A. When we use the term environmental disaster, we externalise our responsibility in dealing with these extreme natural events. We are not willing to take responsibility for these so-called “environmental disasters” as it is essentially human actions which turn these natural events into disasters.

Q. What are the lessons we have learnt from climate change?

A. It is good that at least in India the majority of the population has accepted global warming. It is gradually being reflected in government policy but it is being implemented far too slowly to really make a difference. We are on the cusp of a huge problem and our policy-makers have not really learnt to deal with nature.

With populations getting concentrated in the urban areas, more people get affected (by disasters). This is what happened in the Mumbai flooding in June 2005. A cloudburst over Uttarakhand in June this year saw multistorey structures falling down. But, if people build on the banks of a river, disasters will occur, there is no point in blaming nature. This is why I am stressing that we are not willing to take responsibility for “environmental” disasters.

India continues to neglect public transport and promotes private transport. Agricultural policies have neglected numerous crops which are well-adapted to the drier areas of India while promoting rice that requires enormous amounts of water. Earlier, our farmers grew a diversity of crops. They grew, to cite an example, a variety of millets which provided nutritious food and good fodder for livestock. Now people are eating more rice which increases their risk to diabetes.

Q. Why are we not able to take responsibility?

A. Living in India is tough. The bulk of the population is scarcely able to get a meal a day. They are not involved in the policy discussions on climate change. Post-1990, there has been a breakdown of the separation between the public sector and private industry. Short-term profits are increasingly dictating public policies. We are not looking at the long-term impacts of our decisions.

As a biologist, I don’t want to monetise everything. If a species goes extinct, how do we get it back? It is important for many of us to understand ecological relationships and environmental flows as these have direct implications for human development and welfare. Unfortunately, we are currently living a very fast paced life and there is very limited time for both policy-makers as well as the public to give these issues the required importance.

India has been a leader in wildlife conservation and environmental protection. Indians in general respect Nature and are very tolerant of wildlife. When I started taking an interest in wildlife in 1980, for the first 15-20 years, tolerance levels (for wildlife) were very high. Now there is a shift.

When we ask farmers whose crops are damaged by wildlife to help conserve elephants, they tell us, take them to Bengaluru or take them to your home. In the last 15-20 years they have seen rest of the country develop and thanks to the media revolution they are aware of how the urban populations live and their aspirations are also increasing. Currently, wildlife conservation policies are driven largely by urban dwellers. This has to change. It is important to involve local communities which live closely with wildlife, so that their problems are better reflected in these policies.

Q. Tolerance levels seem to be falling sharply?

A. Additionally, civil engineering dominates our current approach to wildlife management. This only adds to the problem in the long run. Where is the credible climate change policy?

We need to be more serious about protecting our forests, greening the country, cleaning our lakes and protecting our water sources and about getting the right policy for agriculture. We do not seem to realise that climate change is linked to health, food security and our day-to-day living.