Sustainability is a utopian dream and magnanimous entity

In everyday life we hear about the words 'sustainable' and 'sustainability' almost in everything. These words are commonly used as sustainable livelihoods, sustainable transport, sustainable energy, sustainable agriculture, sustainable economy, sustainable society, biological sustainability and various types of sustainability indexes and the list can go on. We have seen this growing trend since late 80’s when the United Nation’s Bruntland Report; also known as ‘Our Common Future’ was published with a key statement on ‘Sustainable Development’ as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’ Since then, the society has been in the midst of continual transformation towards a sustainable future that is expected to preserve wellbeing of the present and future generations to thrive on a habitable planet.

To me ‘Sustainability’ is an enormous word encapsulates almost everything that is practically happening around us. It’s the human capacity to endure in economic, environmental and social aspects – a widely accepted vision, which is probably here to stay with us for very long time. While tightly-knotted with the three pillars (e.g. economic, environmental & social aspects), sustainability can be difficult to be understood, even more difficult to foresee whether absolute, complete or even near sustainability is somehow achievable.

Undoubtedly, sustainability is good and it’s the very best thing on our plate at this moment in time. It took long time for our society to understand that human development and progress goes hand in hand with the health and wellbeing of our planet. If you turn the clock back for only 50 years then you will find that no one actually talked about carrying capacity of natural systems, green development, ecological modernisation or even responsible planning and management of resources. Now the world must consider these underpinning ideas for its own survival.

However, Putting sustainability perspective into practice is increasingly harder when the ‘sustainability divide’ between rich and poor countries are so large; given the fact that it’s almost dream comes true for those poorest countries to reach at least a near sustainability point. One person’s sustainability measure in richer countries can be other person’s (extreme) luxury in the poorer countries. In many fronts, ‘sustainability divide’ between rich and poor countries are very uneven and once we start talking about the divide, it would definitely touch the very core of many burning issues in recent time namely population growth, poverty, food & fresh water scarcity, global inequality of consumption, economic insecurity, environmental pollution and climate change etc.

Some claim with justification that pursuing a social-economic-environmental (triple bottom line) relationship is easy to be implemented. But I think it’s not as easy as it seems. A few very simple examples can be mentioned here (there are of course many more) to illustrate the complex relationship in bridging the great divide between rich and poor countries, such as using energy efficiency devices in homes, waste recycling, deterioration of public health due to increased level of pollution, discrimination in respect of employment and occupation and economic insecurity of low income families etc. These are multidisciplinary areas yet interconnected challenges within sustainability aspirations. All these challenges can be pinned down one big umbrella of ‘poverty elimination’ issues, which fits within the sustainable livelihoods approach.

In the poorer countries, in general, using energy efficiency devices in homes is a luxury. In fact millions of families in those countries do not have any devices at all because they cannot afford it. And, those people who have the devices don’t know how they are going to dispose it at the end of the product life-cycle as there are no organised waste management and recycling centres. As a result, these used products will end up in wrong hands; thus increases the risk of air, water and soil contamination. This is a very simple example illustrates that lack of appropriate and well-maintained waste management and recycling centres, the aspirations (of a very tiny portion) of sustainability issues cannot be fulfilled.

Another classic example is environmental degradation in urban areas. The root causes of environmental degradation in urban areas are the unplanned and hardly coordinated inter-play of socio-economic, institutional and technical activities. The rapid and unplanned expansion of the cities has resulted in the degradation of urban environment and the city dwellers are the victims who are taking its toll on their health. Coping with these impacts depend on a society's technical, institutional, economic, and social ability. Near sustainability may be possible when a country has got these abilities to cope with the impacts, however reaching to that point for many countries around the world is still a very long way to go.

Numerous examples can be drawn to show the disparities but fact of the matter is near sustainability cannot be achieved if we do not tackle poverty, and those interrelated elements that inflict and increase the poverty rates. We must appreciate that society have found sustainability silver bullet - at least having a perspective and focusing to preserve the wellbeing for the present and future generations but let’s not be lulled into utopian dream that sustainability will be achieved very soon. It’s a process that I think will take very long time – it’s not time yet to think about beyond sustainability issues as society is still in a premature stage in responding the present global sustainability promises.  

Grammen bank, micro-entrepreneurs & green economy: Bangladesh perspective

Professor Muhammad Yunus’s Grammen Bank has come a long way since its origin in 1976. Admittedly, it wasn’t an easy journey; not least his recent brawl with the Government of Bangladesh when he was ordered to step down as head of the micro-finance bank. However, in 2006, the World has recognised his contribution in poverty reduction and subsequently he was awarded Nobel peace prize. It made him world famous - all gratitude on behalf of people of Bangladesh go to him as he made all Bangladeshis very proud indeed.

His concept on micro-finance is very simple. Rural poor people (with a particularly emphasis on women) can take small loans to start any business, which they are usually good at doing. Once revenue start to come in, they can start returning the money that was borrowed and with the help of revolving loan funds their businesses can further grow, thus leaving behind poverty and destitution. A fantastic idea that was revolutionised entire banking system in mid 1970s.

On the other hand, economic impact assessment of micro financing has been debated in the literature for many years. Particularly in Bangladesh many researchers do not agree with the conclusion that micro-credit definitely increase poor people’s income and consumption hence reducing the poverty level. Critiques have been arguing that micro financing is slow, high interest rates, over-indebtedness, commercialisation, lack of women’s authority in a male dominated society, religious tradition (e.g. sharia tradition), cultural stigma (e.g. women dependency is repulsive) and natural calamity (that wipes of loan holder’s assets) have put added obstacles in economic empowering of women.

The debate goes on - if micro-financing is helping poor people to reduce their poverty level then why after so many years millions of people are still poor in the rural Bangladesh. If the same concept is working appropriately in other countries around the world then where has it gone wrong in Bangladesh? It isn’t a logical fallacy but a valid question. Counter argument is that there are too many people to lift them out of poverty and many variables and factors associated within the context of Bangladesh; moreover, in a slow process like micro-financing, it would take decades to see the real impact. Indeed, it has been very debateable, yet over the last three decades millions of poor people were benefited with the help of micro-financing in Bangladesh.

Critics, more specifically the proponents of communist ideas have gone further - saying that the entire flagship Grammen Bank micro-credit movement is another way to counter the spread of communism. Providing small and hand-to-mouth loans to the poorest would thaw the undercurrent in building any future revolution, which could potentially jeopardise the capitalist system. And counter the spread of communism would be highly desirable by the capitalist masters. That, in my opinion, may or may not be verifiable as there is no hard evidence to prove that the expansion of global empire had reached to the poorest in rural Bangladesh by introducing micro-financing system in mid 1970s.

Say, if the communist revolution were to happen, then perhaps there would be an arms struggle and the conflict might drag for many years. We don’t have to go too far – our neighbouring country India is a perfect example, the Maoist revolutionaries have been fighting for decades against poverty and extreme inequality in parts of Central and Eastern India, including Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Jharkhand. The Indian government repeatedly launched full-scale war against these rebels and the consequences have been more deaths and destruction.

After the recent economic turmoil around the World, the communism-capitalism cat-and-mouse arguments have metaphorically become ailing lame-duck. Banking crisis around the World is costing taxpayers’ vast amount of money; whilst banks are still reluctant to provide loans to the small businesses, which in turn would reactivate the economy. Irresponsible free market capitalism that led us into this situation and the world need to get out of this recession unless bank will provide more micro finances to the small and medium sized businesses. Therefore, there is a need for this mechanism to be applied to the wider scale around the world.

On the other hand communist system driven by a centralised economic planning has not worked either and that is why economic reforms (e.g. de-collectivisation of agriculture sector, promote private entrepreneurs and foreign direct investments etc.) were taking place since 1980s in most of the major communist countries. But that does not mean that the revolution should not be happening, also its capability should not be underestimated. Given that it can happen in different ways. Revolution needs to happen to build a new green economy that would result in poverty reduction, increased equality and human wellbeing while reducing environmental negative impacts and at the same time increasing natural capital.

We ought to build a low carbon and resource efficiency society. Keep that in mind, Grameen Bank can make a real difference largely to rural Bangladeshis by introducing more and more micro-credits for renewable energy, pollution prevention, and water purification and desalination technologies.

'Green, Green - Up, Up!’ Shouting louder than ever!

Since my childhood I have always been fascinated by the nature and its beauty and tranquillity. One of my favourite memories from childhood at Jhenidah Cadet College (JCC) campus is discovering the stunning natural surroundings. Also, be drawn to the allure of the rare sense of serenity where I could often get away from the reality. I still marvel over how I spent countless hours wandering through the bushes, fearlessly running around barefoot on the ground infested with weeds, shrubs and prickly plants, and recklessly jumped into the canal water without thinking of the consequences. It’s hard to forget - I still cherish those wonderful days. It was then I began to realise that green colour was my colour - it’s the colour of the 'Nature'.

The most remarkable thing happened afterwards. After preparing for months for the admission tests that appeared to be the most intense period of my life, I got myself admitted to JCC, and guess what; it was Badr House where I spent six years of my teenage life. Green colour symbolises the colour of Badr House. Being a campus boy, I used to wander around and frequently say ‘hello’ to the cadets and curiously followed their activities. I heard many rumours about Badr house that it was one the toughest places but to be placed in the green house was probably my destiny.

Once again, green colour was embedded in my life for next six years. We shouted and chanted 'Green, Green - Up, Up!' whenever we won any competition. In many cases, we needlessly recited the slogan but I never realised that later in my life this slogan would become the part of my entire professional career. Now, I shout louder than ever - 'Green, Green – Up, Up!’ In light of these, the basic teaching of the 'Green' theme is that we all should keep the nature at the top of our agenda – ‘save the nature, save the humanity’.

Are we falling out of love with wind turbines?

Rising concerns over global warming and climate change, energy security, on-going tension in the middle-east, gradual depletion of fossil fuels while the global demand steadily increases, also in hindsight society’s increased green consciousness led to search for alternative sources of cleaner energy. It is easy to see why the interests have shifted to viable and all available forms of renewable energy. The world has started acknowledging that getting energy from wind is a viable, cost effective and reliable option with the help of the advancement of renewable energy technologies. We are now experiencing an obvious reflection of that in the world market for wind turbines, which set a new record in the year 2011 and reached a total size of 42 Giga watt, after 37,6 Giga watt in 2010 (World Wind Energy Association, 7 February 2012). Steve Sawyer; General Secretary at Global Wind Energy Council in 2011 stated that ‘The success of wind power over the past 15 years is truly extraordinary. With nearly 240,000 MW of installed capacity at the end of 2011, this is more than 30 times what it was in 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol was adopted.’

On the other hand, growing public discontent with the wind turbines commonly described as 'Not in My Backyard' syndrome has also grown along with the use of wind turbines. Many people may want off-shore wind turbines, but not necessarily they will want wind turbines in their own backyards. It is perfectly understandable and decision makers, developers and pro-green groups should acknowledge it and take all necessary steps to avoid local public opposition and uneasiness.

However, in saying this, public participation process in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is the key and first step in an application process where interested and affected parties are brought together to discuss the possible negative impacts and benefits and if necessary alternative projects are considered on proposed controversial sites. Therefore, the notion of imposed large scale commercial wind turbine sites by the developers particularly in the built areas would simply be an immature argument. Usually large scale wind turbines wouldn’t be considered in the first place in the built areas where it is obvious that tall buildings and big trees can prevent natural wind flow that in turn would reduce the efficiency of the wind turbines. The gaps or passes of the mountains, coastal areas, hill tops and often open plains are the most preferred places for installation of wind turbines.

Wind turbines vary in different sizes according to the amount of electricity they produce, for example 100 watts to 6 kilowatts. Even larger wind turbines are available which can produce up to 50 kilowatts of electricity for the bigger community projects. Technologically it is therefore viable and available according to needs of different sites such as private housings, schools, shopping centres, car parks, business areas, community centres etc.

However, up until now, there have been many common myths around wind turbines and public perceptions that have naturally followed and concentrated where the controversial proposed sites made the bad news coverage. But, are wind turbines really bad for the birds? Are they noisy, unsafe, decrease the property values, loss of agriculture lands, also an eyesore for many that destroy scenic views of the pristine nature? However, most of these common myths are based mostly on misunderstandings and old wind energy technologies.

New technologies and tighter environmental regulations have changed many things over the past decade. A typical annoyance such as noise emission is not a problem anymore as the noise from the gearboxes and generators are significantly curbed by using insulations. So, left with only aerodynamics noise from the rotor blades, which have also been optimised using modern technology such as using pitch control and minimising rotational speed under 65 m/s at the tip (Barrios and Rodriguez, 2004).

It’s true that many birds died in California and Spain in the 1980s due to poor planning and technologies that were used at that time but the mass killing is simply not happening at present due to better understanding of bird’s behaviour, knowing flight patterns of migratory birds and vigorous EIA processes. According to a new study conducted by British researchers from the environmental group The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Scottish Natural Heritage and British Trust for Ornithology (BTO), there is no evidence of long-term damage to bird populations as a result of wind turbine operations (Schrader, 2012).

May be wind turbine is an eyesore and annoyance for some people but it’s a tiny problem compared to its positive contribution to the greater good of our planet and the society. The benefits from the wind turbines definitely outweigh the disadvantages. I think wind turbines are viable and an effective option - let’s not fall out of love with it just because some people are uncomfortable.

Climate Change: A case for Bangladesh-India solidarity

It’s no fairy-tale, but a harsh reality that climate change is a growing threat to both India and Bangladesh, above all to the whole Southern Eurasia. Maintaining the status quo of living together-apart and longstanding antagonism between these two countries will certainly not help to tackle a common threat, which outweighs the other disparities that may exist.

Like Bangladesh, India is also affected by the impacts of climate change. Impacts are already being felt by unprecedented heat waves, cyclones, floods, salinisation of the coastline and effects on agriculture, fisheries and health (Mehra, 2009)  Destruction of India’s climate-sensitive sectors such as agriculture, forestry and fisheries will inevitably put a knock-on affect on its global ambition of economic growth and huge development imperatives.

Being the largest country in the South East Asia and living with the impacts of climate change; India seems to acknowledge that the sub-continental challenges caused by climate change will most likely to be cross-border migration and the water scarcity. Nonetheless, it is still unclear how India will cope with the regional challenges generated by climate change beyond 2030 (Indian National Intelligence Council, 2009).

It says power and responsibilities go hand in hand, being an economic power house in the South East Asia India’s behaviour towards its neighbours particularly Bangladesh suggests otherwise. India’s piece-meal diplomacy, ongoing geo-political disputes, lack of economic dynamism within the region, ignorant behaviour and lack of effective regional institutions to adapt and mitigate the climate change impacts are making things more difficult in cross-border engagement and cooperation. As a result, both countries are fighting alone in the face of looming threat of climate change.

One of the most pressing issues in the region is the fresh water related challenges in the river basins, which will definitely dominate the socio-economic and political arena for many years to come. In 2009, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) assessed three trans-boundary river basins which included the largest in South Asia: the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna (GBM) river basin (which spans Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India and Nepal), the Indus river basin (in Afghanistan, China, India, Nepal and Pakistan) and the Helmand river basin (which covers Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan). In their report, it was highlighted that over-exploitation, climate change and inadequate cooperation among countries threaten some of the world's greatest river basins, which sustain around 750 million people.

It is absolutely paramount that there is a need for fresh approach in cohesion and solidarity among bigger and smaller nations in combating climate change and water scarcity in the region. Particularly with Bangladesh [the ground zero of climate change], India shares so many common ecological and environmental issues, for example mangrove forests of Sundarban, hill forests, trans-boundary river basins, tidal flooding, cross-border pollution, land and maritime boundaries, and cross-border natural resources. These are complex and inter-related issues; therefore India cannot ignore the fact that the negative impacts on these issues wouldn’t create any problems for them. If you ask Indian side, most likely the answer will be clear unequivocal ‘yes’, it is affecting them as much as much as it is affecting on Bangladeshi side.

‘India’s look east ties’ (Ved, 2010) policy towards Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) is great for them to achieve their dream of economic growth and prosperity but the question is - what India is willing to do within their own backyards? It is shocking that India's trade is just 5% with its neighbours (Economist, 30th July, 2011), which manifest that the economic super power in the South East Asia is not keen to facilitates intra-regional trade, thereafter establishes a vibrant and prosperous mutual economic region that may then empower smaller countries further developing on their strategic adaptation and implementation to the effects of climate change.

Strengthening existing agreements are easier than creating new one, therefore I think the possible way forward in closer cooperation is to promote and strengthen of South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Environment Plan.  16th SAARC summit (28 - 29 April 2010) in Thimphu; Bhutan was one of the important milestones towards promoting and strengthening regional cooperation where member states welcomed the signing of the SAARC Convention on Cooperation on Environment. 16 statements on climate change were adapted in Thimphu and member states agreed that those declarations should be undertaken. Time and again deep concern was expressed in various SAARC summits over the global climate change and its impact on the region, however in retrospect, things had move forward at a snail's phase with regard to regional cooperation.

Nevertheless, most recent visit by the Prime Minister of the Republic of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh to Bangladesh from 6-7 September 2011 demonstrates India’s willingness to engage to find newer avenues for cooperation. India and Bangladesh need more this kind of joint initiatives to improve first of all bilateral relationship, also being in the forefront of further development of the SAARC Environment Plan - a very common and important cause that none of the countries can afford to ignore.

India respects China's growing power and influence, which regard as a threat to its own interest in the region. India will inevitably fall behind China if it doesn't response to the call for regional cooperation; therefore India has got more chance of winning than losing if they become a true and trustworthy partner with its neighbours.

Climate change sceptics got a taste of their own medicine

I have always had my suspicion about climate change sceptics’ real intentions of undermining the climate change science. Now, the hard evidences have come forward, in which point to the fact that my curiosity and suspicion were not just a baseless assumption. I wrote about it in my earlier blog 'Climate Change myths: Common misperceptions and sceptic’s incorrect assertions’, which was posted on 21^st January, 2011.

On the Valentine's day 2012, Heartland Institute - a US based conservative and libertarian public policy think-tank came under the spotlight  when a dump of leaked documents were posted online by the climate news website DeSmogBlog. It was a staggering revelation of previously unknown facts. Heartland Institute has been so far at the forefront of efforts to discredit climate change science and now the revelations about its efforts have been proven to be true. Most shocking thing was that a document called ‘2012 Fundraising Plan’ in where was described strategies how to insert doubt on teaching of climate change science particularly to the elementary and secondary school curricula, some documents also confirm on future projects such as a $100,000 campaign to discourage teachers from teaching science.

This is not the end of the stories. Heartland Institute has also received donations from many big corporations which have publicly supported climate change actions. But shamefully these corporations have supported sceptics behind the scenes to push forward corporate agenda to undermine the basics of climate change science. Along with tobacco giants Altria and Reynolds America, and drug firms GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli Lilley, major corporations have given over $1.1m in the past two years to the institute, and are planning to give another $705,000 this year (The Guardian, Thursday 16 February 2012). To me it’s the hypocrisy and double standards at its’ highest level.

I have written numerous times about the importance of social responsibility, social sustainability and the ethical business practices. Business organisations can no longer ignore their social and environmental obligations. Ignoring these values will put any big business organisations vulnerable to competitive threats. Leadership and commitment across the company to reduce negative environmental impacts cannot be based on some shaky beliefs and contradictions. Big corporations who are at the centre of this storm have allowed themselves funding a climate change sceptic institution; in response they probably have destroyed consumers' trust and corporate image which may take years to rebuild. They have shot themselves in the feet.

Many observers may suggest that it’s all now equalised with the revelations about the hacked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK in 2010. In which there were evidences of preventing scientific data from being released, also Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report was mistakenly claimed that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2030. Climate change denials got the perfect ammunition to [re]load their guns then. But, now we cannot perceive this analogy as tit-for-tat or the pressure and the burden have been equalised, therefore business should be as usual.

It’s far from it. These revelations from both sides of the camps have fundamentally changed the way proponents and the opponents of climate change will work in the future. Sceptics have particularly a big job on their hands to convince people in arguing with credible science that would prove that climate change is not happening. Otherwise, we don’t have to wait too long to see climate sceptics are getting the taste of their own medicine again.           

Damn it! Building Tipaimukh dam is not the way forward

Public pressure and disagreement on both sides of Bangladeshi and Indian borders are growing against India’s decision to build highly controversial Tipaimukh dam on the River Barak in Manipur district. Amid mounting international protests, India is still embroiled with its egoistic plan to go ahead with the venture. Burying head in the sand attitude by India is not something new. Wounds are still fresh from the Farakka Barrage fiasco since its construction began in 1961 and later was operational in 1975. As if Farakka Barrage wasn’t enough now we have the Tipaimukh dam. The pain keeps getting worst when another dam controversy goes on, Karl Marx once famously quoted ‘History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce’. Well, it looks like its happening again. However, questions arise why India is so stubborn to build another huge dam, which will undoubtedly affect downstream riparian Bangladesh.

Dig a little deeper then you will get the answers. The present socio-economic and political circumstances in the North-Eastern part [particularly Assam, Manipur & Nagaland] of India are affected by the rebellion of [so called] left-wing activists with over five decades of long history of insurgency. So far central government in Delhi couldn't manage to get a grip on the rise in rebellion by force. Offering 10% free electricity to local people from the Tipaimukh dam project is a dirty trick to calm the situation and along the line it is possible that Bangladesh is on the line of fire in Indian internal political manoeuvring. Maybe it is an over-simplistic view of the current situation. Whatever the real reasons are, it doesn’t make any sense to me why India is so desperate to build a dam, by knowing that the area is one of the most dangerous places on earth for earthquakes and landslides. Honestly, have the decision makers in Delhi gone crazy?

By ignoring all agreements and international laws and conventions on the customary international law of Trans-boundary Rivers and Lakes, India is up for its regional hegemony and dominance in the South Asia, a reckless and irresponsible behaviour only to be confronted if Bangladeshi government wishes to wage an international legal war. India is violating her international obligation under the expressed provisions of the 1996 thirty-year Ganges Water Sharing Treaty signed by the heads of state of Bangladesh and India valid until 2026. India is under an international obligation to respect the provisions of this Treaty in the light of the 1969 Vienna Convention on The Law of Treaties, as it was signed by the heads of state of Bangladesh and India (Khan, 2012).

I wonder why the Central Government in Delhi is not looking into an alternative way to produce electricity in the area. Investment in the renewable energy technologies in India is growing faster than anywhere in the world. India will exceed its Five Year Plan (2007-2012) target, installing 14.2 gigawatts (GW) of renewable compared to its target of 12.4 GW, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The Manipur district has renewable resources in abundance - wind, sunlight and hilly landscapes are a perfect match to harness renewable energy.

However, having said that, the Manipur Renewable Energy Development Agency (MANIREDA) is at the forefront in the promotion of renewable energy technologies the Manipur district. MANIREDA is dedicated to achieve their targets to install many renewable energy technologies, for example providing 10,000 solar water heaters under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Energy Mission, setting up 200 KW solar power plant at Moreh, 165-gram panchayats were electrified and 5736 solar street lighting sets with a capacity of 444 Kilowatts were distributed (Green Technology News, 21 June, 2011), MANIREDA also aims to set up lights, cells, biogas plants and windmills in the region in pursuit of this goal. The heaters that have a capacity of 100 litre per day, cost around 25,000 each, 75 per cent of which will be provided by central and state subsidy (Panchabhutha, 15 July, 2011).

Renewable energy technologies are rapidly spreading all over the subcontinent. However, the idea of building a dam to produce electricity no longer fits ‘going green to save green’ in the 21st century's green movement and environmental consciousness; considering its adverse ecological impacts and the impacts on human health and their livelihoods. In the past, lack of appropriate Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) processes, immature international laws and agreements on trans-boundary water sharing and regional hegemony and dominance of powerful countries were the main reasons why many countries around the world got off the hook as no one was there to oppose them.

The alternative clean technologies are now available to produce electricity and where ever possible country like India should seriously consider endorsing an alternative route. India should be looking into larger scale deployment of renewable technologies to fill the electricity gap in the area. Building the hydroelectric Tipaimukh dam is definitely not the way forward.