Transport, sustainability, equity and other difficult questions...

Here are what some would call 'irrational’  and possibly heretical  initial thoughts, after listening to President Sirisena’s interview on Rupavahini last night, and considering aspects of  the 100 day mini budget. 

 

 President Sirisena has called for a change in the ‘political culture’ of Sri Lanka. But unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be an equally strident call for a change in attitude about what constitutes well being for Sri Lankans, and what we need to do to ensure a more sustainable Sri Lanka.  For those of us working on sustainable development it is obvious that the current levels of consumption and the mantra of unbridled economic growth cannot continue in Sri Lanka (or in the world).   Ravi Karunanayaka’s ‘Robin Hood’  mini budget speech,  laudable because it is catering for the lower income citizens  of Sri Lanka, has a disturbing statement  “in order to encourage low income families to purchase a motor car to improve their living standards, I propose to reduce taxes applicable on the motor cars with engine capacity less than 1,000 cc by around 15%” (my emphasis) Is this what we want?   We already have the highest number of vehicles per 1000 population in South Asia: 76 vehicles per 1000 people when Pakistan  and Bhutan have 57, India 41, Afghanistan and the Maldives 28, and Nepal and Bangladesh only 5 and 3 respectively.  In our little island of 65,000 sq kilometres, how many more do we require?

President Sirisena talked about how we should emulate the way in which developed countries like the UK  conduct their elections – maybe we should also emulate the way that those countries are encouraging more sustainable transport and energy use.  The previous regime conveniently  ignored the fact that the even their ideal state, Singapore, promoted public transport over private. It is worrying if this regime continues with the same blind spot - there is no mention in the budget of enhancing  public transport options. 

It is obvious that the UNP (renamed by some wags the Socialist National Party) is  trying to make sure that they do not make the mistakes of the past, and introduce belt tightening measures before a general election.  I can also sympathise with the view often thrown at me by my elitist friends, that having been born sucking on the proverbial silver spoon (since tarnished, unfortunately) I have no right to deny my less fortunate compatriots their ambitions of, for example, purchasing a motor car.  (Of course my counter to that, if I were to counter it, would be to say that if every family is to have a motor car, then some of us cannot have our SUVs!) And if these same friends are correct that the human race will adapt itself to a depleted natural environment – I guess I am wasting my breath trying to promote a more ecologically sustainable lifestyle so we can preserve some of our natural resources for their children’s children.   Even if they are not, why would I worry about Professor Christy Weeramantry’s gloomy prediction that if the 21^st century continued in its destructive and bungling ways there would be no 22^nd century? After all, its hardly likely that I am going to see another millennium myself, and not being a parent or grandparent, I really should have no interest in the future of the human race!

 But I can’t help thinking that President Sirisena could be losing an opportunity to use his popularity as a ‘people’s President’  to make an even greater change.   He is definitely promoting a simpler lifestyle for his colleagues in government – why not a more sustainable lifestyle for all of us?