As concerned environmentalists and informed citizens, many of us share deep unease about the way environmental governance in our country is being managed—or mismanaged. Our complaints range across sectors and regions, and most of them are legitimate. Yet a hard question confronts us: are complaints, by themselves, effective? Experience suggests they are not.
The first and easiest response to an environmentally damaging proposal is to object. Many of us do so—through representations, petitions, media statements and public protests. Often this is followed by escalation: legal challenges, mass agitations, or appeals to regulators and courts. However, despite sustained efforts, outcomes have frequently remained disappointing. River diversions, interlinking of rivers, diversion of forests and agricultural land, polluting power plants, transmission lines and industrial projects continue to move ahead, largely unimpeded.
As we enter a new year, it may be time to complement protest with a more rigorous and, ultimately, more persuasive approach. Civil society groups could consider coming together to invest time and resources in undertaking credible studies that demonstrate why certain projects are either unnecessary or inferior to available alternatives. One well-established tool for this is cost–benefit analysis—not only of the proposed project, but also of competing options. Even when conducted at a high level, such analysis can be powerful, especially when detailed official data are inaccessible. Reasoned comparisons, backed by evidence, can compel regulators to take civil society concerns more seriously.
Two recent case studies illustrate this point.
The first concerns the Karnataka government’s push to build pumped storage plants (PSPs) in river valleys that are otherwise suitable for conventional hydropower. These proposals threaten severe ecological damage to fragile river systems and to the Western Ghats, a global biodiversity hotspot. The issue is of national relevance: around 100 such PSP sites have reportedly been identified across India. After exhausting conventional avenues—representations, public appeals, RTI applications, media engagement and seminars—civil society groups undertook focused studies covering cost–benefit analysis, environmental impacts, geotechnical risks and biodiversity concerns. These studies produced a coherent and credible case against the projects, while strongly supporting alternatives such as battery energy storage systems (BESS) and demand-side management (DSM).
Armed with evidence, local communities mounted a coordinated campaign across multiple forums, including large and well-supported public hearings. Support expanded well beyond activists to include retired Supreme Court judges, MPs, MLAs and other public figures. While statutory clearances from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change have not yet been formally rejected, officials appear reluctant to grant them. A recent visit by a high-level team of the National Board for Wildlife suggested that regulatory authorities are increasingly persuaded by the evidence-based arguments put forward by civil society.
The second example is the long-running opposition to additional nuclear power reactors, small modular reactors, and the recently enacted SHANTI Act. Despite more than two decades of protests and agitations, these efforts have had limited success. One key reason may be the absence of widely accepted, rigorous studies establishing that nuclear power is not essential to India’s energy strategy, that its societal costs outweigh its benefits, and that safer, cheaper and more sustainable alternatives are available at scale.
These experiences point to the need for a holistic reassessment of how we approach electricity demand and supply. A comprehensive, evidence-backed framework—such as the one outlined in my New Year’s Day representation to the Prime Minister—can help address many power-sector-related societal concerns. If numerous civil society groups submit similar representations, grounded in credible analysis, to concerned ministries, the PMO or NITI Aayog, there is a real possibility of nudging policy towards greater rationality and public sensitivity. Such efforts can be reinforced through media articles, interviews, seminars and the support of respected public figures.
I would urge civil society groups to collaborate in small, focused teams to study specific aspects of different economic sectors, starting with power. Sharing findings widely can help build momentum and solidarity. At a time when the impacts of climate change are already at our doorstep, I see no more viable path to protecting people and ecosystems.
The core argument is simple: a reliable electricity system does not need to depend on large, high-impact projects—whether coal, gas, nuclear, large dams, or even massive renewable parks and pumped storage plants—with their extensive and destructive infrastructure. There are more benign alternatives, capable of meeting our needs at far lower societal and ecological cost.
If enough of us adopt this rational, evidence-driven stance and communicate it effectively to policymakers, we may yet succeed in preventing or minimising ecological destruction in the power sector. Let us make the new year more effective—and safer—for our people through such initiatives.
---
*Power & Climate Policy Analyst, Karnataka
Comments