Messy Messrs.

A testament to our care for our environs or the law.

We are neck deep in s#@t! Well nearly and we seem to be getting there fast.
Some months ago we in the city of Bangalore saw an announcement for city scale waste management, the setting up of segregation units, composting facilities, waste to energy programmes, and a deadline to segregate waste at source to all residents of this city. This deadline was preceded by some softer cajoling by the city's municipal body.

One might think of this as an enlightened move, but the truth was far more grotesque. The city has been struggling with its burgeoning waste problem and has been resorting to some haphazard dumping of the city's garbage in a few locations around the city. No, no scientifically constructed landfill. Just great piles of insensitively piled garbage. In a relatively short period this has caused immense health problems to the residents of villages around these dumping sites. The rest as they say is history- the villagers protested, garbage piled up around the city, the municipality resorted to some strong arm tactics (yes, police support to dump garbage!!), the villagers remained firm in their agitation against the dumping. The situation remains unresolved.
Enough and more has been written about this, but I do remember one instance about 8 years ago, in the October of 2005. Back then this city had no denoted landfill site. The municipality, through its garbage contractors, used to lease land out from farmers and dump our waste on these lands. Bangalore had seen some record and incessant rains that year, and sure enough much of this garbage started rotting and created quite a stink. Many people wouldn't remember this, but the farmers had protested then too. All of the municipality's garbage truck fleet, some 400 of them, had nowhere to go and were parked in various parts of the city. This incident was one of the reasons that we even have landfills today.

Missing Aim, or, Aimless Mess?

As it stands the population of some 8.4 plus million dish out something to the tune of 250 to 500 gms of domestic waste per person per day (not counting for the large waste generation on account of commercial establishments and industry). A large amount of waste can also be attributed to individuals outside their homes.... at work, on the way to somewhere, on a day (or night out) with family and/or friends. The domestic waste alone amounts to some 840,000 kilos, or, 840 tonnes of waste per day..... if we consider a low number of 100 gms of domestic waste per capita. The actual figure is more likely twice that (we don't have monitored figures to corroborate this at any level)! The figure is much higher when you add that generated beyond our homes. A figure doing the rounds puts this between 3,000 to 4,000 tonnes!!

One can imagine what a nightmare it would be to collect this mammoth volume of waste on a daily basis to ensure that the city remains clean and disease free. At about 6 cubic metres of waste collected per garbage truck, that would work out to some 500 trucks on our roads. The waste would have to be collected by each polluter (individual, family, or, establishment) and the trucks would have to work like clockwork to manage this efficiently. Sadly, that is not the case.

At an elementary level WE are responsible for the failure of this system. We litter like we care a hoot! Even when we dispose off the waste from our homes, we aim for the community bin, instead of ensuring that it is placed responsibly for the collection agencies to handle it from that point on. Our roads, drains, footpaths, open grounds, and empty sites therefore face the brunt of our apathy.

The fact is that it is really easy to do our bit to reduce this burden on our municipality. The majority of our waste we dump at homes, is kitchen waste, mostly uncooked! This constitutes over 80% of the weight of all our waste we produce at home. The remaining is mainly paper, plastics, aluminium foils, and tetra-paks. There are the occasional batteries, sanitary napkins, etc.that form the more difficult waste products to handle.

A 3-tiered home composter (Khamba) by the 'Daily Dump'

The kitchen waste is the easiest to tackle, and there are simple solutions available now from
organisations like 'Daily Dump', both for the independent home and multi-dwelling communities. By adopting one of these systems, we immediately reduce the
burden of our municipalities greatly. They would not have to handle waste that is rotting, smelly and attracts pests. What's more all this organic waste produces harmful (and inflammable) gases like methane as they decompose in the landfills, apart from contributing to the acidic leachates that seep into the sub-soil. When waste remains unsegregated as it leaves our homes, it makes the lives of the safai karamcharis (or cleaning staff) far more difficult. A whole lot of this waste is recyclable, re-usable and easy to break down, and segregation at the point of waste generation helps this immensely.

There is a positive side to this. Several initiatives have been undertaken across the country, and specifically in Bangalore. Individual apartment complexes have started following the municipal guidelines for waste segregation and yet others have also tied up with recyclers to take away their paper and plastic waste. It makes sense to do this as a group as volume trade is important for recyclers. Vermi-composting initiatives, for those with space, are being given a hard look and followed successfully. 
What can help a lot is being conscious of what and how you make your purchases. This involves ensuring that you carry shopping bags with you to ensure that shop keepers and super markets don't dish out plastic bags to you. It involves making responsible choices when it comes to buying goods that are packed in layers of aluminium and plastic wrapping. It involves adopting alternatives to packaged products itself.... opting for fresh juices as against tetra-pak containers; finding decent bakeries to source fresh baked products that aren't sealed in waste generating packaging; encouraging your home delivery agencies to take back their containers and carry bags, the possibilities are endless. Remember, our decisions can ensure that we curb the waste generated right at source.

When we embark to clean up this mess and our respective acts, we ought to keep in mind the adage- what goes around, comes around.  You wouldn't want to leave behind a big stinking mess as your greatest legacy!

Seeking an alternate world- Making sense of going green with respect to the modern day development paradigm

Times they are a changing. Boy, can you feel it or what? Never before in modern, post industrial times has the common man been so aware of changes in rainfall, temperature, freak weather... the list is endless. Every other day, we read about new records being toppled in the these very categories. Climate and weather occupy more and more space in our newspapers alongside burgeoning development, pollution, and infrastructure woes. The mood is sombre and sometimes on edge, predicting various doomsday scenarios. There are calls for action, change, and even questioning the very way of life that we have grown so used to.

Within this environment of climate change and demands to reduce emissions of green house gases our nations are preoccupied with pushing up growth indices in order to convince themselves, and others who they hope to attract investments from, that we are doing fine. If anything at all, the 2007-09 recession years have shown us that current models of development and modern day economics have serious flaws. This model implies that nations have to keep ticking to stay above. In other words, this means that we have to keep selling, keep consuming, keep producing, keep extracting, keep mining,.. to project a healthy rate of growth. Sales have to be better than before to ensure that a business is afloat, no matter if the consumer needs it or not. This has lead to a world of misinformation, exaggeration and titillation.We buy because we dread the fall-outs of not doing so, we buy because we feel that we are being benefited, we buy because we feel we are doing well and we also buy because we don't want to feel left out. Along the way we have grown to believe in these globally disseminated messages of size, gloss and finesse. Modern day economics have meant that we have lost, or are rapidly losing, any connects with the way we lived earlier. With that is the disappearance of traditional knowledge systems of carrying capacity- how much to take, when to take, how to give back and so on. What all this means is the struggle to resurrect ourselves from the graves of climate change is arduous. The important question is 'how can we maintain both modern day growth economies, and do less harm to the environment simultaneously?'

20th Century Economics necessitates increased consumption. Today's green initiatives are overwhelmingly about clean energy. While this is essential, you cannot forget other aspects of sustainability. The old adage, 'too much of anything isn't good...' is perfect to describe the situation. For the building industry to do well, it necessitates more building (whether we need it or not); the building materials sector too needs to keep doing better that they did last year to retain value in the market; this only means more raw materials needed and so on. The same applies to the Automobile, Fishing, FMCG, Textiles, and essentially every fathomable industry. We have already out-consumed natures bounty in many ways. Entire oceans of fish are vanishing, various ores and minerals have been 'mined' dry, forests have been denuded....it gets clear where this is headed. The growth based valuation of modern day economics is sending us over the precipice.

So how do we see any credible green initiative in today's context? Essentially, it is about painting a picture of an alternate world. To borrow the slogan of the World Social Forum- "Another World is Possible".Are the answers all there? Gosh no! Each initiative is about exploring possibilities and building on promising ones. We need to stop looking for overarching solutions for current day problems, and rather find what is most appropriate to us in our respective regions. Some solutions may cross borders, yet many more would be specific and limited. As professionals, serious about seeking out alternate models of development, we need to  recognise what our roles are in the prevailing economy. We are either catalysts of change, slowing down the processes of decline, or, are charting new courses development wise. There are always the nay-sayers who would label such thinking as regressive, but they act as if there exists no other possibility.

What is important are the choices that we make. We need to constantly ask ourselves questions like, 'is this good for me in the long run?', or better yet 'Is this sustainable?' before we act on our choices. It is a tough one no doubt. This 'recent past' in the context of human history is also 'the memory of our times'. The challenge is unlearning the trappings of our lifetimes and seeking connects with the past and possible futures that would ensure long term sustainability. We have begun to get connected like never before... it is important we stay the course.

Ecotourism: A Tale of Two Bandipurs

A familiar sight at Bandipur, Karnataka.

Talk to anyone in Bangalore about Bandipur (or Nagarhole) and they immediately think of a quick weekend getaway close to home. These biospheres which are home to wild elephants, tigers, and a host of other animals have been a major tourist draw over the years. There are organizations who offer accommodation, jungle safaris, and packaged tours to vacationers under the banner of Ecotourism. However, as explained in my previous blog on this subject, Ecotourism is not merely ‘a walk-in-the-park’ and a plain old-fashioned holiday in a nature preserve does not qualify as one. The term has been manipulated to such an extent that even the media refers to this category as Ecotourism, and government bodies that have been mandated to study and put in place meaningful Ecotourism programmes are merely developing resorts and pandering to the interests of businesses that are in the fray only for the moolah. As a refresher, here is how Ecotourism is defined: ‘responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people’ (The International Ecotourism Society, 1990).
Though there is much talk in Karnataka about serious Ecotourism initiatives the track record is too thin to ascribe any measure of success to them. The local community needs to be an equal partner in the venture so that there is economic growth and social upliftment: but locals are normally handed out paltry sums as sustenance monies instead of structured programs that will benefit them in the long run. The tourists too need to be educated on ‘responsible tourism’ and their role is to aid and abet the program. However, tourists frequently and unknowingly do the obverse- take the case Tiger-centric Tourism: While looking for tiger sightings from elephant mounts or jeeps, visitors often tip the mahouts or jeep drivers if an actual sighting is made. This encourages ‘tiger-chases’ which is exactly the opposite of what is warranted! It is rare to find tourists who absorb what nature has to offer in ‘passive’ ways: enjoying peaceful forests walks, listening to the forest sounds, and taking in the sightings as and when they come.

Check Bandipur, Tanahun, Nepal on facebook. 

Now let’s talk about another Bandipur- a tiny Nepali (Magar) village. While this is not exactly a similar comparison of likes, this town is a better example of how a proper Ecotourism initiative should evolve; wherein while driving an ecologically sensitive programme it also promotes responsible tourism and integrates livelihoods of the local community.
Bandipur village in Nepal faced a situation when the highway linking these Kathmandu and Pokhra was built it lost its importance and many of the village-folk moved away to the towns in search of better opportunities. This highway was built in the Marsyangdi Valley, leaving Bandipur isolated on the higher reaches of the mountain. The tradesmen were also forced to move to a town called Dumre; some even to the Terai region, leaving Bandipur a semi ‘ghost-town’. There was public unrest in the area during Nepal’s date with Democracy and many of the buildings (Newari style of Architecture) were damaged. The remaining residents were concerned that something needed to be done fast to save the village from veritable oblivion.

Check Bandipur, Tanahun, Nepal on fecebook.

There were two things going for the village: its elevated location with spectacular views of the Himalayas (Dhaulagiri, Annapurna, Manaslu, Ganesh, Langtang Himal), and the multi-ethnicity of the village-folk - Bahuns, Chettris, Newars, Damais, Kamis, Sarkis, Kasais, Magars and Gurungs were all part of the village’s long history. These people were skilled in handicrafts, art, pottery etc. which were unique and could be used to attract tourists. The Himalayan vistas were surely alluring but the dusty village did not have any infrastructure that would welcome the world traveller. An Ecotourism programme was set up – as a first step vehicles were banned entry into the village so that pollution would be controlled and the mountain-air would remain crisp and refreshing, and therefore, more attractive to visitors. Initially, this idea seemed ludicrous, but a few years hence the idea is an unmitigated success. Now Bandipur is a tourists ‘insider tip’ and no one, neither the inhabitants nor the tourists, want the vehicles back in town! Sale of handicrafts and other products is ensuring lucrative commerce; and the houses that were damaged are being restored to their original glory- which in turn is serving to protect the Nepali heritage. Success leads to betterment: Oranges are being grown in the countryside by a plucky few, and a silk farm has come up on the outskirts of Bandipur!
I could not but help observing the contrasts in the initiatives taken up in two towns that share the same name. Juliet said: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet." I beg to differ with Juliet, and Shakespeare, on this one! Here places (Bandipur) and programmes (Ecotourism) with the same name do not smell as sweet.

How green are cement, steel and bricks ?

I saw this query on an Internet group a while back and felt it was important to pen down my thoughts on this. I have been talking about this for a while now, but never got down to writing about it. So here goes.

Cement, steel and the standardised burnt clay brick

To arrive at a better understanding on how green these materials are, one would have to address this from different perspectives:

• From an embodied energy perspective
• From a scale of consumption perspective.
• From a regional impact perspective
• From a construction vs livelihood perspective

Embodied Energy

An IGH Projection

Cement and steel are processed materials, that consume a lot of energy in their making. Modern day Cement mainly is a mixture of various components, essentially lime, and other binders.
Cement from the time of the Romans, has been a binder material used for making building components adhere to another. Lime was an crucial part of this mix. Other pozzolanic materials like volcanic ash, etc were also added by other groups.  In pre-industrial times, the production of cement did not involve much more than animal driven and human labour.... from the extraction of raw materials right down to the production of the cementitious mix. Today of course, cement production involves the use of generated energy (driven by electricity, diesel, coal, etc)
Steel in construction is an industrial era contribution (barring a few earlier usages), and has become a mainstay in all forms of construction. In the 5000 plus years of civilisation history, it is interesting to see that a material that was never ever used in construction , has become an integral component of all construction in just over a 150 years (not that this bad in itself)..

A projection by IGH

Burnt Brick production has remained the same over the past many centuries, but the standardisation since the British times has seen an inefficiency in the burning process. In earlier times, bricks came in all sizes and shapes primarily due to the differences in clay compositions between regions, resulted in better burning. Today, the standard burnt clay brick is 9" x 4.5" x 3", all over the country.

A great amount of energy goes into the manufacture of modern day cement, bricks and steel .There is a dearth of consistent data on the applicable embodied energy for these materials, primarily due to the varying conditions of production, sources of energy and scales of operations. However, if one does consider the potential contribution to CO2 emissions by these materials used today, the significance is apparent. On average a 1000 sft residential unit (independent house or apartment) would result in the emission of anywhere between 45 to 72 MT of CO2 into our atmosphere. In the context of over a 100 1-million plus population cities in India alone, and with an ever burgeoning urban population this is significant.

Consumption

A file picture of iron ore mining activity in Bellary, Karnataka.
Photo: M. Ahiraj, The Hindu

What is even more significant is the rate of production of these materials in the last 100 years (post the industrial revolution). The modern global economy has created a mad rush to urbanise and has pushed rural populations to cities in search of greener pastures. The combined effect of Business, Growth and Migration has led to a boom in construction activity for business, residences and infrastructure to support this. The rate of consumption is fed by a hitherto unseen rate of extraction of raw materials and production of construction materials and components.
This consumption has great side effects. Beyond the CO2 emissions, up-the-chain environmental damage due to pollution, afforestation, and harm to ground water is grave and has resulted in changing the surface of our planet like never before. Transport of these materials has meant the creation of further construction corridors and which has led to massive atmospheric pollution due to petroleum exhaust (incidentally, never before has petroleum been burnt in such a scale as in this period). The large scale construction activities that we see in our cities and towns today create dust and air-pollution, causing health hazards like never before.

Regional impacts
Change is inevitable, but it is the nature of change that has to be examined. There has been tremendous and rapid transformation in the way we build, originally from a construction material/system point and eventually in the forms that the architecture has taken. This change is more of an imposed change, fuelled by industry set up in independent India and also by the great aspirations of the Indian masses. Agendas set by early politicians and subsequent governments further added to the modernisation of India. This trickled down to built form, but has resulted in a complete alienation (and extinction in many cases) of building traditions and regional architecture. Cement, steel and the modern day brick rode this wave of change. RCC, cement and 'sariya' (reinforcement steel) are now household words, and almost every contractor and mason knows how to work with these materials (at least has a working knowledge). These materials are now unshakeable and integral components of construction in urban India. They are considered as the solution to all evils of what is perceived of as 'kucha' works. So deep is the knowledge loss that current day construction workers hesitate (and refuse) to apply traditional materials and systems that were prevalent only half a century ago..

Construction labour at a site

A disappointing outcome of the latter half of the 20th century in India is the emergence of a monoculture in architectural form that has taken over its urbanity. While nationhood united diverse people and cultures, the direction construction has taken ever since is leading to the wiping out of this very essence of diversity. What is more ironic is that numerous studies done over the past couple of decades have shown the limitations and inability of this architecture/built form in providing appropriate occupant thermal comfort, colour and character, and so on. Yet we persist. While change that is inherent (or from within) is understandable, un-reined change with no care for the consequences is not.

Construction vs livelihood
Resources followed the money. Skill-sets needed for RCC construction were simple and were honed, whereas traditional building know-how became unviable over the years. Industry supplied cement, steel and the standardised burnt-clay brick to every nook of this country, while traditional skills were limited to small regional (maybe even sub-regional) extents. Therefore, a moving populace (mostly rural folk looking for better incomes) picked up what would earn them an income irrespective of where they locate to, and moreover there was a lot of jobs for the picking. This scenario is still unfolding, killing our building traditions steadily.

We see that this illustrious group of modern day materials (cement, steel and the standardised burnt brick) has a high embodied energy, cause immense environmental damage (both up and downstream), has altered the regional diversity of our building traditions and systems, and is continuing to wipe out the livelihoods of traditional crafts persons. The 'Business As Usual' scenario of modern day construction materials and systems  is unsustainable and needs an overhaul. Alternatives to these materials and construction systems are urgently necessary in the context of the ecological tilts that such human activity has caused over the last century and a half. Small gestures of reducing a bit of this or that is not going to add up as anything significant. The time for a complete re-think to redeem ourselves is now. 

Ecotourism is not a trek to the forest

The ecotourism diagram

One of the headlines in a recent piece in the Times of India talks about how Ecotourism is ruining the flora and fauna in Nagarhole and Bandipur. Upon a quick read I discovered that the reporter had completely missed the point about ecotourism. This is alarming since such articles dilute the meaning of the term for readers. But this reporter is not alone in making this egregious error. 

I checked some websites, too, and discovered that the term ‘Ecotourism’ is being used freely to describe any sojourn to a wildlife sanctuary or jungle resort. These include both government agencies and private businesses that run lodges and safaris in the wilderness. This is merely re-dressing plain old-fashioned tourism in the garb of a neo-fad called ecotourism.

In essence there are hardly any real ecotourism programmes in the area which can be given the status of one. A quick glance at what the meaning of ecotourism is, as defined by The international Ecotourism Society (www.ecotourism.org) is the following:

“Ecotourism is about uniting conservation, communities, and sustainable travel. This means that those who implement and participate in ecotourism activities should follow the following ecotourism principles:

• Minimize impact of tourism activities..
• Build environmental and cultural awareness and respect.
• Provide positive experiences for both visitors and hosts.
• Provide direct financial benefits for conservation.
• Provide financial benefits and empowerment for local people.
• Raise sensitivity to host countries' (or regions') political, environmental, and social climate.”

Ecotourism- a comprehensive and sustainable  development model

While it is imperative that our tourism departments concentrate on, first, understanding what ecotourism is, and second, what initiatives to launch or support in which areas, we cannot blindly describe any trek to the forest to be an ecotourism exercise. What is happening to the Bandipur and Nagarhole, and certainly in other forest reserves as well, should not be condoned or tolerated even, but we first need the government to set up a proper framework for both government and private agencies (resorts, expedition companies, etc.) to come up with programmes that are truly core-ecotourism. In the absence of such a framework, no amount of complaining against businesses that merely comprehend the language of commerce; at least, more than they do of sensitivity to nature, or even ecotourism, will provide any solution for the long term.

Another point to note is that an ecotourism programme can be launched in non-forest destinations as well: e.g. temple tourism, arts and crafts, or agri-based village commerce resuscitation, or a visit to the Taj or other national treasures. The point is that a well-rounded programme is imperative beyond the cause of commerce alone.

Why does sustainable building make sense to a developer?

One can't be blamed by reacting like this...."What? Developers going green?? Not a chance!". Unfortunately, the general reputation of  the developer lot is to blame for this.
The proposition of developers going sustainable does seem a bit of a stretch, what with the soaring prices of land, and with a volatile market putting a pressure on sales. One tends to believe that developers would not risk sales to attain even a tinge of green. or, let alone going the sustainable way..
Before I launch any further on this let us look (once again) at Sustainability. Sustainability is about defining the thresholds within which if one acts the ability of future generations to live life as we do, does not get compromised in anyway. Sustainability is about responsible consumption and becomes important as we consume more and more as a population. Buildings consume a lot of resources in their making, while contributing to about 39% of the worlds GHG emissions (Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 2008 Buildings Energy Data Book.), and therefore it is imperative that they are built responsibly.
Sustainability is also about being resource efficient, and that any developer gets.We have no option but to be responsible for our actions and the environment. Great strides are being made in areas of pollution free technologies and energy consumption in buildings. While there is minimal focus on the building systems, this accounts for the majority of the CO2 emissions during the entire lifecycle of the building. This is bound to be the next focus. Self-sustaining habitats that strive towards occupying a zero ecological footprint are the future.

So, why do developers need to change the way they build? Let us try and populate a list.

• Sustainable development ensures that business secure their long term success through triple bottom line practices which address the environment, social needs and business growth 
• The world is rapidly rising to the need for sustainable green practices in all spheres of activity from businesses to transportation to construction. 
• Sensible and sustainable design and construction are the emerging paradigms and it is desirable for developers to lead the way and be at the head of such a transition. 
• Sustainable construction enables a developer to broaden their scope of building materials and systems. All this at comparable and sometimes lower costs than the conventional
• By adopting sustainable building methodologies, a developer insulates himself to a great degree from the vagaries of the marketplace. Since materials and skills are inherently local, global turmoil would not have an adverse impact on development works.

Another way of addressing the choice of going sustainable is to look at the impacts of 'Business as Usual', as captured in the left half of the graphic above. The graphic on the right shows the balance of environment and social aspects along with business interests, which is a more comprehensive model. Unsustainable development burdens resources, the business and makes for stressed lifestyles down the line. A sustainable model on the other had adopts a policy of 'making do with as little as possible', without impacting it's survival into the future. On the bright side, there exists within most professional and seasoned developer groups a keen sense that in satisfying the needs of the customer lies repeat investments, recommendations and so on. I believe in this we already have the foundations for transforming into a sustainable business. 

What impact does Sustainability have on the developer's brand?

• It will earn the developer the status of a green organisation, a must going into the future. 
• Communicates to the market the environmental responsibilities of the developer.
• Assures the market that the product has been designed with them in mind… in terms of environmental health, family health, etc 
• Carries the message that the development would secure the users more water, would consume lesser power, and would also pollute the environment less

In employing environmentally sensitive and sustainable design/building technologies, one is actually securing the future of the customer. The reality of a sustainable approach is that one is also addressing health and lifestyle aspects of the customer today. By adopting a sustainable mandate one is addressing the client base's running costs, access to essential resources, internal living health and also providing a rich built environment for overall development.Securing the future of the customer (which means you also address their environment) means that you secure your business' longevity.

So developer, what are you waiting for?

Cuba at the crossroads

I read in the newspaper a few days ago (4th Nov 2011) that Raul Castro has allowed Cubans to buy and sell property. It perked my attention and on reading a bit further, I thought.... wow.... what a wasted opportunity.
It is being hailed, specially in the neighbouring US, as a lifting of state control on the economy, but somehow I cant stop thinking of the fantastic opportunity that Raul had to create history. This does not mean that I am in anyway sympathising with a fascist regime, or, that I not empathising with the beleaguered Cuban economy that is going through the motions. I am simply bringing a third world perspective.... let us not replicate the mistakes of the so called developed world. Such tales of sorrow resonate all across this country of ours.
Quite obviously, this reaction of mine is a displaced point of view, not knowing the true ground realities, but it begs some scenarios of what if....!
Cuba has some wonderful examples of a strong sustainable and flourishing organic agriculture, and to boot they have a resilient community that is still rich and celebrates the unique culture that is uniquely Cuban. In its communist foundations, Cuba stands for an equitable society. All ingredients for creating a sustainable planning model. So has Raul lost this very opportunity to create such a model?

Let us see some of the areas that could have been explored:

1. Property price variation based on weightage given to select criteria (as given in the consequent points). Indices of growth/appreciation would also be according to these factors. Difference in taxation also according to these criteria.
2. Property price control based on work-home commute corridors and distance of property from major/ potential mass rapid transit system hubs. The further away one stays from these corridors it would be fair to assume that stress on urban infrastructure to cater to these residents would higher. Therefore, the closer one is to work-home commute corridors, the greater the value of the property. The further you live from these commute corridors, the higher the taxation. 
3. Property control based on access to urban infrastructure like water, waste treatment, power etc. 
4. Valuation of asset on property and not property itself..... therefore gain from merely sitting on land will be discouraged. 
5. Tax sops to properties that do the following. The more independent they are, they more sops they get.:
• Those who grow their own food, 
• Those who provide for their own power
• Those who provide for their own water
• Those who manage their own waste
• Those who build sustainably

Of course, this applies to all states and not just Cuba, but I felt that their history gave an advantage to institute such measures.
There could be more to this list.....My reason to explore such alternatives is to see if that would lead to a more sustainable urban model. One that does not see urbanity spiral into a monster that chews into the countryside, one that does not create riches merely due to a speculative land market and so on. Also, such a wishlist need not find translation onto the ground in one Haussmann-ish move, but could be baby steps towards this.
Those like Raul sit on the crossroads of history, and like Frost suggested, could enter its chapters by taking the road less travelled.

Adding thought to action

"Stock Market Fear and Greed," by Paul Zanetti.

In the realm of investments and savings there are many choices we make today. For most of us middle class folks it is all about saving for the future (insurance), owning a home and hearth, buying the car that is slightly beyond our budget, making sure that our children get a proper education, a healthcare budget, and keeping something aside for the rainy day. In earlier times this kind of a savings plan may have been touted as prudence personified, and banks and other institutions goaded us into believing that good things come to people who reinvest all what they earn with them or through them.

The fact is all these investment methodologies are based on two things only! Fear and Greed! We go through life thinking that we have to have all these things at the minimum to provide well for the family and ourselves. In a world that has become an individual free-for-all with avarice predetermining all our endeavours, our understanding of who we are and what our purpose is has become murkier than ever before. The gulf between ‘battle-for-survival’ for many and ‘battle-for surviving-well’ for the rest of us has widened to such a magnitude that it has robbed us of our feelings like empathy, respect, consideration for others, and the like. We have abjectly surrendered to the machinations of the business world which thrive on exploiting our two biggest weaknesses; to reiterate, fear and greed. We are perpetually running around trying to earn more and more throughout our lifespan in the hope that money is the only palliative we will need against all ills and illnesses (catering to fear). We all agree that we need all or some of these things in some measure but can we not stop when we reach a certain point in our quests in achieving each of these things (denying greed).

In today’s world this kind of consumption orientation is having disastrous consequences for ourselves as well as the planet we live. In a bid to consume more – buy a bigger house, car, or insurance policy – we cast an inverted eye on the ramifications of our actions. Do we need a ‘bigger or better anything’ should be at least thought through. Buying a bigger home could be problematic when you are old; a car as an investment is a losing proposition all the time (high on fuel, maintenance, taxes, and insurance costs, and is a rapidly depreciating asset to boot!); eating out or eating more too often will beget ill health; hoarding multiple properties only gives you sleepless nights (high taxes, tenant issues, maintenance costs, interest on borrowed capital, etc. etc.); saving for your children’s higher education means that you expect them to be invalids who can’t fend for themselves after a certain age!

We know a lot of people are trying to change this but we call such people activists, saints, sadhus, tree-huggers, pretenders, and so on, and sweep them far away from the dustbowl of our guilt. Anybody trying to do something good about almost anything is seen with a cynical and ignorant eye. Waking up to where the world is headed (socially, politically, environmentally, and commercially) is not something to be shunned with a cursory shrug. All these aspects have a great bearing on who we are and where we are heading and should be part of the decision making process for our every action. So the next time you make an investment think through a few things apart from appreciation of the investment (property), ROI (any investment), and diesel vs. petrol (car). Our simple (or simplistic) calculations are not enough for us to understand the ramifications of our actions; the world suffers a lot when we get it wrong, and it is within the realms of our responsibility to at least evaluate all options in greater perspective.

What sets us apart? Clues to what makes communities sustainable- Spaces

This post marks the second of a series with one common theme..... highlighting the areas of living that set us apart from the way/s we lived in the past (and in some traditional/rural settlements that still persist), and which also mark us as unsustainable communities.Here is the second.

Spaces and communities

Who doesn't like, appreciate or even want a palatial bungalow? What is there not to like.... unless you are thinking of the maintenance costs and other costs of residing in a place like this. Space by itself has become a statement of class. Take a look around... the various peddlers of real estate scream out at you dishing out the larger living rooms, the larger bedrooms, and even larger dining tables.... all for a similar sized family unit. Even the specifications are near similar... the difference however, is the price. Nowadays, there seem to no bounds to what one 'wants' as space, expect perhaps the depth of our pockets.
There are some odd outcomes though..... if one buys into a builder development, then the volumes seem to have shrunk. Wonder why? Floor-to-Ceiling heights now hover at a near universal range, between 9.5 feet to 10 feet. What is ironical, is that this remains nearly the same no matter which city, or, geography we live in. This reduction in space (also reflected in the thinness of walls, is due to the builder maximising on achievable floor area. Most individuals building their own homes would do the same mainly because of costs.... be it due to the direct costs of extra material or due to the paucity of space.
How does space matter? A larger volume would mean more air to warm or cool. Too much or too little space could mean 'thermal discomfort'. Ever wondered why volumes of human habitation shrunk in extremely cold regions.... a lower volume meant lesser air to heat up, and lesser surface area exposed to the outside. More significantly, the heights of these spaces were always kept low.... to prevent any heated air to rise above. In humid regions, the spaces would not be bound, and would allow the free movement of air bringing comfort to the inhabitants. Along the same lines, higher ceilings were common in hot-dry conditions. To further aid this, courtyards were integrated to create a kind of thermo-siphon, venting out the stale hot air from the adjoining spaces, which in turn drew in fresh cooler air from the outer faces. In some cases, Jaalis (delicate stone carved screens) were provided on these outer surfaces, which absorbed the heat from the incoming air. Semi-covered and open spaces played as important a role as covered rooms. Verandahs provided shade in hot regions, and performed open to the breeze spaces in humid regions. Open terraces were rest areas in the hot nights of the northern plains.

Through history, the larger consumers were always the wealthy and ruling classes, and the masses lived in far humbler accommodations shaped by what their need and the hand-me-down knowledge systems. Uncannily, the building forms and methods were also sensible architectural outcomes for each specific geography.
Forget palaces, forts, tombs and temples for a bit, but when one thinks of traditional settlements space and form seem to vary from one region to another. What is starkly different when one compares much of these vernacular forms to present day times is how things were never over-sized. Perhaps the reason is obvious. More space meant more material to provide for an envelope, to provide for finishes and for other aspects of insulation, etc.It also made sense that there was a lot of manual labour involved in the movement of material, and therefore restricting the quantities needed made sense. I am guessing that was one of the prime reasons why material was not moved from very far (surely energy of travel did not figure beyond a monetary sense). Nonetheless, there are lessons here for the these times. In some ways, it is still evident today, in areas which are poorly connected by roads.... a boon if you ask me.
Space also has a clear impact in terms of Aural quality, light quality,and even affect our psychology (I am not referring to any Vaastu/Feng Shui psycho babble)... Many of us know the feeling of claustrophobia in small tight spaces. However, each of these have to be seen in conjunction with other aspects of other finishes. For example, the density, geometry and smoothness quality of the surfaces have an impact on the reflective quality of a space; the size, direction and nature of opening has an impact on light and air movement.... and therefore inside temperature. Shapes of any enclosure may also mean an interesting impact on you both financially and psychology. We already know that more surface area, the higher exposure to the environment... therefore more heat gain or loss, and more surface exposed to rain. The larger the space, the heavier the structure..... therefore greater the anchorage or sizing of foundation.

I did an interesting exercise once (thanks to a great teacher I had the opportunity to work with); I compared two spaces with the same area, one a square and the other a rectangle.... I found that the square space would less to build than the rectangular space, assuming they were built using the same methods and systems. Why? The answer is pretty simple really (once again, not some un-understandable explanation of energy lines and directions, which once cant get). The square has a smaller perimeter than the rectangle... and therefore the total wall area (keeping the height the same) would also amount to less. Extend this to less openings required, etc. Less materials per square foot, and so lower costs. This also meant that the square space was less exposed to the elements, and therefore gained and lost much less heat (if oriented similarly), meaning lesser internal temperature changes, providing for a more comfortable internal environment. You can see how space could also affect health.
I am not advocating a standard usage of square shapes as a result, but only emphasising the need to understand the impacts a space could have on us. From a sustainability point of view, traditional buildings had the advantage of having evolved an architecture with region specific forms and hence a more appropriate building vocabulary. Isn't it time we reconnected once again?

Survive in Style- a slogan for Sustainable living

Gluttony by Alex Falco

"Survive in Style".... don't write this slogan off too soon. The slogan can surely be bettered, but focus on the essence. This slogan has been put forth with some thought and much deliberation on what a sustainable world could be like. Over consumption, greed, mass production, clones, all seem to represent the world we live in today (at least most of us). This is no more just some Hollywood take on the 'big, bad world of tomorrow'. Any course correction or advice that may be required today to ensure that we don't slip into such a dismal abyss seems to scream 'HALT', or, 'SLOW DOWN' to arrest the rate at which we are gorging on our environment. When one ponders the ideal pace of development (or living) that could be sustainable, nothing seems more convincing than one where we take only what we need... in other words enough to survive.

'To survive' does bring images of a rudimentary existence devoid of any character. Many an argument on thriving vs 'merely' existing have been made, which demonstrate a great discomfort to change this 'business as usual' scenario. But, to survive does not mean merely existing. I feel that this is the ideal condition for human expression in the form of art and craft. It is an innate human desire to attribute oneself with higher standards of order and beauty. When applied this art/craft takes on different expressions, based on geography, natural resources, community, socio-economic forces, etc.... therefore the word 'style'.

Interestingly, when you check for synonyms for 'survive' in a thesaurus, you get- 'stay alive', 'live on', 'continue to exist', 'endure', 'subsist'..... seems to me a lot like 'to sustain oneself perennially', or, 'being sustainable'. The connotations indicate to me the wisdom of living in a manner that one meets their needs in order to see a continuity of a species.
Similarly, when one checks for 'style' you get- 'method', 'way', 'technique', 'chic', 'elegance', 'flair', 'grace', 'design', 'shape', 'comfort', 'luxury', 'grandeur'.... and so on.

Consider what it could mean from the perspective of architecture and buildings. Firstly, we would create spaces that we need, and do away with wasteful space. This could also mean less materials per square foot. In other words, a much more efficient usage of space and materials. This would free up otherwise poorly spent finances for more crucial things like infrastructure for water, for energy, and surely for better crafted components. So, more specs and better quality for the same. We have innumerable examples to show us that less need not be boring, or conversely, we also know that more does not always mean better. An architecture which is based on a 'stylish survivalism' (could not resist throwing that in), would purposefully look for a higher craft element, with better workmanship, without overdrawing from our natural resources and therefore leaving more for all. You can see that a world that does not import from far off places, would surely encourage more local solutions, creating a far more diverse and colourful planet.

A slogan like 'survival with style' (and its variants) can also be transformed into a guide or set of rules that can define the degree of environmental impact an individual, a group, a community and an institution can have. Importantly, once adopted and applied in full spirit, it influences attitudes towards various aspects of living. This collective attitude is the single most important influencer when it comes to how we treat this planet. From the simple choice of buying biscuits or veggies in a plastic wrap from a supermarket, to, why we absolutely have to apply a metal-glass face to our buildings, to larger concerns of the kinds of businesses and therefore economies (or, vice-versa) we encourage... 'stylish survival' will at the minimum ensure a reduced pace of destruction of the environment.... and just maybe, even produce a glimmer of a sustainable future.

What sets us apart? Clues to what makes communities sustainable- Water

This post marks the beginning of a series with one common theme..... highlighting the areas of living that set us apart from the way/s we lived in the past (and in some traditional/rural settlements that still persist), and which also mark us as unsustainable communities.
It is quite remarkable that factors that brand us as unsustainable, are perhaps more due to circumstances, living in these times, rather than one of a dearth of choices that can keep us from self destructing. I hope to cover, with some help from others here at IGH, a few cross sections to illustrate what sets us apart, and perhaps throw up some answers in the process. What makes us so dependent on those many supply chains of water, energy, food, etc that any sudden break in any of these result in a literal collapse of our world?.
This series shall cover some of these aspects/themes by looking at them through specific topics.Here is the first.
Water and communities

A kund in Himachal Pradesh

A quick glance at water in today's context. Let us start by looking at the water infrastructure- piped water to our homes from neighbourhood level water utilities, which are supplied by central treatment facilities, which in turn are fed by riverine systems. Cut to the past, say over a 100 odd years, and we find that none of this applied, to the extent that we did not even draw our water directly from rivers (or lakes for that matter). Even in the most dense of cities, Old Delhi, Old Ahmedabad, Old Bangalore, Old Benaras, historical towns of Tamil Nadu, hill towns and villages across the country, coastal settlements... all drew their water from the ground. What's even more interesting, is that this held true even if they were right next to a river or stream!! The forms may have varied, but the common fact that all these instances had local solutions.
Let us move on the next level of differences, how we deal with water conduits and bodies- concreted and tarred surfaces, concrete lined drains, reclamation of low-lying areas and ponds, and a plethora of other measures to drain out any rainwater to prevent 'flooding' and reduce diseases like 'malaria'. Cut to the past, and we have earthen and other permeable pathways, ponds to hold water, percolating swales and enough bio-matter that would help retain surface moisture and also helped prevent erosion.
Take a look at our current lifestyles- everyone has access to water indulgent luxuries from bathtubs to rain showers.... we even bathe our modes of transportation. Such a luxury simply did not (or, could not) exist. We are transfixed on the appearance of water in our bathrooms, lobbies and garden landscapes, instead of considering efficient usage. Consumption today, needs some serious introspection. We have moved on from consuming what we need to thoughtlessly catering to our whims. We can start by monitoring, and progress quickly to an equilibrium stage between what we sow and what we reap (so to speak).
Then are the hidden water aspects. Also known as virtual water, this is understood best as the total water that goes into anything, be it a product, a crop, an activity. For example, a cup of coffee is said to take about 40 litres of water to make!! Similarly, cereal, processed goods, clothes, the construction of buildings, roads, etc. all consume a significant amount of water. You could find tonnes about this on the net.... just try and make an estimate of your water footprint, and you will be astonished!! In the past, keeping the circles of dependency small, and the substitution of high energy industry with craft and some rather ingenious zero energy technologies, meant that their water footprint was much smaller. Surely, there are some lessons here.
The benefits of the earlier water equation are compelling. For starters, it was significantly lower in in energy consumption, both in building this water infrastructure and its operation. Traditional and historic water systems did not mean the release of Carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, or, toxins into the ground.... today it does. In those traditional/historic instances, all controls were with the community and users. At the least that meant that one knew why we did not have water on a particular day, and one could prepare for that. Today, to simply inform the masses of issues related to water supply is a challenge, one which is also phenomenally resource consuming..

A Reverse Osmosis water treatment plant

The decentralised set-up also meant that growth of populations did not mean adding stress to, and therefore, an upgrade of the water infrastructure. Importantly, the past system meant constant recharge, and lower consumption, assuring more water for all. Currently, each of our 50 plus 1 million population cities, rely on individual sources of water!! Imagine the burden on those systems. What is our strategy to replenish those sources??? None exists. In these traditional alternatives the costs were significantly lower, and there was no need for extensive treatment at both the distribution and consumption ends. Today, we dump tonnes of chemicals (chlorine) to control germs, to curb suspended particles, and even to control odour. What's more, every home either has or is eyeing an RO like filtration system... one which spews out a minimum of 2 litres of extremely turbid water to give you 1 litre of filtered water.Where do you think this RO reject is heading? Down your drains into our ground water aquifers, or, dumped into the riverine systems from where we source our water in the first place!!

In the world of today, we have ignored our connect with the sources of water. Rivers are too distant to comprehend, so what do know about what it takes to source this water... laying the infrastructure, pumping costs, treatment, etc. We have ignored the health ground water table, considering what we can get from this unseen 'golden goose' (figuratively speaking) as spoils of existence. It is only now that we have begun to rediscover rainwater harvesting and recharge, something which happened by default in the past, and something that many of us are adopting only to comply to government law. But to be truly sustainable, we have to break these bondages of dependency on external inputs for water. It is also a fact that we are born into these times, and therefore find it difficult to understand such a (lesser known) past. That is the extent of our dependency and modern day conditioning. About time we break those shackles and take control!

Green Homes to remind you of the 'Old Bangalore'

Bangalore, the garden city of recent yesteryears, has been transformed into a metropolis that attracts a quarter of a million people every year. The growth that was fuelled by the IT boom around Bangalore has become a scourge to living amongst convivial greens. The retirement paradise of remnant sahibs, the Anglos, military officers, and railway baboos has become a cluttered city of undefined character. The steady stream of movers into the city has put immense pressure on the city’s infrastructure and amenities like abundant water supply, clean air and the ‘sound of silence’ in the shade of 500 year old trees, is evanescent.

Image- skyscrapercity.com

Colonial and other terracotta clad bungalows have been torn down and replaced by apartment blocks and shopping malls. Land prices have escalated so much that people are happy to forsake their garden paradise for the sheen that bucks could add to their lifestyle. No consideration has been evinced for the resources of the city, or its past promise of languorous afternoons and walks down tree-lined boulevards. On the pretext of globalization, the city’s people have huddled themselves into a myriad of cubbyholes, all the while pining for Bangalore’s past resplendence as a retirement post among serene environs.
In the last few years, of course, the scenario is changing. Reports of receding glaciers, the thinning ozone layer and the human impact on global climatology, not to forget the CII IGBC promoted green building certification, have woken people out of their slumber of indifference and apathy. People are adopting ‘green’ practices, albeit a few only, almost as penitence for the sins committed against Mother Nature over the last few centuries. But penance alone will not bring about Grace; new ways of living have to be contemplated to make the planet a worthwhile commentator of our times to the next generation.

Bangalore developers who built with impunity are now trying to add a soft touch to their footprint. Eco-friendly housing, waste management, rainwater harvesting, recycling, energy conservation and indoor air quality are terms that are being bandied about as the new mantras to exorcising the past and ushering in an effulgent future for the residents. The denizens are becoming wiser and are demanding adherence to norms; are becoming active and questioning the reason behind every trend. One day, soon enough, the citizens will have realized that they don’t need to be cornered into a pigeon holed high-rise, or brook the shoddiness of a tardy developer.
Building or buying a green home, even if the plot sizes are relatively smaller, or a tad further out of town, makes eminent, and imminent, sense. Such a green home could bring home the essence of the old Bangalore (in spirit if not in form) while doing one’s bit to reduce our ecological footprint. While some of the green concepts are easy to comprehend and implement, there are many aspects which require professional expertise. Greening, besides requiring huge doses of common sense, draws its inspiration from science and technology, social systems and practices, local artisan-ship, heritage architectural concepts and designs, and more importantly, its intent is harnessed on a strong edifice of ethics, morality and prudence. There is an increase in the number of professionals and organizations who now offer consulting services on the elements of green construction and this could be well our chance to make a grab for retiring in serenity in the fractured bosom of Bangalore.

How Green ‘is’ my valley

At what point in its development does a product become Green? Does adding a rainwater harvesting system to a building make it a Green building? Would using a small amount of recycled materials to a larger mix of inputs required to develop an end-product tantamount to it being labelled Green?

Image: renjith krishnan / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

This is a subject that questions the edifice upon which companies and their respective product lines are built. Companies should not be able to merely change a process or an input and enjoy the fruits of being in the Green category. As the world focuses its attention on the environmental impact of every product, and even service, the ‘code of ethic’ practised will assume a magnitude of greater importance. Companies and their concomitant industry associations need to pay great attention to this matter so that it can protect its categories and products and command more than a semblance of credibility from consumers and other upholders of civil society.
A simple background research to this article indicated that there are many groups who are concerned and are articulating what their collective Green ethos is. The charter documents of these associations and groups throw much light on how difficult (or easy) it is supposed to be to sit around a ‘green’ conference table with your head held high. Barring the common ones involving recycling, here are a few:

• Practice Fair Trade
• Fair treatment of employees
• Practice energy efficiency and reduce energy consumption
• Minimize waste in our production processes and in our end product
• Give back to our communities
• Be an example of Capitalism with a Conscience

In the quest for mainstreaming Green many such ethical questions will dog us along the way. Merely having a code of ethics will not help the cause. The answer lies in self regulation and an inclination to innovate at every stage to identify the best practices. Too many companies today are way too glib in professing Green without comprehending the full import of their actions. If they will not self-regulate, they run the risk of denigrating the positive aspects of the Green quotient and levelling the playing field for all the pretenders. When this happens companies and their brands will lose the advantage of the Green tag and will find it painstaking to cut through the Green clutter. Taking off on a classic Hollywood film with a similar name, it is our responsibility to examine ‘’How Green ‘is’ my valley?’’

Going 'off-the-grid'!

What a wonderful thought. The very idea that we wont rely on those unsustainable networks! Those of us in the sustainability profession, would love to prescribe this to our listeners and clients, but what does it take to go 'off-the-grid'?
On the face of it, relieving your habitation (or, any such built environment) of central electricity and water supplies. As an extension this also means no connections to central sewerage connections.
Extending this to it's penultimate and true definition, it would mean a complete independence from anything supplied from beyond the borders of the 'off-the-grid' destination in question. So, such an establishment would be able to generate it's own power, secure it's own water requirements, manage it's own waste (including other solid waste), grow it's own food and even provide for all the necessary activities for sustainable living. This may also include livelihood skills in the form of a craft, farming, a service, that would give the the rewards to maintain the 'off-the-grid' establishment.
Is it expensive to live off-the-grid? If the we merely were to move location, without changing our lifestyles, then yes. If we consume as much power as we do today, then the size of energy need goes up and so does the capacity of any captive generation. The same applies to our consumption of other resources like water and food, and similarly can be extended to the waste that we generate. Shifting from a want based to need based living is crucial to occupy a minimal footprint, one that can be catered for and sustained. What should be aim for while going off-the-grid?

• Consume minimal power and water, (which involves consumption changes due to lifestyles).
• Use technology pragmatically and look for simple solutions- go low tech as against high tech as the cost of replacement may be higher or may make you reach beyond the local region. It is important to tap into look skills as much as it is important to use local resources.
• Look for appropriate solutions- for example, use biomass for heating if it is abundant and you can do it without polluting, solar thermal for all heating, use,hydro where you have the potential and most importantly, size these technologies appropiately.
• Harvest maximum water and manage it responsibly,
• Eat what you can grow, and
• Generate minimal waste, so that it's management is not harder than what it ought to be.

To some of us these may seem romantic notions, to others impossible to achieve. The truth is that we are so engrained in our urban lifestyles that any such shift results in symptoms from mind strains to serious struggles to adjust to this 'off-the-grid' existence. Ever wonder, why it is so easy for a farmer to live in those conditions, while the very thought of abandoning all things that are processed or packaged seems like a nightmare? The answer is the decades, if not generations of this urban conditioning. just a century ago, most of us would have been considered as leading more or less sustainable lifestyles. In a relatively short time, we have become dependents and slaves to our wants.
Giving up the former lifestyle is akin to a de-addiction process... but the results are just as rewarding... a non-toxic lifestyle. It seems that any 'off-the-grid' sustainable proposition should be much more than mere infrastructural and technological solutions, and should also extend to include other aids like life-transitioning skills, opportunities to identify and improve on independent skill-sets and activities towards enabling individuals to adapt. Such initiatives could include integration with local communities and intra-community involvement. In time, such off-the-grid communities would be able to create their own identities and become true symbiotic entities... far removed from their gluttonous urban counterparts.
What a wonderful thought... again.

How do we begin to truly comprehend sustainable consumption?

Let me admit that this is going to sound really far fetched and probably is.
I think that we have to get some essential data to come to a true understanding of what would constitute sustainable consumption and therefore sustainable living decisions.

• First we would need to record (and constantly update) our consumption; right from food, down to the clothes we wear, the books we read, the fuel/energy.water we consume, the materials we use to build our cars, our homes, roads, and so on.
• Next, we would need to further break this down to the raw materials that go into each of these items. For example, a cup of coffee would have coffee, milk, sugar, chicory, the packing material (and it;s constituents), the fuel consumed in transporting to your nearby store and then to your home. Similarly, for all the other things that you end up consuming... from the list you generated above.
• Then, we would need to map the earth for the quantities of raw material that exists today. This mapping would have to be as exhaustive as there are materials that we consume. While doing this, we should also map the physical footprint occupied by each resource.
• Finally, we would have to keep a tab on the rate at which we are withdrawing these various raw materials.

Only when we have the above facts, that it sure seems like a lifetime (or many) of data collection, can we begin to understand the implications of how we can get sustainable. Against each consumption statistic, we can map the existing stock, and the exhaustion time based on the rate of withdrawal. Some decisions could be like this:

• When we cut down on one, we increase the life of the stock. If we need to increase the stock (for example; a crop), then we look at other areas where we can start production.
• Decisions on moving from one unsustainable material to another that we consider green today, can be gauged by the above point. However, we would also have to understand the implication of increasing the consumption of one particular material. Take for example fuel- When we move from petroleum fuel to say bio-diesel from crops... then consumption on that crop would increase, leading to a pressure to convert other existing crops (and these could be low income food crops) into bio-fuel generating varieties. The result could mean lesser stock of food crops for all.

Steps towards sustainable consumption and sustainable living could follow these steps:

• Reduce consumption with controllable limits of the mean
• Rate in terms of criticality each resource (stock)
• Rate in terms of sustainability each resource (resources that can cater to a much larger consumption and can be replenished at nearly the same rate)
• Rate in terms of sustainability each technology/process/product (where each of these means the least impact on the sustainability of other resources, and a greater degree of replenishing the raw material consumed in the process)
• Encourage/incentivise/penalise to ensure that consumption moves from far more critical stocks/technologies/processes/products to sustainable stocks/technologies/processes/products. This would also mean encouraging and driving directions of new technologies
• Encourage/incentivise reduced consumption.
• Continue this process.