What is an Environmental Movement?

 
An environmental movement can be described as a social or political movement, for the
conservation of the environment or the improvement of the state of the environment.
The terms ‘green movement’ or ‘conservation movement’ are alternatively used to
denote the same. The environmental movements favour the ​sustainable management
of natural resources. The movements often stress the protection of the environment via
changes in public policy​. Environmental movements range from the extremely
organized and formally institutionalized ones to the radically informal activities. The
spatial range of numerous environmental movements extends from being local to
almost global. The environmental movement is an international movement, represented
by a range of organizations, from the large to grassroots and varies from country to
country. Due to its large membership, varying and strong beliefs, and occasionally
speculative nature, the environmental movement is not always united in its goals. The
movement additionally includes some other movements with a more specific focus,
such as the climate movement.

Concept of environmental movement:

The environmental movement is a global movement, signified by a range of

organizations, from the large to grassroots and differs from country to country. Due to its

large membership, varying and strong politics, and occasionally theoretical nature, the

environmental movement is not always amalgamated in its goals. The movement also

includes some other movements with a more specific focus, such as the climate

movement. Broadly speaking, the movement includes private citizens, professionals,

religious devotees, politicians, scientists, non-profit organizations and individual

advocates.
Several theorists and scholars elaborated the notion of environmental movement.

Guha and Gadgil (1989) demarcated the environmental movements as 'organized social

activity consciously directed towards promoting sustainable use of natural resources,

halting environmental degradation or bringing about environmental restoration'.

According to Rootes, Christopher (1999), "The environmental movements are

conceived as broad networks of people and organizations engaged in collective action

in the pursuit of environmental benefits. Environmental movements are understood to

be very diverse and complex, their organizational forms ranging from the highly

organized and formally institutionalized to the radically informal, the spatial scope of

their activities ranging from the local to the almost global, the nature of their concerns

ranging from single issue to the full panoply of global environmental concerns. Such an

inclusive conception is consistent with the usage of the term amongst environmental

activists themselves and enables us to consider the linkages between the several levels

and forms of what activists call 'the environmental movement (Rootes, Christopher:

1999: 2)."

Almeida, Paul and Linda Brewster Stearns (1998) opined that there are three levels of

collective action:

1. The local grassroots movement level

2. The social movement level

3. A cycle of protest.
A Local Grassroots Environmental Movement (LGEM) as a movement fighting a

particular instance of pollution in a geographically specific region. Local Grassroots

Environmental Movements have a limited range of goals that are tied to specific

pollution problems. A social movement is a broader struggle that involves a formal

organization or a federation of loosely affiliated networks. Social movements have a

wide range of goals directed at fundamental social and political reform. Finally, a cycle

of protest is a specific period of heightened protest involving several social movements

spread across different geographical areas and sectors of society. The identification of

each level of movement activity is critical to understanding the political environment in

which a Local Grassroots Environmental Movement operates.

Origin of Environmental Movements in India:

The birth of concern for environmental protection in India, "can be traced back to the

beginning of the twentieth century when people remonstrated against the

commercialization of forest resources during the British colonial period"(Sahu,

Geetanjoy 2007). It was stated that, "in the 1970s, a coherent and relatively organized

awareness of the ecological impact of state-monolithic development started to develop,

to grow into a full-fledged understanding of the limited nature of natural resources and

to prevent the depletion of natural resources".

At global scale, growing salience of the environmental crisis was brought out by four

important events. The first event was the United Nations Conference on 'Human

Environment' held in Stockholm, Sweden (1972). The second event was publication of
the report "Limits to Growth". The third, release of the report of the Brundtland

Commission entitled 'Our Common Future' (1987). Fourth, the event was the 'Earth

Summit' in 1992 Salunkhe, S. A., 2008).

Guha, Ramchandra (1997) lists the three events which occurred within the country in

1973, that expedited discussion on environmental issues in India:

First, in April, the government of India announced the launching of Project Tiger, a

determined conservation programme aimed at protecting the country's national animal.

Indian conservationists, exhilarated and assisted by the international agencies such as

World Wildlife Fund and International Union for the Conservation of Nature, were

contributory in bringing pressure on the government to create a network of national

parks and sanctuaries all over India to protect rare wildlife.

Second, the publication of an article in Economic and Political Weekly (March 31, 1973)

entitled 'A Charter for the Land' authored by B. B. Vora, a high official in the ministry of

agriculture, which drew attention to the extent of erosion, water logging and other forms

of land degradation in the country. The Department of Environment was set up in 1980

and a full-fledged Ministry of Environment and Forests was formed five years later.

Third, on March 27, 1973, in Mandal, a remote Himalayan village, a group of peasants

stopped a group of loggers from felling a stand of trees by hugging the trees. This event

flashed many protests through the 1970s, jointly known as the "Chipko" movement. This
movement raised basic questions relating to the ecology, equity and social justice and

promoted lively debate and action throughout the country.

The modern environmental movement differed from an early form of environmentalism

that thrived in the first decades of the twentieth century, commonly called

conservationism. Famous conservationists such as Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford

Pinchot focused on the intelligent and efficient use of natural resources. Modern

environmentalism emerged not due to concern for managing natural resources for

future development, but as a consumer movement that demanded a clean, safe, and

beautiful environment as part of a higher standard of living.

The expanding post-World War II economy outstretched awareness about the

environmental costs of economic progress, but it also led increasingly wealthy

Americans to insist upon a better quality of life. Since the demand for a cleaner, safer,

and more beautiful environment that would improve the quality of life could not be

satisfied by the free market, environmentalists turned toward political action to protect

the earth. Still, the preservationist element of the conservationist movement was an

important predecessor to the modern environmental movement. figures as John Muir of

the Sierra Club and Aldo Leopold of the Wilderness Society argued that natural spaces

such as forests and rivers were not just basis for economic development, but also

beautiful resources. Thus, they stated that the government needed to protect beautiful

natural spaces from development through such measures as establishing national

parks. In the post-World War II period, many Americans gained the resources to pursue
outdoor recreational activities and travel to national parks. Muir and Leopold,

preservationism became part of a mass movement.

Yet, while preservationism was a significant part of environmentalism's goals, the

movement's schedule was much broader and more diverse. While preservationism

focused on shielding specially designated non-residential areas, environmentalists

shifted attention to the effects of the environment on daily life.

 
Major Environmental Movements in India 
Some  of  the  major  environmental  movements  in  India  during  the  period  170  0  to  2000 
are the following. 

1.Bishnoi Movement 

● Year: 1700s 
● Place: Khejarli, Marwar region, Rajasthan state. 
● Leaders:  Amrita  Devi  along  with  Bishnoi  villagers  in  Khejarli  and 
surrounding villages. 
● Aim: Save sacred trees from being cut down by the king’s soldiers for a new 
palace. 

What was it all about: ​Amrita Devi, a female villager, could not bear to witness 
the  destruction  of  both  her  faith  and  the  village’s  sacred  trees.  She  hugged  the 
trees  and  encouraged  others  to  do  the  same.  363  Bishnoi  villagers were killed in 
this  movement.  The  Bishnoi  tree  martyrs  were  influenced  by  the  teachings  of 
Guru  Maharaj  Jambaji,  who  founded  the  Bishnoi  faith  in  1485  and  set  forth 
principles  forbidding  harm  to  trees  and  animals.  The  king  who  came  to  know 
about  these  events  rushed  to  the  village  and  apologized,  ordering  the soldiers to 
cease  logging  operations.  Soon  afterwards,  the  maharajah  designated  the 
 cccBishnoi  state  as  a  protected  area,  forbidding  harm  to trees and animals. This 
legislation still exists today in the region. 

2. Chipko Movement 

● Year: 1973 
● Place: In Chamoli district and later at Tehri-Garhwal district of Uttarakhand.  
● Leaders:  Sundarlal  Bahuguna,  Gaura  Devi,  Sudesha  Devi,  Bachni  Devi, 
Chandi  Prasad  Bhatt,  Govind  Singh  Rawat,  Dhoom  Singh  Negi,  Shamsher 
Singh Bisht and Ghanasyam Raturi. 
● Aim:  The  main  objective  was  to  protect  the  trees  on  the  Himalayan  slopes 
from the axes of contractors of the forest. 

What  was  it  all  about:  ​Mr.  Bahuguna  enlightened  the  villagers  by  conveying  the 
importance  of  trees  in  the  environment  which  checks  the  erosion  of  soil,  causes  rains 
and  provides  pure  air.  The  women  of  Advani  village  of  Tehri-Garhwal  tied  the  sacred 
thread  around  trunks  of  trees  and  they  hugged  the  trees,  hence  it  was  called  ‘Chipko 
Movement’  or  ‘hug  the  tree  movement’.  The  main  demand  of  the  people  in  these 
protests  was  that  the benefits of the forests (especially the right to fodder) should go to 
local  people.  The  Chipko  movement  gathered  momentum  in  1978  when  the  women 
faced  police  firings  and  other  tortures.  The  then  state  Chief  Minister,  Hemwati  Nandan 
Bahuguna  set  up  a  committee  to  look  into  the  matter,  which eventually ruled in favor of 
the villagers. This became a turning point in the history of eco-development struggles i n 
the region and around the world. 

3. Save Silent Valley Movement 

● Year: 1978 
● Place:  Silent  Valley,  an  evergreen  tropical  forest  in  the  Palakkad  district  of 
Kerala, India. 
● Leaders:  The  Kerala  Sastra  Sahitya  Parishad  (KSSP)  an  NGO,  and  the 
poet-activist  Sughathakumari  played  an  important  role  in  the  Silent  Valley 
protests. 
● Aim:  In  order  to  protect  the  Silent  Valley,  the  moist  evergreen  forest  from 
being destroyed by a hydroelectric project. 
What  was  it  all  about:  ​The  Kerala  State  Electricity  Board  (KSEB)  proposed  a 
hydroelectric  dam  across  the  Kunthipuzha  River  that  runs  through  Silent  Valley.  In 
February  1973,  the  Planning  Commission  approved  the  project  at  a cost of about Rs 25 
crores.  Many  feared  that  the  project  would  submerge  8.3  sq  km  of  untouched  moist 
evergreen  forest.  Several  NGOs  strongly opposed the project and urged the government 
to  abandon  it.  In  January  1981,  bowing  to  unrelenting  public  pressure,  Indira  Gandhi 
declared  that  Silent  Valley  will  be  protected.  In  June  1983  the  Center  re-examined  the 
issue  through  a  commission  chaired  by  Prof.  M.G.K.  Menon.  In  November  1983  the 
Silent  Valley  Hydroelectric  Project  was  called  off.  In  1985,  Prime  Minister  Rajiv  Gandhi 
formally inaugurated the Silent Valley National Park. 

4. Jungle Bachao Andolan 

● Year: 1982 
● Place: Singhbhum district of Bihar 
● Leaders: The tribals of Singhbhum. 
● Aim: Against government's decision to replace the natural ​sal forest​ with 
Teak​. 

What  was  it  all  about:  ​The  tribals  of  Singhbhum  district  of  Bihar  started  the protest 
when  the  government  decided  to  replace  the  natural  sal  forests  with  the  highly-priced 
teak.  This  move  was  called  by  many  as  “Greed  Game  Political  Populism”.  Later  this 
movement spread to Jharkhand and Orissa. 

5. Appiko Movement 

● Year: 1983 
● Place: Uttara Kannada and Shimoga districts of Karnataka State 
● Leaders: Appiko’s greatest strengths lie in it being neither driven by a 
personality nor having been formally institutionalised. However, it does 
have a facilitator in Pandurang Hegde. He helped launch the movement in 
1983. 
● Aim: Against the felling and commercialization of natural forest and the 
ruin of ancient livelihood. 

What  was  it  all  about:  ​It  can  be  said  that  the  Appiko  movement  is  the  southern 
version  of  the  Chipko  movement.  The  Appiko  Movement  was  locally  known  as  “Appiko 
Chaluvali”.  The  locals  embraced  the  trees  which  were  to  be  cut  by  contractors  of  the 
forest  department.  The  Appiko  movement  used  various  techniques  to  raise  awareness 
such  as  foot  marches  in  the  interior  forest,  slide  shows,  folk  dances,  street  plays  etc. 
The  second  area  of  the  movement’s  work  was  to  promote  afforestation  on  denuded 
lands.  The  movement  later  focused  on  the  rational  use  of  the  ecosphere  through 
introducing  alternative  energy  resources  to  reduce  pressure  on  the  forest.  The 
movement became a success. The current status of the project is – stopped. 

6. Narmada Bachao Andholan (NBA) 

● Year: 1985 
● Place: ​Narmada​ River, which flows through the states of Gujarat, Madhya 
Pradesh and Maharashtra. 
● Leaders: Medha Patker, Baba Amte, adivasis, farmers, environmentalists 
and human rights activists. 
 ● Aim: A social movement against a number of large dams being built across 
the N
​ armada​ River. 

What  was  it  all  about:  ​The  movement  first  started  as  a  protest  for  not  providing 
proper  rehabilitation  and  resettlement  for  the  people  who  have  been  displaced  by  the 
construction  of  ​Sardar  Sarovar  Dam.  Later  on,  the  movement  turned  its  focus  on  the 
preservation  of  the  environment  and  the  ecosystems  of  the  valley.  Activists  also 
demanded  the  height  of  the  dam  to  be  reduced  to  88  m  from  the  proposed  height  of 
130m.  The  World  Bank  withdrew  from  the  project.  The  environmental  issue  was  taken 
into  court.  In  October  2000,  the  Supreme  Court  gave  a  judgment  approving  the 
construction  of  the  Sardar  Sarovar  Dam  with  a  condition  that  the  height  of  the  dam 
could  be  raised  to  90  m.  This  height  is  much  higher  than  the  88  m  which  anti-dam 
activists  demanded,  but  it  is  definitely  lower  than  the  proposed  height  of  130  m.  The 
project  is  now  largely  financed  by  the  state  governments  and  market  borrowings.  The 
project  is  expected  to  be  fully  com​pleted  by  2025.  Although not successful, as the dam 
could  not  be  prevented,  the  NBA  has  created  an  anti-big  dam  opinion  in  India  and 
outside.  It  questioned  the  paradigm  of  development.  As  a  democratic  movement,  it 
followed the Gandhian way 100 per-cent. 

7. Tehri Dam Conflict 

  

● Year: 1990’s 
● Place: Bhagirathi River near Tehri in Uttarakhand. 
● Leaders: Sundarlal Bahuguna 
● Aim: The protest was against the displacement of town inhabitants and 
environmental consequence of the weak ecosystem. 

Tehri  dam  attracted  national  attention  in  the  1980s  and  the  1990s.  The  major 
objections  include,  seismic  sensitivity  of  the  region,  submergence of forest areas along 
with  Tehri  town  etc.  Despite  the  support  from  other  prominent  leaders  like  Sunderlal 
Bahuguna,  the  movement  has  failed  to  gather  enough  popular  support  at  national  as 
well as international levels. 

 
OTHER MOVEMENTS:- 

1. REAPING A CHANGE 

Navdanya Movement, 1982 

Whether  it’s  about  empowering  women  or  anti-globalisation  campaigns,environmental 

activist  Vandana  Shiva  has  always  had  an  upper  hand  in  her  fights  against  the 
authorities.  Her  ecofeminist  movement  reinstated  a  farming  system  centred  on 
engaging  women,changing  the  current  system.She  founded  Navdanya  in  1982,  an 
organisation  promoting  biodiversity  conservation  and  organic farming.The organisation 
has  not  only  helped  create  markets  for  farmers,  but  also  promoted  quality  food  for 
consumers, connecting the seed to the cooked food. 

2. AVERTING DISASTER 

Saving the Western Ghats, 1988 

Home  to  sanctuaries  like  Bandipur  and  Nagarhole,  Western  Ghats, a biological treasure 

trove,  was struck by an epidemic— deforestation in the 1980s. “The Union Government’s 
Forest  Department  estimates  that  within  the  last  three  decades,  4.5  million  hectares of 
forests  or  an  area  the  size  of  Tamil  Nadu  has  vanished,”  said  ​India  Today  in  March 
1982.  The  Kailash  Malhotraled  Save  the  Western  Ghats  march,  a  100-day  padayatra 
across  the  hills,  succeeded  in imparting the message of environmental degradation and 
human rights. 
 

 
Environmental movements in Indian framework:
In Indian context, a huge number of environmental movements have emerged in India

especially after the 1970s and 1980s. In this framework Sahu, Geetanjoy (2007) stated

that:

In India, the environmental movement has grown rapidly over the last three to four

decades. It has played a key role in three areas such as,

1. In creating public awareness about the importance of bringing about a balance

between environment and development.

2. In opposing developmental projects that are inimical to social and environmental

concerns.

3. In organizing model projects that show the way forward towards non-bureaucratic

and participative, community-based natural resource management systems

(Sahu, Geetanjoy 2007).

Environmental movement

The environmental movement (a term that sometimes includes the conservation and green movements)
is a diverse scientific, social, and political movement. In general terms, environmentalists advocate the
sustainable management of resources, and the protection (and restoration, when necessary) of the
natural environment through changes in public policy and individual behavior. In its recognition of
humanity as a participant in ecosystems, the movement is centered around ecology, health, and human
rights. Additionally, throughout history, the movement has been incorporated into religion. The movement
is represented by a range of organizations, from the large to grassroots, but a younger demographic than
is common in other social movements (see green seniors). Because of its large membership, varying and
strong beliefs, the movement is not entirely united. Indeed, some argue that an environmental ethic of at
least some sort is so urgently needed in all quarters that the broader the better. Conversely, disunity can
be a weakness in the face of strong opposition from unsympathetic political and industrial forces.

Free market environmentalism

Free market environmentalism is a theory that argues that the free market, property rights, and tort law
provide the best tools to preserve the health and sustainability of the environment. It considers
environmental stewardship to be natural, as well as the expulsion of pollutors and other aggressors
through individual and class action.

Preservation and conservation

Environmental preservation in the United States is viewed as the setting aside of natural resources to
prevent damage caused by contact with humans or by certain human activities, such as logging, mining,
hunting, and fishing, only to replace them with new human activities such as tourism and recreation.
Regulations and laws may be enacted for the preservation of natural resources.
Dark Greens, Light Greens, and Bright Greens

Contemporary environmentalists are often described as being split into three groups: Dark, Light, and
Bright Greens.

Light Greens see protecting the environment first and foremost as a personal responsibility. They fall in
on the reformist end of the spectrum introduced above, but light Greens do not emphasize
environmentalism as a distinct political ideology, or even seek fundamental political reform. Instead they
often focus on environmentalism as a lifestyle choice. The motto "Green is the new black." sums up this
way of thinking, for many.

In contrast, Dark Greens believe that environmental problems are an inherent part of industrialized
civilization evident in both state socialist and capitalist societies, and seek radical political change. As
discussed earlier, 'dark greens' tend to believe that dominant political ideologies (sometimes referred to
as industrialism) are corrupt and inevitably lead to consumerism, alienation from nature and resource
depletion. Dark Greens claim that this is caused by the emphasis on growth that exists within all existing
ideologies, a tendency referred to as ‘growth mania’. The dark green brand of environmentalism is
associated with ideas of Deep Ecology, Post-materialism, Holism, the Gaia Theory of James Lovelock
and the work of Fritjof Capra.
More recently, a third group may be said to have emerged in the form of Bright Greens. This group
believes that radical changes are needed in the economic and political operation of society in order to
make it sustainable, but that better designs, new technologies and more widely distributed social
innovations are the means to make those changes-- and that we can neither shop nor protest our way to
sustainability. As Ross Robertson writes, "[B]right green environmentalism is less about the problems and
limitations we need to overcome than the “tools, models, and ideas” that already exist for overcoming
them. It forgoes the bleakness of protest and dissent for the energizing confidence of constructive
solutions."

Environmental organizations and conferences

Environmental organizations can be global, regional, national or local; they can be government-run or
private (NGO). Despite a tendency to see environmentalism as an American or Western-centered pursuit,
almost every country has its share of environmental activism. Moreover, groups dedicated to community
development and social justice may also attend to environmental concerns.

 
Indian environmental movements: Why they failed or 
succeeded, and the challenges ahead 
When the majority of human society feels social stress, it does one of three things—1) accept stress 
out of a feeling of helplessness, 2) move away from the stressors in the hope that the stress 
reduces, 3) attempt to reduce the stress or remove the stressor altogether. The third choice is 
usually the least preferred option as it calls for individual sacrifice and collective effort. But once this 
choice is made, it turns into a social or a people’s movement, and that brings longer lasting relief and 
solutions. 

To understand the nature of social stress we need to define the environmental and economic spaces 
that human society operates within, the stresses they have caused and the consequent 
environmental and social movements that they have triggered. 

Economic and environment spaces 

Since hunting gatherings, the production of goods and services for human society happened in the 
economic space. Humans are the only species that have created this space. Raw materials and 
energy are drawn from the environment acting as a “source” space. Wastes, including waste heat, 
are dumped back into the environment, which now acts as a “sink” space. Though the environment 
is the same, its source space is located upstream of the economic space and its sink space is 
located downstream of the economic space. 

Inequality happens in the economic sub-system through institutions that allow for privatization of 
nature and its products and unequal distribution and exchange of energy between regions and 
people of different identities, e.g., sexes, castes, etc (explanation for how this happens is provided in 
other writings). 

People have struggled against inequality for millennia. Yet, they succeeded in overthrowing an 
unequal system only in the early part of the last century in the erstwhile Soviet Union. 

Since the industrial revolution began 300 years ago, the volume of raw materials being extracted 
from the environment and wastes being dumped into it has increased exponentially, putting both the 
source and the sink functions of the environment under stress. Environmental stresses initially 
manifest as local problems, e.g., scarcity of firewood in Kurnool or drinking water at Kolleru Lake, or 
high pollution levels around thermal power plants such as Ramagundem. Accordingly, people’s 
responses are local–they can choose to suffer the environmental injury and allow their quality of life 
to degrade, or migrate out of the area or fight to mitigate the problem. All three choices entail a cost 
to people. 

Environmental issues arise from injury or the possible injury to the structure and functioning of 
source and sink spaces of the environment and the processes they support, e.g., geomorphology, 
climate, biogeochemical cycles, habitat size and quality, terrestrial and aquatic ecology, human 
society. Depending on the nature of injury, environmental issues may arise at the local, regional or 
the global level, or all of them. 

The understanding of what constitutes “injury” is where major differences exist between various 
stakeholders, which gives rise to conflict between them. Environmental issues are different from 
economic and human rights issues. The latter pertain only to humans, but are often intertwined with 
environmental issues. Environmental injury invariably impacts the economy and human rights as 
well. For example, if the rainfall of an area decreases it will impact agriculture. In a water stressed 
area, the privileged will commandeer more scarce water resources, leaving the less privileged to 
make do with less water, or migrate out of the area, which in turn creates human rights issues. 

Only a small fraction of local environmental struggles succeed 

Of the people’s movements listed above, and many others not included above, few have succeeded in 
achieving what they had set out to do, whereas most failed. Environmental movements in India have had 
a better chance of succeeding when: 

● The battle is against a private entity and the state is not directly involved in the conflict, 
e.g., battles against the Dahanu power plant and the Bichidi chemical plant succeeded 
largely due to this reason. 
  
 ● Action is taken soon after a project is proposed and well before it is granted an 
environmental clearance, e.g., the building of Udupi power plant was halted for this reason. 
  

● People are united and show their willingness to fight, e.g., proposed projects in Sompeta, 
Kakarapalli, and Niyamgiri could be stopped only because the people there were united. 
The groundwater pollution in Plachimada too could be stopped for this reason. The 
proposed thermal power plant in Udupi could not be built for 10 years as the movement 
against it was strong. However, 10 years later the movement weakened due to people 
getting exhausted and some traders siding with the proposed power plant. The Udupi 
Power Corporation was then able to build its plant. 
  

● When there is a very strong legal case made out against an offender, e.g., iron ore mining 
companies in Goa and Bellary were stopped largely through strong legal action backed by 
good technical data and arguments. 
  

Many environmental battles in India failed for the following reasons: 

● India is a low price and low value of life nation. Injury compensation cases have invariably 
failed for this reason. The failure to get a reasonable compensation for the Bhopal gas 
victims or have them satisfactorily rehabilitated medically and economically and have site 
cleanup done can be traced to this reason. 
  

● Local self governments having weak decision-making power over their environments. 
Despite several resolutions passed by the Plachimada panchayat opposing the offending 
plant, the Kerala High Court overruled the panchayat resolutions and gave the offending 
 plant permission to continue its operations. The same story is repeated in several places, 
including Udupi, Western Ghats, etc. 
  

● Environmental movements often fail because they lack sufficient technical information and 
data about the impacts of environmental stressors and therefore do not know what kind of 
demands to make. E.g., antagonists of thermal power plants have never raised demands 
regarding impacts of such plants on crop yields, cattle health, monuments, water bodies, 
forests, groundwater contamination due to ash pond leacheates. Likewise, 
environmentalists attempting to protect the Western Ghats have not see the relationship 
between long range transported acidic gases that will cause forest dieback in the Western 
Ghats and thus alter water flow in the major eastward flowing rivers such as Krishna, 
Godavari and the Kaveri, which will trigger conflict between riparian states such as 
Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. 
  

● There is little dialogue and no cooperation between the various types of environmental 
movements, let alone between environmental movements and other pro-people 
movements. Consequently, environmental battles have little support from the general 
public. 
  

● One of the biggest weaknesses of the environmental movement is its acceptance of 
environmental law which provides for no public participation in environmental 
management. The law stands subverted and is almost dysfunctional. Asking regulatory 
authority and industry for transparency and to perform due diligence, which are common 
demands of environmentalists, is meaningless. 
  
Growth and ideologies that support it 

Local and global environmental injuries have the same root cause—overuse of the environment for 
extracting natural resources and dumping wastes. Till the onset of the industrial revolution, the 
harvest of raw materials and dumping of wastes was relatively small. Hence their impacts were 
visible only locally. With the use of fossil fuels, a dense energy source, the exploitation of nature has 
grown exponentially. Consequently human society has now become highly unsustainable. Today 
environmental injury such as global warming and peak oil (a term used to depict not just the peaking 
of oil production followed by a decline, but the rapid exhaustion of non-renewable ores) are visible at 
the global level. 

The two ideologies that have sanctified growth are anthropocentrism and privatization of nature that 
facilitated the development of class society, which in its present form is capitalism. 
Anthropoentrism prioritizes human wants over the needs of all other species and permits humans to 
use an increasing share of nature to the detriment of other species. Capitalism permits the 
bourgeoisie to accumulate surplus at the expense of working people. Both ideologies have 
sanctified a virtuous circle of growth of human activity for 5,000 years. Human sustainability and 
equality are inalienably related to each other as both support growth and a disproportionate 
appropriation of nature’s bounties. The battle for human sustainability and equality are related to 
each other. 

Global tipping points 

Peak oil:​ We have used nearly 40% of the original fossil fuel reserve in the last 300 years, a reserve 
that nature took 300 million years to make. Oil production has peaked and it will exhaust in less than 
50 years, to be followed very soon by gas and coal. Fossil fuels contribute 85% of world’s 
commercial energy and none of the other energy sources—nuclear, hydro, biomass or other 
renewable have the potential to replace them. 
Fossil fuel reserves 

Fuel Original  Remaining  Current annual  R/P 

resource​[1]  reserves  consumption  ratio​[2] 

  ZJ​[3]  % used  ZJ  ZJ/Year  Years 

Coal 26.2  31  18.1  0.17  ~106 

Oil  13.7  54  6.3  0.17  ~37 

Gas  9.8  29  7.0  0.13  ~54 

  

Nearly 100 non-renewable minerals, including cadmium, lead, mercury, titanium and zinc will 
become scarce within the next 30-40 years. In 10 years, a third of the world’s population will face 
severe water scarcity and the other two thirds will be water stressed. Fish catch has declined due to 
ocean desertification. 

Global warming:​ The world has increased commercial energy consumption in 2016-17 by 2.2% over 
the previous year. Energy overdraw has knocked the carbon cycle out of shape and only half the CO​2 
being emitted into the atmosphere is sequestered back to earth; the other half accumulates in the 
atmosphere and is responsible for global warming. If unchecked, global warming will have severe 
impacts, including creating millions of climate refugees, causing massive food and water shortages, 
hunger, malnutrition, increased sickness and mortality, triggering mass species extinction, etc. 
Fixing the carbon cycle will take hundreds of years. 
At the present rate of growth of greenhouse gas emissions, the temperature rise by the year 2100 is 
likely to exceed 3-4​oC
​ . At that level of temperature rise, feedforward mechanisms would kick in and 

warm the earth’s surface even faster, e.g., earth’s albedo decrease due to melting polar caps would 
further decrease the earth’s capacity to reflect incoming solar radiation, which in turn would increase 
global warming. 

Any one of the two tipping points mentioned above; or a third—rampant inequality in the 
world—could cause civilizational regress or collapse. We are truly into a global emergency. 

New outlook for environmental issues 

A new outlook is required for tackling environmental issues. While fighting local environmental 
battles, people’s movements should bear in mind the following: 

Issues at the local level: 

● Link environmental and economic issues:​ The source and sink spaces of the environment 
are inalienably linked to the economic space. Economic and environmental issues must be 
dealt with together and not separately. Therefore, while dealing with local environmental 
issues it is essential to raise issues of inequality as human use of the environment is tilted 
in favour of the rich. Slogans such as “Keep the climate, change the economy” have already 
gained acceptance. 
  

● Link local and global issues:​ Local environmental issues such as resource conservation 
and environmental protection must be linked to global environmental issues such as 
sustainability. Sustainability is both a local and a global issue but can never be achieved at 
the local level alone just as equality cannot be. Anthropocentrism and capitalism are much 
too powerful as ideologies for sustainability and quality to take root locally. 
  

● People friendly development plan:​ Environmental movements are largely reactive in 
nature. They say “no” to a variety of development projects without positing an alternate 
people friendly development plan. It is important to posit an alternative people friendly 
development plan that will move society towards becoming sustainable and equal while 
opposing a people-unfriendly development plan. 
  

● Campaign for laws that give people more control:​ People’s movements must campaign for 
laws that will give more control to people to manage their environments. E.g., people’s 
movements should campaign for environmental impact assessments to be done by 
impacted populations (bystander populations and unions, where brownfield plants exist) 
rather than by project proponents. 
  

● Campaign for law to define unacceptable impact:​ Unacceptable environmental impact is 
not defined by law. Regulatory authorities find it difficult to reject a project proposal, so 
they give environmental clearances for projects with high impacts by putting conditions. 
Project proponents are happy with such clearances as they know how to circumvent them. 
People’s movements should campaign for a definition for unacceptable impact. 
  

● Shut down the Pollution Control Boards (​ PCBs)​:​ PCBs no longer perform their mandated 
duties. They should be shut down and their powers devolved to panchayats and 
municipalities. 
  
 ● Monetary demands: M
​ ovements should ask polluting and risk-bearing plants to give the 
High Court of the state in which a facility is located, a bank guarantee. If a facility causes 
environmental injury, the local population can approach the High Court to make an 
assessment of the quantum of injury and release an appropriate amount to rectify the 
injury. PCBs routinely make industry provide such bank guarantees. 
  

● Compensation for unequal energy exchange, environmental injury by industry to rural 

areas, and city CO​2​ emissions being sequestered by farmlands: ​There is unequal energy 
exchange between urban and rural areas. Moreover, plants that produce goods for urban 
areas, but are located in rural areas, cause significant environmental injury to rural areas. 
Farmlands also sequester CO​2​ that cities generate for which no compensation is paid. 
These environmental services that rural areas perform for urban areas should be valued 
and farmers paid due compensation. It is estimated that Indian farmers are owed ~Rs 5.8 
lakh crores per annum for these services. 
  

● Movements should train themselves to make common sense rather than technical 
demands: ​Technical knowledge of the environmental impact of a project is not as 
important as common sense. E.g., it is important to demand for proposed projects to have 
“zero risk,” “zero liquid discharge,” to put up information boards carrying consent 
conditions and latest environment monitoring data, and maximum vulnerable zone for 
hazardous storages prominently at their main entrance of plants; and that if a plant is 
catering to urban populations, e.g., thermal power plants, that such plants should be 
located in urban areas; ask questions such as how are automatic air quality stations 
superior to passive samplers, demand that plants that draw water from surface streams 
should locate their effluent discharge point upstream of the plant location on the stream 
and locate the raw water intake point downstream of the plant (Ramappa, an illiterate 
farmer, did just that when he was repeatedly told that Harihar Polyfibres had a effluent 
treatment plant that worked satisfactorily, and yet he found that his farm downstream of 
the plant continued to have low yields). If technical demands are made by non-technical 
 persons, the other side gains the upper hand. What people want is a clean and safe 
environment and decision making powers in the management of their environments, and a 
strong demand for this. 
  

Issues at the global level: 

● Sustainability and equality have to be achieved globally:​ Sustainability and equality cannot 
be achieved in one region or country, as they are systemic problems. They have to be 
achieved globally, though a beginning can be made at local levels. 
  

● Future of technology: ​Fossil fuels and a range of non-renewable ores will deplete 
drastically within this century. Technology will rapidly change towards using low energy 
systems and materials based on renewable materials that are products of photosynthesis. 
E.g., plastic will be replaced by materials based on biomass extracts. In making technology 
choices, people’s movements should bear the above in mind to steer society towards 
greater sustainability and equality. 
  

● Eighty percent of remaining fossil fuels should be left in the ground: ​To minimize the 
serious impacts of global warming IPCC scientists have warned that temperature rise over 
pre-industrial times should not exceed 2​o​ To achieve this, 80% of the remaining fossil fuel 
reserve should be left in the ground. People’s movements should bear this in mind while 
forming an opinion on proposed development projects in India. 
  

● Powering down by 55%:​ To become sustainable, human society must forsake 55-60% of 
current commercial energy consumption of ~13.75 Gtoe. Half this reduction can be done 
 even without new renewable energy capacities being added if the following measures are 
taken: a) The world should move towards soft borders, b) Air and private surface transport 
based on fossil fuelled vehicles should be foresaked, c) cities, which are real energy 
guzzlers, should be shrunk to at least half their size. 
  

● Equality:​ The reduced amount of 6 Gtoe of global energy consumption should be 
distributed equally amongst all people in the world. This can be done only if North America 
(Mexico excepted), were to reduce their energy consumption by 90% and Europe, 
Australasia and Japan were to reduce by 75%. 
  

● Discard anthropocentrism and privatization over nature and its products:​ For a 
sustainable, equal and peaceful society, anthropocentrism and capitalism must be 
discarded. Ownership rights should be replaced with usufruct rights. There is no basis for 
ownership rights over nature (energy and other raw materials are products of nature, not by 
humans). 
  

● Sun, the only long-term renewable energy source:​ In the long run, solar energy is the only 
viable renewable energy source that can power human society. There are some technical 
challenges in harnessing solar energy, but many of them can be overcome with greater 
investment in solar energy. 
  

https://www.ecologise.in/2019/02/24/indian-environmental-movements-why-they-failed-or-succeeded
-and-the-challenges-ahead/
The past & present of Indian environmentalism

On the 27th of March 1973 — exactly 40 years ago — a group of peasants in a

remote Himalayan village stopped a group of loggers from felling a patch of
trees. Thus was born the Chipko movement, and through it the modern Indian
environmental movement itself.

The first thing to remember about Chipko is that it was not unique. It was
representative of a wide spectrum of natural resource conflicts in the 1970s
and 1980s — conflicts over forests, fish, and pasture; conflicts about the siting
of large dams; conflicts about the social and environmental impacts of
unregulated mining. In all these cases, the pressures of urban and industrial
development had deprived local communities of access to the resources
necessary to their own livelihood. Peasants saw their forests being diverted by
the state for commercial exploitation; pastoralists saw their grazing grounds
taken over by factories and engineering colleges; artisanal fisherfolk saw
themselves being squeezed out by large trawlers.

Social justice and sustainability

In the West, the environmental movement had arisen chiefly out of a desire to
protect endangered animal species and natural habitats. In India, however, it
arose out of the imperative of human survival. This was an environmentalism of
the poor, which married the concern of social justice on the one hand with
sustainability on the other. It argued that present patterns of resource use
disadvantaged local communities and devastated the natural environment.
Back in the 1970s, when the state occupied the commanding heights of the
economy, and India was close to the Soviet Union, the activists of Chipko and
other such movements were dismissed by their critics as agents of Western
imperialism. They had, it was alleged, been funded and promoted by foreigners
who hoped to keep India backward. Slowly, however, the sheer persistence of
these protests forced the state into making some concessions. When Indira
Gandhi returned to power, in 1980, a Department of Environment was
established at the Centre, becoming a full-fledged Ministry a few years later.
New laws to control pollution and to protect natural forests were enacted.
There was even talk of restoring community systems of water and forest
management.

Meanwhile, journalists and scholars had begun more systematically studying

the impact of environmental degradation on social life across India. The
pioneering reportage of Anil Agarwal, Darryl D’ Monte, Kalpana Sharma, Usha
Rai, Nagesh Hegde and others played a critical role in making the citizenry
more aware of these problems. Scientists such as Madhav Gadgil and A.K.N.
Reddy began working out sustainable patterns of forest and energy use.

Through these varied efforts, the environmentalism of the poor began to enter
school and college pedagogy. Textbooks now mentioned the Chipko and
Narmada movements. University departments ran courses on environmental
sociology and environmental history. Specialist journals devoted to these
subjects were now printed and read. Elements of an environmental
consciousness had, finally, begun to permeate the middle class.

Changing perception

In 1991 the Indian economy started to liberalise. The dismantling of state

controls was in part welcome, for the licence-permit-quota-Raj had stifled
innovation and entrepreneurship. Unfortunately, the votaries of liberalisation
mounted an even more savage attack on environmentalists than did the
proponents of state socialism. Under their influence the media, once so
sensitive to environmental matters, now began to demonise people like Medha
Patkar, leader of the Narmada movement. Influential columnists charged that
she, and her comrades, were relics from a bygone era, old-fashioned leftists
who wished to keep India backward. In a single generation, environmentalists
had gone from being seen as capitalist cronies to being damned as socialist
stooges.

Environmentalists were attacked because, with the dismantling of state

controls, only they asked the hard questions. When a new factory, highway, or
mining project was proposed, only they asked where the water or land would
come from, or what the consequences would be for the quality of the air, the
state of the forests, and the livelihood of the people. Was development under
liberalisation only going to further intensify the disparities between city and
countryside? Before approving the rash of mining leases in central India, or the
large hydel projects being built in the high (and seismically fragile) Himalayas,
had anyone systematically assessed their social and environmental costs and
benefits? Was a system in which the Environmental Impact Assessment was
written by the promoter himself something a democracy should tolerate?
These, and other questions like them, were brushed off even as they were
being asked.

Steady deterioration

Meanwhile, the environment continued to deteriorate. The levels of air pollution

were now shockingly high in all Indian cities. The rivers along which these
cities were sited were effectively dead. Groundwater aquifers dipped alarmingly
in India’s food bowl, the Punjab. Districts in Karnataka were devastated by
open-cast mining. Across India, the untreated waste of cities was dumped on
villages. Forests continued to decline, and sometimes disappeared. Even the
fate of our national animal, the tiger, now hung in the balance.
A major contributory factor to this continuing process of degradation has been
the apathy and corruption of our political class. A birdwatcher herself, friendly
with progressive conservationists such as Salim Ali, Indira Gandhi may have
been the Prime Minister most sensitive (or at least insensitive) to matters of
environmental sustainability. On the other hand, of all Prime Ministers past and
present Dr. Manmohan Singh has been the most actively hostile. This is partly
a question of academic background; economists are trained to think that
markets can conquer all forms of scarcity. It is partly a matter of ideological
belief; both as Finance Minister, and now as Prime Minister, Dr. Singh has
argued that economic growth must always take precedence over questions of
environmental sustainability.

An environmentally literate Prime Minister would certainly help. That said, it is

State-level politicians who are most deeply involved in promoting mining and
infrastructure projects that eschew environmental safeguards even as they
disregard the communities they displace. In my own State, Karnataka, mining
barons are directly part of the political establishment. In other States they act
through leaders of the Congress, the BJP, and regional parties.

In 1928, 45 years before the birth of the Chipko movement, Mahatma Gandhi
had said: “God forbid that India should ever take to industrialisation after the
manner of the West. The economic imperialism of a single tiny island kingdom
(England) is today keeping the world in chains. If an entire nation of 300 million
took to similar economic exploitation, it would strip the world bare like locusts.”

The key phrase in this quotation is ‘after the manner of the West.’ Gandhi knew
that the Indian masses had to be lifted out of poverty; that they needed decent
education, dignified employment, safe and secure housing, freedom from want
and from disease. Likewise, the best Indian environmentalists — such as the
founder of the Chipko movement, Chandi Prasad Bhatt — have been
hard-headed realists. What they ask for is not a return to the past, but for the
nurturing of a society, and economy, that meets the demands of the present
without imperilling the needs of the future.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the finest minds in the environmental movement
sought to marry science with sustainability. They sought to design, and
implement, forest, energy, water and transport policies that would augment
economic productivity and human welfare without causing environmental
stress. They acted in the knowledge that, unlike the West, India did not have
colonies whose resources it could draw upon in its own industrial revolution.

In the mid-1980s, as I was beginning my academic career, the Government of

Karnataka began producing an excellent annual state of the environment
report, curated by a top-ranking biologist, Cecil Saldanha, and with
contributions from leading economists, ecologists, energy scientists, and urban
planners. These scientific articles sought to direct the government’s policies
towards more sustainable channels. Such an effort is inconceivable now, and
not just in Karnataka. For the prime victim of economic liberalisation has been
environmental sustainability.

Corporate interests

A wise, and caring, government would have deepened the precocious,

far-seeing efforts of our environmental scientists. Instead, rational, fact-based
scientific research is now treated with contempt by the political class. The
Union Environment Ministry set up by Indira Gandhi has, as the Economic and
Political Weekly recently remarked, ‘buckled completely’ to corporate and
industrial interests. The situation in the States is even worse.

India today is an environmental basket-case; marked by polluted skies, dead

rivers, falling water-tables, ever-increasing amounts of untreated wastes,
disappearing forests. Meanwhile, tribal and peasant communities continue to
 be pushed off their lands through destructive and carelessly conceived
projects. A new Chipko movement is waiting to be born.

https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-past-present-of-indian-environmentalism/article4551665.
ece

https://www.civilserviceindia.com/subject/Political-Science/notes/social-movements-environmental-m
ovements.html​ notes and information

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_movement

https://www.clearias.com/environmental-movements-in-india/

https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/environment/story/20081229-10-most-powerful-movements-738
539-2008-12-19

https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/a-brief-history-of-the-environmental-movements-in-i
ndia-1518523870-1