There are No Win-Win Solutions
Indian conglomerates rushing to invest in renewable energy obscure dirtier practices of ecological damage and labour injustice.
The Indian photovoltaic (PV) cells market is estimated to be one of the most “cost-efficient” in the world due to a combination of high competition, cheap labour availability and land subsidies provided by the government. Source: PVTech
A glance at the Adani group’s website is bound to at least somewhat ease the crippling anxiety that accompanies thoughts of the ongoing climate crisis. Their homepage appears modern and sleek, boasting words like ‘sustainability’ and ‘goodness’ with impressive shots of humongous solar farms, in addition to video testimonials of seemingly content farmers.
The Adani Group is a leading player in the renewable energy sector in India and aims to lead the global renewable energy sector by 2030, according to a LinkedIn post by Chairman Gautam Adani.
In the same post, Gautam Adani describes how the group wants to lead the global move towards offsetting carbon emissions and that it is aiming for a three-fold growth in its renewable energy assets by 2025. Additionally, he writes that the key project to help facilitate this transition is the expansion of the capacity of their solar manufacturing plant in Mundra, from 1.3 GW to 3.5 GW.
Not only is Mundra the site where Adani wants to realize his dream of increasing the group’s commitment to renewable energy, importantly, the coastal town is also where his conglomerate was previously involved in a major environmental controversy.
In 2013, an environmental ministry investigation found that the group had violated multiple regulations which caused widespread destruction of mangroves, blocking of creeks, and potential contamination of groundwater by saline discharges. The ministry imposed a fine of Rs. 200 crore ($31m) on the conglomerate — a demand that was withdrawn in 2015 after Gautam Adani’s close friend Narendra Modi became Prime Minister of the country. Meanwhile, the local fishing communities continue to suffer as their source of livelihood was decimated by Adani’s flagrant disregard for any social or environmental ramifications.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a charted flight with businessmen Gautam Adani (left) and Vibhav Kant Upadhyay (centre). Between 2003 and 2007, Modi, as the Gujarat CM, took about 100 chartered flights worth Rs 16 crore. Source: vibhav.org via The Wire
Mundra is not an exception - the Adani group has come into conflict with many environmental groups and local communities across the country. The Hazira Fishermen Committee filed a petition that Adani’s port expansion damaged local ecology and displaced over 300 families. Village locals in Godda in Jharkhand have also sued the group for using police intimidation, bribery and threats and acquiring their land for a fraction of its actual price. The list goes on.
A Classic Case of Greenwashing
“Adani is not alone by any means: other conglomerates like Tata and Unilever also greenwash their environmentally damaging practices by using words like ‘sustainable’...”
Adani’s example demonstrates how greenwashing manifests itself in practice. Although the Adani group markets itself as an environmentally conscious corporation that cares about natural resources and people, in reality, its business practices are very harmful and exploitative. Adani is not alone by any means: other conglomerates like Tata and Unilever also greenwash their environmentally damaging practices by using words like ‘sustainable’ and serene images of turtles and forests on their website.
These examples highlight the deep link between capitalism and environmental destruction. In a system where “greed is good” and nature and people are mere ‘inputs’, why would a company truly care about how their practices affect the biosphere or the livelihoods of indigenous people?
Prominent environmentalists like Naomi Klein, author of the book ‘This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the Climate’, make a similar argument and are critical of capitalism’s incessant obsession with profit and growth, given that we live on a planet with finite resources. Some even argue that a complete takedown of the system is necessary for any environmental progress.
The truth, however, is that time is running out. According to a 2018 report by The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we have a mere 10 years to decrease greenhouse gas emissions so that average global temperatures don’t rise above the 1.5°C threshold. Crossing this threshold is expected to lead to large scale flooding of coastal cities, mass migration to cooler regions, widespread extinctions of flora and fauna, and devastation of the world’s ecology on an unimaginable scale. Moreover, according to many, we are already seeing the effects of human-induced global warming in the form of increasing droughts, super cyclones, and wildfires.
Uprooting the current system altogether and rebuilding a new one that doesn’t exploit the planet’s natural resources would undoubtedly take a lot longer than 10 years. Given the short time frame that we have, it’s unrealistic to wait for a radical social transformation without taking serious steps to address climate change now.
Can Capitalism Solve the Climate Crisis?
In his essay ‘A Radical Approach to the Climate Crisis’, Christian Parenti recognizes the urgency of the climate catastrophe and distinguishes all environmental damage from the specific problem of rising greenhouse gas emissions, which is primarily responsible for global warming and climate change. He writes, “Because of its magnitude, the climate crisis can appear as the sum total of all environmental problems — deforestation, overfishing, freshwater depletion, soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, chemical contamination. But halting greenhouse gas emissions is a much more specific problem, the most pressing subset of the larger apocalyptic panorama.”
Among other actions, a crucial step for decreasing greenhouse gas emissions is moving away from non-renewable energy sources such as coal, which is the single largest contributor from the power sector accounting for 30% of all energy-related carbon dioxide emissions. Parenti contends that it’s possible to transition from non-renewables to renewables even within the current capitalist system but further clarifies that if markets were to facilitate this transition, it won’t take place unless clean energy is cheaper and more profitable than fossil fuel.
Jal Satyagrah (Water Resistance) at Khardana village in Madhya Pradesh in response to the Narmada Valley Project, which involved the construction of several large irrigation and hydroelectric multi-purpose dams on the Narmada river. Source: PTI via Outlook
However, the limitations of this argument are laid bare in the context of India. Currently in India, renewable energy costs are 20-30% lower than the cost of generating power through coal. According to Kanika Chawla, a policy specialist at the energy think tank Council on Energy, Environment and Water, “The prices of renewable energy are on the decline… in fact, they’re on an aggressive decline. The situation now on the ground is that if you’re going to invest in the power sector, you should invest in renewables. It’s where you’ll get the most bang for your buck”.
“...from the perspective of a private company wanting to invest in renewables India’s regulatory structure is quite lucrative.”
Chawla added that from the perspective of a private company wanting to invest in renewables in India, the country’s regulatory structure is quite lucrative. In fact, many investors and banks don’t see the thermal power sector as an attractive option anymore. For instance, Tata Power announced that they won’t be building another coal-fired plant and will be focusing on investing in renewable energy instead.
Declining prices of renewable energy explain the burgeoning interest of conglomerates like Adani and Tata in the industry, leading to the suggestion that private actors may be able to lead the transition to renewable energy. However, pushing for more and more privatization of the electricity sector, which is the direction that the current BJP government is heading in, has major drawbacks. Win-win solutions promised by corporations often obscure a much dirtier reality of illegal land acquisitions and serious damage to local ecology and people’s livelihoods, as evidenced by the various accusations and reports against Adani. Additionally, increasing privatization doesn’t do justice to those who will be most impacted by the transition to renewable energy — labour.
A Just Transition for Indian Labour
In their essay, ‘Energy and Climate Change: A Just Transition for Labour’, Roy et al. contend that the increasing role of the private sector during the transition to renewable energy in India presents significant challenges, as it means a weakening of labour unions and thus, the sidelining of labour issues. Further, they discuss how entire economies of coal-producing states, like Jharkhand, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, and Chattisgarh are oriented around coal, which means that their residents will be the most impacted by the transition to renewables. As such, increasing privatization, which is inhospitable to labour unionization and other labour issues, as well as increasing contractualization of workers (another trend in the energy sector) is severely detrimental to workers whose lives are intertwined with the energy sector.
The ‘All India General Strike’ on 8th January 2020 was called by 10 of the largest trade unions in India against the privatization of Public Sector Undertakings (PSU) and the deregulation of labour laws in India. Source: REUTERS/Rupak De Chowdhuri via Medium
Instead, the writers put forth a proposal by NTUI (New Trade Union Initiative) which seeks to link “the dialogue on emissions with a social justice and development perspective and not see them as mutually exclusive”. Their first proposition is to bring renewables within a public sector undertaking (PSU) framework to ensure that the benefits of the transition to renewable energy are distributed socially. Additionally, they demand that workers currently in the thermal power sector be retrained and employed in the renewable sector. Importantly, they see the two issues as interlinked and write that “a push for public ownership can also help formalize jobs and promote a union-friendly environment.”
“NTUI’s proposal also includes a framework for setting up “decentralized energy collectives” to work in conjunction with local people...”
NTUI’s proposal also includes a framework for setting up “decentralized energy collectives” to work in conjunction with local people and take into account possible environmental consequences and negative ramifications to their livelihood. Further, these energy collectives will ensure that locals are provided access to the electricity being produced by them, and that it’s affordable and efficient.
Tearing down the current exploitative system before addressing climate change is impractical as it doesn’t take into account the very limited time frame that climate science has put forth. At the same time, although markets can technically tackle greenhouse gas emissions, since renewable energy sources are now cheaper than coal, increasing privatization of the electricity sector presents significant issues. Even corporations that are leaders in the clean energy sector greenwash their crimes of harming local ecology and the livelihoods of local people. Moreover, privatization is harmful to workers, the people who will be most impacted by the transition to renewable energy.
Roy et al. offer a third way out, one that proposes to bring renewables under a public sector undertaking (PSU) framework, which will promote a union-friendly environment and thus, ensure that workers play a key role in the transition to renewable energy. Working within a ‘climate justice’ framework that links global warming to questions of inequality and social justice, they ask whether the transition to clean energy will reinforce existing unequal structures or reform and revolutionize them? They make a case for linking emission reductions with addressing social inequality and end with the important reminder that “there is not only a world to save, but a world to win.”
Kudrat Wadhwa is an independent writer and journalist based in Punjab, India.