Assimilation The implication of ‘India too poor to be green’ is that the Indian population is too poor and that they are not green due to the fact that they lack awareness in that they do not have taste for environmental amenities since they have immediate necessities that they have to satisfy, or they do not have enough money to invest into the environment (Martínez-Alier, 88). On the same breather, India should reduce Carbon II Oxide release since its per capita is above the world’s average and more so above the world’s median.
According to the European context, India tends to be below the average but in terms of carbon dioxide India has been greener since it had been poorer. In their argument, the major question lingering in their minds was the understanding if there is any relation between wealth and environment. According to them, if the answer to this is yes, then it could be said that effluents of affluence (Martínez-Alier, 19). In this context, when poverty levels go down and livelihood is protected, then people will start to mind the quality of their life.
In materialist perspective, this would be explained in that the economic boom is based on the export of natural resources at very high rates such as copper, bauxite, wood and fishmeal, and to add on this the development of an anti-environmental type of fruit farming (Martínez-Alier, 66). In their argument, they brought in environmentalism connected to defense of Indian common property against hydroelectricity and commercial forestry. This gives implications on worries about workers and nationalist health. Looking back on this, it can be noted that there is denial of positive correlation between environmentalism and income levels.
The poor are characterized by this environmentalism. Therefore, environmentalism of the poor according to Guha is the social result of prosperity; in any case it can be material or post material reason. In economics perspective, trade is very vital for economic growth and that economic growth is healthy for environmental safeguarding (Martínez-Alier, 123) This is so due to fact that when the poor people’s incomes increases, the quality of life becomes better and therefore promotes behaviors and laws that protect the environments.
Sometimes back, the Indian Supreme Court came into a conclusion on how forests can be diverted into non forest land. They said that the NPV of the forest and that of industrialized land can be determined and compared so as to know which one has more income. The wellbeing of the poor rural households is generated by forests and other ecosystems and therefore, it is important to conserve environment as it is a true driver for poverty reduction (Martínez-Alier, 94) In this regard, it is evident that environment services and other non-marketed natural goods stand for more than 50% of what is known as GDP of the poor in some large developing countries.
In their argument they give visualization of a mining company in a tribal village in India that tear down the forests and pollute the water. The individuals in such rural areas have no money to reimburse for such a loss (Martínez-Alier, 109) Therefore, when poor or indigenous peoples see their livelihoods threatened by the intrusion of extractive industries or the enclosures by tree plantations, they tend to complain-this is often called the environmentalism of the poor. ’ In conclusion, we can say that concern on environmental awareness by developed countries is the fact that wealth goes together with increasing depletion of resources and environmental pollution (Martínez-Alier, 63) Work Cited Martínez-Alier, J.
"The Environment as a Luxury Good or too Poor to Be Green? " Economie Appliquee. (1995): 215-230. Print.