India, the Nano and Development

2 Apr

The auto world was abuzz this week as Indian carmaker Tata Motors unveiled the Nano, a four-door, pint-sized sedan that will soon go on sale in India. Beyond its diminutive stature and no-frills interior, the Nano is turning heads because of its price: 100,000 rupees or a mere $2,500 USD. Sales projections still vary wildly, but many analysts agree that the hyper-affordable Nano could bring car ownership – and its social prestige – to a vast swath of rapidly developing India.

The Tata Nano

The Tata Nano

There is, naturally, a downside to this otherwise feel-good story. Despite weighing only 600 kilograms and sporting a tiny 624cc engine, the Nano is still a conventionally fueled car. And although Tata Motors has outfitted it with a catalytic converter and boasts 50 mpg efficiency, this eco-friendly profile may be vastly outweighed by the millions of new drivers it may put on the roads. Environmentalists are still struggling to calculate the effect this development will have on greenhouse gas emissions (and global energy supplies), but the picture doesn’t look good so far: “This car promises to be an environmental disaster of substantial proportions,” said Yale’s Daniel Esty.

The Nano debate is only a tiny facet of a much larger and fairly acrimonious controversy over the tension between emissions reductions and environmental stewardship on one hand and the right to develop and attain first-world standards of living on the other. In the environmental community, some scientists and public intellectuals advocate strict planet-wide reductions, including regulations that mandate significant cuts on the part of developing nations and punitive measures such as carbon taxes and other sectoral norms. International development and human rights workers oppose this view, arguing that inflexible emissions cuts risk keeping nations perpetually in “developing” mode.

How can we resolve this impasse? Is it even resolvable? Environmental advocates make a point that is difficult to refute: if we are truly worried about climate change and its impacts, then we should take any action necessary to reduce our emissions – even if it means economic burden on already burdened states. Nor is it fair that some nations’ hard work can be undone by the developing world: one estimate says that the reductions made by every Kyoto country will be nullified by China by year 2010.

If the environmentalists’ arguments are hard to reject, so too are those of the development advocates. After all, who wants to be the person to tell an upwardly mobile family in India, or China, or Cambodia that they cannot enjoy the same benefits of their income that a Western family can? Vishal Bhatia, an Indian commenter on the Nano dispute, summed up why he wants one: “I’m buying it because it gives a sense of freedom.”

Today, this dispute leans somewhat in favor of the UN’s George Kell, who said, “You can’t deny emerging markets the right to the same living standards as OECD countries.” This definition of the “good life” and upward mobility is based in the experience and priorities of Western economies. Is there a bridge that offers synergy between individual desires and public needs or corporate desires and environmental consequences?

Advertisements

One Response to “India, the Nano and Development”

  1. Sanjay April 2, 2009 at 8:32 pm #

    “Nor is it fair that some nations’ hard work can be undone by the developing world”

    What rubbish! Those very same nations are the ones who have created Global Warming in the first place, and not the developing world. They have been spewing out smog for the past 300 years, and now expect to be congratulated for their ‘hard work’. Sorry, but the developing world has the right to catch up and provide their citizenry with better quality of life, and those who have already achieved that quality of life ahead of everyone else — by colonizing and enslaving others, and by spewing out smog for 300 years, no less — have zero credibility in lecturing others. These very lectures should themselves be classified as noxious emissions.

    The average American uses 30 times more energy than the average Indian, and this has been going on for centuries.

    If Tata had cured 3rd world hunger of infant mortality, some would be cursing him for negatively impacting the environment. I find such assertions to be despicable and racist in the extreme. We 3rd world people have a right to transportation options too, and don’t have to put up with these hypocritical “do as I say and not as I do” lectures.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: