The Commonwealth games are over - and despite all the concern in the lead up to the games, they appear to have gone off fairly well. After all, the headline "India comes second in medals tally" is a much better outcome than what many might have expected, such as "Stadium floodlights collapse killing athletes lined up for 100m final". Of course, you did have the odd case of Delhi Belly but that was perhaps to be expected - I'm sure the athletes from Jamaica and Fiji were fine with the food and water.
The loser in all of this has to be Suresh Kalmadi. Or should it be Sureshhhhhhhhh? If there was one thing he should have done from the start, it would have been to talk less and do more. But then, that is the trademark of every Indian politician, starting with Rajiv Gandhi's famous "Humne dekha, hum dekh rahe hain, hum dekhenge" - the idea that words can somehow magically correct a situation without any hope of recovery. Perhaps they were imitating Churchill who promised to give "blood, sweat, toil and tears" - except that had he not delivered on those words, the capital of the UK would likely be Londonburg or Londdorf. Instead, Kalmadi not only continued to say that everything was ok, he even had the temerity to suggest that the next host city, Glasgow, would not be able to host the games on the scale of Delhi. I guess if he means that they would not be able to marshal 1 lakh workers to clean up everything in a matter of days, then he's probably right. They would probably have everything ready 6 months ahead of time.
But, then again, the "just in time" philosophy, that the Japanese have utilized with much success in manufacturing, has found its true home in India, where there appears to be this rush of excitement for doing everything in a hurry. Promises and commitments are made, and when they are found to be slipping, the default solution is to utilize the mammoth workforce within the country. The famous quote by Nehru that India's population would be its strength, as opposed to its weakness, is never more alive today, now that we have more than four times the population we did at Independence. With the ability to bring so many people together to get a job done, there is almost no value to be gained from executing a task to a plan -after all, if that were done, we would soon realize that you don't need so many people in the first place! As a socialist country, dedicated to providing work opportunities to every single able bodied man and woman (and child), the idea of not needing to use labor would be unthinkable!
The slipshod approach to development contrasts starkly with that seen in China, although there is evidence that our friends to the north of the border can occasionally get it wrong as well (see for example an email chain going around with pictures of a 13 storey building lying on its end because the foundation was barely a few feet deep!) At least in China, the penalty for getting something wrong is severe - you don't see to many builders or architects getting a second chance. In India, it would almost be expected that a major project ends up with several glitches that need to be patched up for years to come.
So now that we are past CWG XIX, let the real games begin - the blame game! That's one where Indians come out far and ahead the winners!
Saturday, 16 October 2010
Mine Kampf
The rescue of the 33 people from deep within the bowels of a mine in Chile will have to go down as the heroic story of the year. One can only imagine what ordeal the men must have faced in the dark, hot cave where they had huddled together to escape the tons of rock and dirt that came crashing down. Those of us used to a hectic pace of life, who cannot even sit still for a few minutes without checking a Blackberry, would probably have gone mad within a day. But these brave souls not only conquered their physical challenges but also the mental demons that no doubt plagued them from very early on. One can only hope that their return to the surface is the end of their trauma, and that being away from human contact for almost 10 weeks does not leave them with life long scars that never heal.
The disaster in Chile is just one of several that have taken place over the past few years across the world, notably those in the US and China. While perhaps greater numbers of people die every year from falls in the house, the thought of a mine accident usually evokes a strong response from just about everyone - the horror of being buried alive is not just confined to the claustrophobic amongst us. And yet people continue to engage in mining as a profession, some as a legacy, others driven by lucrative persuasions, while for many it is simply the only choice they have to eke out a living.
Why does mining exist? For the same reason that agriculture exists - to feed the needs of mankind. The "food" in question are the raw materials for modern societies, the iron, aluminium, coal, copper etc that find their way into thousands of products. Even the hybrid cars of today ultimately rely on mining of lithium to power the batteries. Entire empires have been based on mining, the prime example being that of the Belgian rule in the Congo, whose prime export of copper continues to fuel tensions to this day.
So, as the website of Vale, one of the largest mining groups in the world, states "There is no future without mining", we are well and truly dependent on this source of materials. But what about recycling of those materials? Surely there is a point at which we have all the raw materials we need, and can continue to re-form them into new products? At that stage, you would only need a small amount of new material to augment what is already in use. Of course, then you have to contend with finding employment for a large sector of society - but that is surely a good problem to have, versus trying to figure out how to get 33 miners out of the ground?
The disaster in Chile is just one of several that have taken place over the past few years across the world, notably those in the US and China. While perhaps greater numbers of people die every year from falls in the house, the thought of a mine accident usually evokes a strong response from just about everyone - the horror of being buried alive is not just confined to the claustrophobic amongst us. And yet people continue to engage in mining as a profession, some as a legacy, others driven by lucrative persuasions, while for many it is simply the only choice they have to eke out a living.
Why does mining exist? For the same reason that agriculture exists - to feed the needs of mankind. The "food" in question are the raw materials for modern societies, the iron, aluminium, coal, copper etc that find their way into thousands of products. Even the hybrid cars of today ultimately rely on mining of lithium to power the batteries. Entire empires have been based on mining, the prime example being that of the Belgian rule in the Congo, whose prime export of copper continues to fuel tensions to this day.
So, as the website of Vale, one of the largest mining groups in the world, states "There is no future without mining", we are well and truly dependent on this source of materials. But what about recycling of those materials? Surely there is a point at which we have all the raw materials we need, and can continue to re-form them into new products? At that stage, you would only need a small amount of new material to augment what is already in use. Of course, then you have to contend with finding employment for a large sector of society - but that is surely a good problem to have, versus trying to figure out how to get 33 miners out of the ground?
Thursday, 14 October 2010
The next clean fuel
The great race to find a clean energy source that will end the dependence on foreign oil has thrown up several candidates - hybrids, electric-only, fuel cell, even hydrogen. While each of these has its own challenges in terms of safety, cost, reliability etc, the biggest hurdle in each case is on the demand side. Consider that the car market worldwide is about a 500 million vehicles. If you wanted to embrace a new form of energy, you would need to convince car manufacturers and energy companies alike that there was a big enough market to make it worth their while to make a different type of car and provide a different type of fuel.
How big would that market need to be? Probably more than a million, which is about how many hybrids are on the roads nowadays. Let's say its 5 million, or 1% of the total car market. So now you need to bring together 5 million people who would be willing to commit upfront to a new car/fuel combination, and perhaps even put down some money to back up their commitment. Then you have to get the car companies and the energy companies to agree that they will start making these cars in large enough numbers that it provides them a good return on investment and hopefully also leads to additional demand. By now, you have anti-trust lawyers all over this idea and it would be squashed before you can even say so long OPEC!
There is another way to bridge to the future, though, using a fuel that is already available and compatible with the existing transportation infrastructure - diesel (the other clean fuel!) While it is the fuel of choice for most heavy vehicles, diesel has suffered from the belief that it is dirty and noisy and has problems starting under cold conditions, which has made it a non-starter for passenger cars in the US. That might have been the case 30 yrs ago (most fuels were dirty back then!) but today's diesel is probably as clean as you can get (< 10 ppm sulfur in most of Europe and the US, and slowly but inevitably getting there in the rest of the world). And the technology exists to get diesel fuel that flows at even -20F, so unless you are living in the high latitudes (in which case you might consider the need to even drive), you should not really have any problems with diesel
So how do you make the shift from gasoline (petrol) to diesel? To start with, you first need to make sure that the demand for diesel is really there. How do you do that? Not by asking people for their choice. No, that won't work. The only way to really ensure a demand for diesel is to CREATE it. Yes, folks, this has to be a good old fashioned sales job, something that most American companies are good at doing. Savvy marketing has been the driver for most products sold in the US, from humble toothbrushes to fancy electronics. Marketing creates a need even if there was none to begin with - and in this case, there is clearly a need for fuel. So why not put the best minds from Madison Avenue to come up with a marketing campaign for diesel cars and allow Americans to almost overnight boost their fuel economy to levels mandated for 2020?
Of course, once the demand is created, you have to ensure that the supply is also keeping pace. That's a challenge for the 150+ refineries in the country, but once the pricing indicates that diesel is here to stay, every single one of them will start to swing over to make more diesel, as they usually do in the winter. That could mean a glut in the short term and huge drops in price, which would result in even more people switching to diesel.
Car companies have to be part of this too, and not just one or two, but en masse. It would be a win-win for them as well, since they could continue to sell cars with IC engines and not have to change over to an entirely manufacturing process for the drivetrain etc. The smarter ones will make the cars smaller, like they do in Europe, and get even better mileage. The dumb ones like GM will just change what's under the hood but leave everything else the same - but at least they will get a 10% or more boost in fuel economy.
This really is the easiest solution that satisfies everyone from energy and auto companies to politicians to environmentalists (think of all the biodiesel manufacturers suddenly having a huge outlet for their products?). And that's precisely why it will be overlooked. Unfortunately, we seem to believe that the way to the future is about being complicated and trying to engineer a hydrogen powered vehicle or squashing bugs to secrete oil. That maybe the case in a hundred years, but if we want to demonstrate that society can wean itself off one energy source and move to another, how about we try it with something simple?
How big would that market need to be? Probably more than a million, which is about how many hybrids are on the roads nowadays. Let's say its 5 million, or 1% of the total car market. So now you need to bring together 5 million people who would be willing to commit upfront to a new car/fuel combination, and perhaps even put down some money to back up their commitment. Then you have to get the car companies and the energy companies to agree that they will start making these cars in large enough numbers that it provides them a good return on investment and hopefully also leads to additional demand. By now, you have anti-trust lawyers all over this idea and it would be squashed before you can even say so long OPEC!
There is another way to bridge to the future, though, using a fuel that is already available and compatible with the existing transportation infrastructure - diesel (the other clean fuel!) While it is the fuel of choice for most heavy vehicles, diesel has suffered from the belief that it is dirty and noisy and has problems starting under cold conditions, which has made it a non-starter for passenger cars in the US. That might have been the case 30 yrs ago (most fuels were dirty back then!) but today's diesel is probably as clean as you can get (< 10 ppm sulfur in most of Europe and the US, and slowly but inevitably getting there in the rest of the world). And the technology exists to get diesel fuel that flows at even -20F, so unless you are living in the high latitudes (in which case you might consider the need to even drive), you should not really have any problems with diesel
So how do you make the shift from gasoline (petrol) to diesel? To start with, you first need to make sure that the demand for diesel is really there. How do you do that? Not by asking people for their choice. No, that won't work. The only way to really ensure a demand for diesel is to CREATE it. Yes, folks, this has to be a good old fashioned sales job, something that most American companies are good at doing. Savvy marketing has been the driver for most products sold in the US, from humble toothbrushes to fancy electronics. Marketing creates a need even if there was none to begin with - and in this case, there is clearly a need for fuel. So why not put the best minds from Madison Avenue to come up with a marketing campaign for diesel cars and allow Americans to almost overnight boost their fuel economy to levels mandated for 2020?
Of course, once the demand is created, you have to ensure that the supply is also keeping pace. That's a challenge for the 150+ refineries in the country, but once the pricing indicates that diesel is here to stay, every single one of them will start to swing over to make more diesel, as they usually do in the winter. That could mean a glut in the short term and huge drops in price, which would result in even more people switching to diesel.
Car companies have to be part of this too, and not just one or two, but en masse. It would be a win-win for them as well, since they could continue to sell cars with IC engines and not have to change over to an entirely manufacturing process for the drivetrain etc. The smarter ones will make the cars smaller, like they do in Europe, and get even better mileage. The dumb ones like GM will just change what's under the hood but leave everything else the same - but at least they will get a 10% or more boost in fuel economy.
This really is the easiest solution that satisfies everyone from energy and auto companies to politicians to environmentalists (think of all the biodiesel manufacturers suddenly having a huge outlet for their products?). And that's precisely why it will be overlooked. Unfortunately, we seem to believe that the way to the future is about being complicated and trying to engineer a hydrogen powered vehicle or squashing bugs to secrete oil. That maybe the case in a hundred years, but if we want to demonstrate that society can wean itself off one energy source and move to another, how about we try it with something simple?
Sunday, 10 October 2010
Peepli [Live and Let Die]
Just watched Peepli live, which I would highly recommend. I get the distinct feeling that I have seen a movie like this before, the part about the media camping outside someone's house and watching his every move is very familiar (the "Truman show" perhaps?). The movie itself is a natural successor to that other great satire of yesteryear namely "Jaane Bhi do yaaron" (its only fitting, therefore, that Naseeruddin Shah makes an appearance in this one as well!)
The manner in which the topic of farmer suicides has been treated is certainly unusual - the characters could just as easily have been portrayed as complete basket cases, but instead the element of humor make the film captivating - you *want* to see what's going to happen next.
The characters are also cast into two easily believable camps. On the one hand, the media are portrayed as always on the lookout for the next big story, which is sadly what most of the Indian TV channels have become (like their western brethren). The politicians and bureaucrats as usual try to exploit the situation to their advantage, living up to the very low expectations set for them.
On the flip side, you have the reporter whose conscience gets to him, when he asks that the media also cover the case of the farmer who died digging an earth pit. The young civil servant who earnestly believes that some sort of intervention is necessary to remedy the situation.
The "funny" portion of the movie is part slapstick, with reporters falling over each other and chasing the farmer who is busy taking care of the call of nature in the fields. Once the tamasha is over, however, the farmer who is toying with the idea of suicide ends up at a construction site in the ever growing metropolis around Delhi. His family does not get the money they had expected from the government (due to another glitch in the paperwork) even though, for all practical purposes, he is "dead" to them.
The closing credits indicate that between 1991 and 2001, 8 million farmers gave up agriculture (presumably to take up other manual labor such as contruction). Either way, it highlights the tragedy of an occupation that still accounts for over 2/3rd of the workforce in the country. While developed nations such as the US and Europe also had to contend with changes in farming as they industrialized, the fact that they had much smaller populations at least made the change less drastic.
Reference is also made in the movie to a multinational corporation "Sonmanto" (duh!) that is apparently being given a contract by the agriculture ministry. While giant seed and fertilizer companies are certainly part of the problem facing farming in India, the bottomline is that the accelerated development of the country into the information age has made taking care of those left behind, namely farmers, a lower priority. They are expected to adjust to the new age, as opposed to being given the tools and help that they need to survive.
Is this just a matter of perception? Instead of being called farmers, suppose we referred to them as "Agricultural engineers", which would not be far off from the truth? For the act of sowing a seed and harvesting a crop is no less challenging than designing a computer chip or going into space. We almost take it for granted because the food always ends up on the table every single day - but try it for yourself and see how hard it really is. I've been an occasional gardener for the past few years, and other than the most simple of plants, I have not yet been able to sustainably grow anything that could provide nourishment. Farming is not just about tossing seeds into the ground and waiting a while for them to sprout.
I was disappointed that nowhere in the film was there a reference to population. This continues to be the 800 pound gorilla that no one chooses to discuss, either because its considered politically incorrect, or because we have given up trying to come up with a solution to the crisis. Maybe someone can make a film about a laborer trying to get a vasectomy to make enough money to send his kids to school?
The manner in which the topic of farmer suicides has been treated is certainly unusual - the characters could just as easily have been portrayed as complete basket cases, but instead the element of humor make the film captivating - you *want* to see what's going to happen next.
The characters are also cast into two easily believable camps. On the one hand, the media are portrayed as always on the lookout for the next big story, which is sadly what most of the Indian TV channels have become (like their western brethren). The politicians and bureaucrats as usual try to exploit the situation to their advantage, living up to the very low expectations set for them.
On the flip side, you have the reporter whose conscience gets to him, when he asks that the media also cover the case of the farmer who died digging an earth pit. The young civil servant who earnestly believes that some sort of intervention is necessary to remedy the situation.
The "funny" portion of the movie is part slapstick, with reporters falling over each other and chasing the farmer who is busy taking care of the call of nature in the fields. Once the tamasha is over, however, the farmer who is toying with the idea of suicide ends up at a construction site in the ever growing metropolis around Delhi. His family does not get the money they had expected from the government (due to another glitch in the paperwork) even though, for all practical purposes, he is "dead" to them.
The closing credits indicate that between 1991 and 2001, 8 million farmers gave up agriculture (presumably to take up other manual labor such as contruction). Either way, it highlights the tragedy of an occupation that still accounts for over 2/3rd of the workforce in the country. While developed nations such as the US and Europe also had to contend with changes in farming as they industrialized, the fact that they had much smaller populations at least made the change less drastic.
Reference is also made in the movie to a multinational corporation "Sonmanto" (duh!) that is apparently being given a contract by the agriculture ministry. While giant seed and fertilizer companies are certainly part of the problem facing farming in India, the bottomline is that the accelerated development of the country into the information age has made taking care of those left behind, namely farmers, a lower priority. They are expected to adjust to the new age, as opposed to being given the tools and help that they need to survive.
Is this just a matter of perception? Instead of being called farmers, suppose we referred to them as "Agricultural engineers", which would not be far off from the truth? For the act of sowing a seed and harvesting a crop is no less challenging than designing a computer chip or going into space. We almost take it for granted because the food always ends up on the table every single day - but try it for yourself and see how hard it really is. I've been an occasional gardener for the past few years, and other than the most simple of plants, I have not yet been able to sustainably grow anything that could provide nourishment. Farming is not just about tossing seeds into the ground and waiting a while for them to sprout.
I was disappointed that nowhere in the film was there a reference to population. This continues to be the 800 pound gorilla that no one chooses to discuss, either because its considered politically incorrect, or because we have given up trying to come up with a solution to the crisis. Maybe someone can make a film about a laborer trying to get a vasectomy to make enough money to send his kids to school?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)