
I first visited the island of Bali in Indonesia almost four decades ago. We stayed at Denpasar, the capital where, if I remember correctly, there was only one decent hotel on the beach owned by the Japanese. We drove around the island on narrow streets through lush green terraced rice fields and quiet, picturesque villages where clear streams cascaded, and along the only paved street to visit the numerous Hindu temples which are distinguished both for their discrete architecture and religious rituals. Rows of women elegantly dressed in sarongs, gracefully balancing on their heads pyramids of exquisitely arranged baskets of fruits and flowers, moved gracefully towards the shrines. It was indeed an arcadian land.
Since then Bali has been discovered by tourists from all over the globe, especially their southwesterly neighbour Australia. The entire face of the island has altered dramatically with booming tourist resorts, increased urban settlements, and, of course, both permanent and transitory population straining the island's natural resources and beauty. An indication is the fact that in December 2007, as I write this column, some 11,000 people from 187 countries have gathered in airconditioned comfort in Nusa Dua (a peninsula that certainly was not on the tourist map when we first visited the island) for ten days for a global climate change conference. On Christmas day a friend sent the following message from Bali: "It is ironic the environmentalists chose Bali. Lucky I am not driving that tour bus. I could show them the devastation of the ecology Indonesian style. It is a pity what has happened there. They probably won't venture too far from their five star hotels."
Perhaps Bali was selected deliberately as the venue to discuss the fate of the planet and all its sentient beings. For if indeed global warming, greenhouse emissions, and climate change are established facts, which seems to be the consensus in the scientific community and consistent with the report of the UN panel on climate change (headed by an Indian Dr R.K. Pachauri) that shared the 2007 Nobel Prize for Peace with Al Gore, then the entire world is in trouble. It is clear that as a consequence of the catastrophe that Al Gore predicts there will not be much left for the poor, or for that matter for the rich, in a couple of generations, to inherit. In any event, even as the politicians wrangled over ten days to finally reach the tame consensus that they will meet again a couple of years from now, the media was reporting the disappearance of the rainforest in other islands of the Indonesian archipelago and the threat to our nearest cousin the Orang-utan in Borneo. (Incidentally orang-utan literally means "men of the forest" and in Indian languages too apes are generally referred to as vanmanush which has the same meaning.) Indeed, the rapid disappearance of the rainforests of the Indonesian archipelago as well as the Amazon basin in South America contributes more to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming than the emissions from all the functioning internal combustion engines on the planet. The two together are a lethal combination.
True, the United States is the leading culprit in its insatiable appetite for the consumption of fossil fuel, but we are told that both China and India are rapidly catching up. Despite the Americans' culpability, there is a consensus building in the States among the public, the environmental activists, and the state governments that urgent and aggressive action must be taken if we are to resolve the problem that is already upon us. A great deal of credit must go to Al Gore for making the commercially and globally successful movie An Inconvenient Truth which converted even the diehard sceptics.
However, the developed countries cannot by themselves solve the crisis without the cooperation of the developing behemoths like China and India--a combined population of two billion plus with their voracious appetite for energy and consumerism. We cannot take cover under the blanket of poverty to complacently aggravate the situation. Economic growth and reduction of greenhouse gases must learn to march together in harmony, with sustainable technology. It is not enough simply to put cheaper cars on the substandard Indian roads. They must at the same time be fuel-efficient with reduced toxic emissions. Does it make any sense to concentrate only on eradicating poverty, if there is no clean air or water to sustain life?
India was once a richly forested land and forests have played a significant role in the development of what is distinctive Indian culture. Indeed, in few other civilizations have the forests, the rivers, and the mountains contributed so much to enrich the Indian mind. Many in India would like us to use the Vedas to rejuvenate our society and our souls by reviving the spiritual values enunciated so eloquently by the ancient sages in the Vedic poems, but in practice we do little or nothing to preserve our forests or clean up our rivers.