- As Thar would attest — not so merry after all
In the nursery rhyme we grew up with, Old King Cole was decidedly the kind of monarch Pakistanis would have loved: pipe, fiddlers, bowl and all — a merry old soul indeed.
As adults, though, the mention of the abundant king of global power production — for all that it may share a name with the merry monarch — is turning out to be anything but.
In February 2019, Pakistan’s Fisher Folk Community has announced, it will be partnering with civil society organisations to organise a two-week protest called the “Anti-Thar Coal People’s Caravan.”
This is hardly a surprise. The coal power projects that are a part of the much-hyped CPEC project have been heralded by many as a much-awaited milestone in Pakistan’s development. And yet, it has also garnered much criticism. It’s a mixed bag of fish.
On the one hand, we have the members of government (both provincial and federal) and other high ranking authorities who are very pleased with themselves. Following a recent visit, even the Chief Justice seemed happy – and well, if the Supreme Court’s happy, I guess a lot of politicians take the chance to breathe a sigh of relief.
The projects, as announced recently by Sindh’s CM Murad, are four months ahead of schedule. Originally, he pointed out, it had been estimated that year-end 2018 would see 88 percent of the mining work completed. The achievement stands at 94 percent — with the current depth of the mines at 154 meters. Employment is up – of the 3,584 people currently employed by the mining project alone, 3,329 are Pakistanis (of which 2,364 are Tharis) as a direct result of these projects. Of the royalties generated, which the CM estimated would be Rs1.8 billion, the amount in total is to go to Thar’s development.
On the other hand, while coal may still be king in the dominant global energy conversation, it is hardly the saviour one would think it is.
In February 2019, Pakistan’s Fisher Folk Community has announced, it will be partnering with civil society organisations to organise a two-week protest called the “Anti-Thar Coal People’s Caravan”
Coal is a contributor to many health-related issues, activists and concerned parties have often argued, contributing not only to Pakistan’s clean air problem, but also to premature deaths. The mining process itself, argued SEPA (Sindh Environmental Protection Agency) Deputy Director Muneer Abbassi, would increase levels of solid waste, air emissions and cause a rise in occupational health safety hazards because of its contributions to gas emissions, smoke, and the ambient air quality.
Besides the PFF, residents of Tharparkar have also raised concerns about the effect of the mining process on agricultural lands and have voiced concerns in the media regarding the saline water reservoir, stating that it was taking its toll on the entire environment and ecology of the region
In addition, activists are quick to shut down queries regarding the use of “clean coal” — the term used to describe coal that has been treated with chemicals in order to refine it, thus making it environmentally friendlier than its current, less processed counterpart. The reason is simple: because any attempts to cash in on this process have failed to live up to their environmental promises — regularly. Clean coal, as a Reuters report published by the IEEFA pointed out, simply isn’t.
To sum up, coal is, in essence, not good for the environment, not good for agricultural development, not good for our health – simply not good, period.
But the Pakistani governments of the past have dedicated years to seeing the CPEC come to life and coal is a big part of that. And with large corporations like extractors Shell Pakistan and General Electric throwing their support behind a future that is powered by a partnership between fossil fuels and renewable energy instead of simply renewable energy as activists would love – that seems like the direction this new government is going to take as well. As activist and lawyer Abuzar Salman Khan Niazi pointed out – “No one is going to give up on CPEC – that’s just imagination.”
And the sad truth is: Pakistan needs the power – and the resulting royalties. And, clean or not, it looks like coal is where we’re headed. Especially considering that China, despite making efforts to shift towards clean energy as was recently reported, is seemingly only incentivising Pakistan towards the opposite.
Talking to a group of journalists attending a training session at RENMIN University in Beijing, Professor Xu Guangjian, a Chinese scholar, said that Pakistan could only benefit from the China-US trade war and that CPEC would only aid that effort.
That brings us to a situation that is less black and white than we would like it to appear.
Yes, Pakistan already has a lack of clean air. Coal extraction is only adding to the host of problems including health problems, the livelihood of fisherfolk, salination of fertile lands and disturbance of burial sites.
Also: yes, Pakistan also needs power. Making demands of “keep (fossil fuels) in the ground” therefore seem impractical in the face of Pakistan’s energy crisis. We don’t just need power, we need to rebuild entire industries with it, and we need to make it financially feasible in order to finally have growth that is sustainable. Or, if one is to stay in vein with the PM’s recent national address, as someone pointed out very recently to me: “Hum nein murghi halal nahin karni – hum nein anday khanay hain.”
And sure, the rest of the world can point all the fingers they want (no one is happy with CPEC’s economic and foreign policy impacts and what that means for shifting regional and global politics) but when it comes to climate conversations, we should take a good, long look at the rest of the holier than thou free world too.
For instance: CoP24 was hyped as the most historic climate conference since the Paris Climate Change Agreement. Here are two facts that may not have made the social media feeds:
- It was held in Katowice, Poland – the country’s coal capital – and was sponsored by coal companies.
- Videos that were produced by environmental groups with the aim of being played for the thousands of participants at the UN summit were banned by the organizers – in what campaigners have called blatant censorship – because the content mentioned fossil fuels, and included phrases such as “dirty energy”, “prohibit participation of fossil fuel corporations” and asked “why are politicians still approving pipelines, coal plants and fracking?”.
Such behaviour understandably draws ire and skepticism to the entire process itself – from green campaigners and affectees alike.
Coal, many would then argue, would be here to stay. A fossil fuel free future, as Shazia Farooqi pointed out in a recent article for a Pakistani daily, is akin to a “mirage in the desert.” And yet, the fact persists that it cannot be our long term solution.
How then do we interpret this?
Simply put, we now need a realistic option that is financially viable but environmentally sound and also socially responsible. That will require three things: financial backing, influence and in no small part: the pressure of an increasingly aware public.
Small scale, single point agenda campaigns are not a novel concept in Pakistan. Other than alternative transport movements such as those mentioned in previous articles, efforts have been made to set up small scale solar power projects in different areas of the country (10 villages in Sahiwal alone serve as an example). However, considering that these efforts required corporate financing and assistance – and that their removal from climate talks is considered a neccessity by activists – one must look towards the government.
As Abuzar points out: the State is the mother, and the trustee of the public trust.
“We are owed reparations from the developed countries contributing to climate change,” he says, “- and those cannot be included in humanitarian financial aid packages or handouts – those need to be funded separately and immediately.”
The current government, he concluded, needed to be canny in its approach to international relations. Negotiations need to include financial packages aimed at remuneration from developed countries – the main contributors to this mess.
Logically, it stands that the state must also work with the civil society and experts to find better solutions to our energy crisis that are still financially viable.
And in the meantime?
In the meantime efforts made by the PFF and the civil society need to be applauded. Considering the blatant attempts at corporate capture of, and influence on, climate talks, it’s easy to grow disheartened regarding the real change protests and activism can cause. What we must remember is that like all change, this too will not be achieved overnight – it will be slow to come, and painfully slow. But, like in all other things, change here, too, is inevitable – what matters is that we continue to remind, encourage and educate society about just why it is necessary.
