually brings in hundreds of millions for a company. When this company realizes that there are health implications with this product – perhaps the chemicals used are persisting in nature or are toxic, it has to question the product. There must be a debate around all aspects of this product – even if it is the biggest earner.

One group may point out that the liabilities of these chemicals are too high and this product must be pulled off. Another group may ask whether the company cannot hide the findings for a year while an alternative product is developed. A third group may suggest phase-wise termination of the program. There is no real alternative but to pull this program – using some process – from the market. The liabilities are too high.

However, this decision in never unanimous. Groups that are closely tied to this product will find every possible may to have it going – they have too much invested in it. There may even be interests that are focused on scuttling this program for other gains. Whatever the case, for the success of this effort, all issues must be debated – no concerns can be ignored for they will come back to bite the company in the future. Good leaders recognize this.

Consider another problem – a process used to make a certain product is not as efficient as we need it to be. It is a complex process and we do not know how a better process may be built. We do not know what this alternative process may be but we know that competitors are presenting a product with a lower cost and hence within the next two years we have to use a process that is much more efficient.

At this point the group has to critically evaluate all parts of the process. The coating process may be the best we have but if it is providing only 30% yield, we have to find out where the problems are. The inventor or manager of this process cannot argue – what is the alternative? For unless we truly understand the problems, we cannot design the alternative.

For the success of a community, of a people, of a nation – it is important then that we understand the problem as well and as honestly as we can. Are all concerns being presented on the table? Do we truly understand where the problems are? Or are there managers so interested in their short term gains that certain concerns are being swept under?

Consider the problem of energy in our country. We have energy needs if we want to grow in a certain way. How do we fulfill them? Have we looked at all possibilities? Are certain possibilities being over-advertised by motivated sections? How will some of these alternatives affect various communities? These are questions we need to honestly answer before we can truly solve this problem.

However, we have not honestly asked, nor listened to the answers before making a decision. For example, we seem to have decided that a large portion of our future energy investment will be in nuclear energy. How much of the energy crisis will it truly solve? We have said that fossil fuels are getting depleted so we must look for alternatives. Why is there no discussion on how much nuclear fuel we have and how long will they last? The global consensus is that nuclear fuel will be depleted in about three decades with current use and in less with rising use. Why have we pawned our own lives and those of future generations in a solution that cannot support us for beyond our own life times? And what do we do in 2050?

We have about 20 reactors in India today. Have we found out how the lives of communities are being affected around these reactors and around storage facilities? What are their concerns? How are they being met? And if they are suffering because of waste from these reactors, what would be the cost of changing processes to handle the waste? Will it be too expensive?

Are we confident that the people entrusted with these processes are accountable? When a variety of accounts – from audits by the auditor general showing deliberate underestimation of initial costs to constant delay in delivering results – show that these agencies are not responsible and when there is no public accountability of these agencies, can we trust our futures with them?

These were questions that had to be asked before the decision was made. While it is possible that this was the best alternative, in the absence of accounting for these concerns, we will never know. It is clear that the processes necessary for us to ascertain that nuclear energy is the appropriate alternative to our energy crisis were done away with – there are no plans for rehabilitation of communities where new reactors will begin or where storage of waste will occur. There is no plan to compensate and give justice to those who are suffering around waste sites. This cannot but come back to bite us.

In fact, another question is raised by this process. Why was this process done away with? What were the motivated interests that did not allow for a greater analysis of all the above aspects?

But there is another aspect to the question of alternatives to meet our needs – those of energy, food, water, etc? There are numerous ways to meet our needs and we all recognize that some of these are inhuman. For example, colonial processes used by Europe to meet its needs were considered inhuman. As per these processes, European nations were able to exploit resources from Asia, Africa etc while at the same time dumping their goods on these colonies. Will we – as a world, as individuals or as a people – find it all right to use such alternatives to meet our needs?

For example, will we find it justifiable to dump waste on communities that are poor so that the costs of processes and of products stay low? Will we, alternatively, find it all right for companies to organize coup after coup in a country or otherwise hold its government and its policies hostage so that these companies can take resources at low prices – just like the East India Company did?

In such obviously hypothetical circumstances, what could we as individuals or as people do? Is it OK to continue to consume the products marketed by these companies?

This is of course a lead up to asking whether we believe that there is any limit to how much of our ‘needs’ a finite Earth can fulfill. In other words, can we continue to keep our ‘needs’ growing and expect to find just ways to keep fulfilling them? Is justice even an important aspect in fulfilling these growing needs?

These are questions I think we have to answer for ourselves as we begin to analyze what alternatives will work for us. For if we believe that a finite Earth cannot fulfill an exponentially growing set of needs, then we will have to ask something of our own selves. How much can we need?

- Sanat Mohanty

Related Links
Nuclear Energy in India: Feasible?
Interlinking of Rivers: An Unfeasible Solution
Therefore Alternatives: Questioning Development
Address to President Kalam