Drought, power cuts and more

Some days back Minister for Disaster Management Anura Priyadharshana Yapa announced that Sri Lanka would face a shortage of water, food, power and energy based on the current drought. Rains are only expected in mid-March. 

The public was urged to use water and power sparingly and be prepared for these shortages: “The Government has decided to import 250,000 metric tons of rice to offset any possible food shortage. We will do our best to soften the impact of the prolonged drought. The Irrigation Department has already curtailed the supply of water for agricultural purposes in certain areas so as to provide drinking water. Our main concern is the welfare of the people”. 

This statement might be sincere by the Minister, however it does not reflect the decisions taken in the country. And therefore: no, you do not do your best and no, your main concern is not the welfare of the people. And the question is really, why does the general public constantly have to bear the cost for the weak decisions others make? 

In a country like Sri Lanka where distribution of decision power is highly unequal, how can an average person balance out the unsustainable decisions of leaders? This might be corporate or political or societal leaders – in times like these all of those who play a leading role are accountable. How can we face climate change which affects the country each year more and more and at the same time talk about resorts spending gallons of water for golf courses, development projects which eradicate forests and wetlands, harm oceans and other natural sanctuaries?

So the answer is NO, your priority is not the welfare of the people. If it was, you would first concentrate on fixing things in the country before starting large-scale high investment projects which have nothing to do with the current challenges, rather some of them might as well aggravate them.

However high the ambition and motivation of those who try to facilitate large, positive change in the country, even if they make it for one or two years… latest then they give up when having to deal with challenges linked with power generation, power supply, import and tax regulations which give much freedom to those who degrade the country, however increase the barriers and hurdles for those who want to create sustainable change.

In December the Daily Mirror reported: “The prevailing drought had resulted in dwindling water levels fast dwindling in several reservoirs that feed the Kotmale, Upper Kotmale, Laxapana, New Laxapana, Canyon, Wimalasurendra and Polpitiya hydro-power plants due to the prevailing drought. A senior official of the Ceylon Electricity Board said the water level in the Mausakelle reservoir was 30 feet below spill level and that at the Castlereagh reservoir was 16 feet below spillover level. Residents of the area said the ruins of old buildings were to be seen now that the water levels had dropped. Electrical Engineers said power generation would be affected in case the drought prolongs.”

Who will suffer the most?

And again, who is going to be the one suffering the most? The ones without private generators, the ones without wells, the ones dependent on power and water supply – the general public. What happened since the 2016 floods? Or even, what happened after the tsunami 2004? 

Latest then, the country should have established appropriate systems of warning, mitigation and also of help in the case the disaster repeats. Currently we do not have rain, it can be expected that once the rains come, they will come heavily and again parts of the country will be flooded, landslides will go down, city drains will be blocked and houses will be under water. 

Some of the solutions are paying compensations to victims of natural disasters, continue running a coal power plant which is known to fail and which is known for its high risk and unreliability, import food to balance out the food shortages, and in addition cutting down forests to give land to some who might have, or might not have been displaced. It must be evident that such measures are either highly controversial and are not even scraping of the tip of the iceberg and are far from sorting out the root causes. 

The first step would be to understand the causes and best mitigation methods for climate change. There are plenty of experts in the country itself who can guide decision makers. In addition conferences and workshops are featuring foreign experts as well. But what can all the experts do if decisions are not taken accordingly.

Capitalism and climate change

This week I have been watching the documentary of Avi Lews and Naomi Klein which is called ‘This changes everything’; it takes on the relationship between capitalism and climate change. It highlights that climate change is highly related to inequalities where the negative consequences of the decisions of a minority affect society at large, especially the poor among society. 

The movie showcases examples of exploitation of natural habitats in the name of energy demand eradicating the substance of life from various communities. It also highlights how communities and societies start fighting against injustice and the destruction of habitats and how humanity is moving close to each other in fighting this common threat of environmental destruction in the name of capitalism. Despite the awareness raising and motivational character of the movie, it in my opinion fails to highlight the individual responsibility of each and every one. 

As it mostly focuses on non-renewable energy projects on the one side and communities which are largely dependent on natural resources on the other side, it misses out on highlighting the fact that we are all in the same boat – even if we are not farmers or indigenous communities. It is not “good and bad humans” which are fighting each other, protests and fighting will achieve awareness and maybe the halt of unsustainable projects however we need solutions –we need practical solutions. 

Not only that the unsustainable practices have to stop – consciousness about each and everyone’s responsibility in whatever role someone might be in has to rise – that can be a farmer, banker, investor, politician, laborer or professor – we are all consumers of goods, we are all consumers of energy, we are all wasting – we all need air, water and food. Even if the rich can run away from climate change consequences longer than the poor, one day they will also need to face them. Therefore, end of the day, we all sit in the same boat.

We must find new systems, new ways of living

Sole focus on capitalism and unlimited growth does not work! We have to accept that. However holding on to ancient societal concepts and glorifying the past and “middle ages” might neither work as well. Not many will be willing to give up their phones, laptops, cars and other goods to live with candles and as farmers. This is similarly not realistic as continuing the destruction of the planet as we do currently. 

We must find new systems, new ways of living where different types of lifestyles can exist besides each other. In that way, decrease of inequality must go hand in hand with renewable energy systems, circular economies where waste is minimised and innovative production systems are set up using by products and waste as resource, resource extraction at the current scale to fit fashion demands and our throwaway society have to change – we have to find a balance in what we take out from nature and what we give back. The good news is, we already have practical solutions at hand and humanity offers sufficient smart minds to come up with even greater innovations than so far.

However, first an understanding needs to be created among all levels of society – what do we consider wealth? We say “health is wealth”. But is it really true? Are we really prioritising accordingly? When being asked what is most important to them, most people mention their family members, partners and friends. 

The UK Guardian last year featured and article summarising the five biggest regrets of humans in the face of death. Those were: “I wish I had the courage to live a life true to myself”, “I wish I hadn’t worked so hard”, “I wish I’d had the courage to express my feelings”, “I wish I’d had stayed in touch with my friends” and “I wish that I had let myself be happier”. Once the health is gone, once loved ones die, wishes change. No one said “I wished I bought that red dress some years ago” or “I wished I had made more money”. 

The way we are currently treating our planet we endanger our health in many ways. Still our life systems are tiered towards accumulation of material belongings. However we do that at a cost of our most basic resource needs such as air, water, food, land. There is nothing wrong in enjoying material things, however the scale at which we currently do that will end of the day backfire at us. We are caught in an illusion about what is worth living for – and in this all countries are the same. 

Sri Lanka

In Sri Lanka we look at other more “developed” nations and want to be like them, at the same time destroying the precious resources Sri Lanka has, increasing climate change challenges, conflict potential amongst communities and inequality. Some people say “humans destroy the planet”; I’d rather say “humans destroy themselves”. The planet has been in existence 4.5 billion years, therefore I doubt a species like the human can destroy it. It will survive, but we won’t.

Aristotle already taught what wealth means: “Wealth can lead to a corruption of virtue. Wealth and its maintenance is properly an attribute of household management, its purpose being to give the male head of the household the freedom to act virtuously—not only via liberality but also via participation in the affairs of the community (the polis), an activity that is natural since man is by nature a political animal. Wealth is limited to this instrumental function. However, it is liable to transgress those limits. Some exchange is permissible, when it serves to meet the naturally limited consumption needs of the household, but once it is undertaken for its own sake, and not as a means to an end of consumption, then it becomes moneymaking. This activity can be engaged upon without limit. There is a natural limit, for example, to how much food can be consumed but not to how much money is possessed. A transgression of the proper purpose or end of activity represents a corruption, a perversion of virtue.”

The question is not about how to do it, the question is ‘Do we really want to do it?’ And to change anything in Sri Lanka which regards to climate change and its consequences, if there is no clear YES here, the issues will prevail and increase. 

As the UN SDG 13 mentions: “People are experiencing the significant impacts of climate change, which include changing weather patterns, rising sea level, and more extreme weather events. The greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are driving climate change and continue to rise. They are now at their highest levels in history. Without action, the world’s average surface temperature is projected to rise over the 21st century and is likely to surpass 3 degrees Celsius this century—with some areas of the world expected to warm even more. The poorest and most vulnerable people are being affected the most.”

Sri Lanka has signed the Paris Agreement on 22 April 2016 at the COP 21, it has established climate change departments and related institutions, it has the resources in house and available via the SDG network. Sri Lanka is blessed, compared to countries such as small island nations where sea level rise will be detrimental or desert countries which anyways face water shortages. I cannot decide if it’s a blessing or a curse that Sri Lanka is so rich in resources – where the country could establish itself sustainably, it is taken for granted and exploited. Those countries which already face detrimental issues were forced to come up with innovative systems.

In that case it will be of benefit to take other countries as examples which build integrated solar pathways, smart renewable energy systems, rain water harvesting systems, protected natural habitats and wetlands, have laws which facilitate those companies and individuals who put efforts to benefit the country sustainably, execute laws which punish those who abuse and exploit the country. To establish a country which offers clean air, fresh water, healthy food, sustainable transport and housing systems and so on … should be in the interest of everyone – rich and poor. Further it should be in the responsibility of those in leading roles to facilitate such development as they have more means (educational, social as well as financial) to do so. 

In the world there are no absolutely poor countries, there are only poorly managed countries. Poorly managed by those who focus on aggregating unlimited material wealth at the cost of the society and nature at large.