Mainstream WeeklyThomas Piketty is a world famous economist known for his emphasis on justice. Srijana Mitra Das of The Times of India is a famous journalist known for her detailed interviews with famous academics and thinkers. So it is nice to see a full page carrying the interview with Thomas Piketty titled ‘India’s growth ambition is valid—99% can get richer without climate disaster’ (see The Times of India, Chandigarh edition, June 10).
This detailed interview has a lot of valuable information for those interested in development economics with emphasis on justice and environment. Prof Piketty, speaking mostly in the context of his work at the Global Justice Project, strongly asserts his confidence in combining climate and justice concerns in such a way that prosperity for all can be achieved at world level within the limits of about 1.8 degree C rise of temperature. This is good news. Most readers will be happy to read this detailed interview.
However there seems to be one problem. What Prof Picketty says is very good, very well-intentioned; the problem arises when you start comparing what he is saying with the reality around us. Once you do this, then what he is saying starts looking less promising. What is more, the bigger problem is that once the less viable solutions get more prominence, then the real solutions or more effective solutions start getting less attention and we continue living in an unrealistic world till it is too late.
However to be fair, let us first consider what the great professor is saying. Unlike what the title of the interview suggests, he is speaking in a global context and only incidentally he says some good things about India which makes readers here happy.
Piketty says that the future growth should be based on the people of the poorer countries increasing their income to levels of the richer ones while richer ones restrain their growth and curb overconsumption, so that over a period of several decades we have almost an equal world. At the same time huge investments should take place for renewable energy to replace fossil fuels. Notions of sufficiency that avoid overconsumption should spread. Goods more harmful for environment, like red meat, should be reduced more. There must be more investment in health and education instead of overemphasizing material goods. There should be a global wealth tax rising to 20% a year on billionaires as well as other such proposals for financing desirable changes by taxing the richest 1% of the population. Similarly resources for climate finance should be raised. While full reparations for colonial plunder and environmental harm cannot be made, nevertheless some significant transfers to the global south should be made. Representation of the global south in financial institutions should increase.
All of this is of course very well-intentioned, stated and argued with the most noble intentions. However one serious doubt may be expressed in the context of relying too much on raising resources from billionaires. Economic models based on inequalities, unjust profits and corrupt deals have led to too much money getting concentrated in the hands of billionaires. We should be resisting this system. However once our own alternative model is based on taking 10 or 20% from billionaires, then instead of resisting them we start becoming supportive of their wealth as only from their riches comes the financing source of model! This will lead to an unhappy marriage of billionaires and justice-seekers.
A much bigger problem relates to the reality of the attitudes of the North towards the Global South. Instead of being in a mood of compensating for colonial plunder and environment destruction, the North has worked to a large extent within the paradigm of neo-colonialism in several of their former colonies in Africa and elsewhere. Whether in trade or investment or other negotiations, or guarding their privileged positions and tax havens, the rich countries have not been guided by any benevolence or justice concerns. Even much of foreign aid has been used for advancing selfish interests. What is given by one hand is often taken away by another in various ways. Many North projects and investments are still ravaging environment in the Global South, generally in the name of development. Any harm caused is not even acknowledged, let alone compensated. On top of all this, recently highly arbitrary tariff impositions have also come. Climate finance has been tardy at best, and much of it has come in the form of loans, not grants. How can we reconcile these realities with the ideal world Prof Piketty imagines?
The learned professor does well to integrate justice and climate concerns, but it must be further realized that climate change is only one of the nearly a dozen most serious, inter-related environmental problems. Hence the exercise of bringing together justice and environment concerns must be a much wider one.
However the most serious problem of recent times, which threatens more and more people, is the ever continuing drift towards war and conflict, and the increasingly more destructive weapons being available for this. Hence the biggest need today is for peace and disarmament. While this is a great objective in terms of safety and protection of people, this will also release huge funds for justice-based development.
What is better—allowing billionaires to earn more billions from military industrial complex, then asking them for 10 or 20%, or disallowing such harmful expenditure and bringing the entire 100% for justice-based development?
So on the one hand we should seek a combination of peace, justice and protection of environment, on the other hand the combination of justice and protection of environment must also widen.
The biggest and most disturbing reality of our times is that wars, most destructive weapons and nearly a dozen environmental problems will take humanity (as well as other forms of life) towards an existential crisis and a survival crisis unless determined and extensive steps involving very high levels of international cooperation are taken soon. Without taking into account such complex and difficult realities, talking of bringing prosperity for all in a few decades in a simplistic way can take away focus from the more difficult realities and bigger challenges that confront us. The challenges before us are more grim and complex, and billionaires are the last species towards whom to look for salvation, even if this is only for taxes.
(Author: Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Save the Earth Now Campaign. His recent books include Planet in Peril, Protecting Earth for Children and A Day in 2071. His website is bharatdogra. in His YouTube channel is Bharat Dogra Save Earth Campaign)