Sunita Narain interview: ‘Trump’s victory poses a threat to the environment’

Narain interweaves her personal journey ⁠— as an activist, researcher and writer ⁠— of being witness to both the rise of globalisation and its fall in post-colonial times. She observes that we are currently experiencing the birth of de-globalisation and re-globalisation, where countries will chart their own course. The book is written in a style that resonates with every kind of reader, but in particular for youth seeking to understand global movements and insights into what the end of globalisation means for the world order. She reflects on how the developments of India’s environmental movements, the climate emergency, and the shift in political forces signal a new norm of localisation, which, she argues, may not be an entirely undesirable situation.

Narain writes about how the stirrings of the creation of a new era of globalisation started when the United Nations declared that the 1960s would be the Decade of Development. John F Kennedy said: “To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves” and that most of these ‘huts’ and ‘villages’ were in India, which had already experienced the consequences of globalisation and capitalism during the colonial era; they became places of tension between localisation and globalisation. Then came the Liberalisation of the 1990s; the setting up of the World Trade Organization (WTO), ushered in an era of free trade.

In this conversation with The Federal, Narain talks about the reasons behind writing the book, what lies ahead for global politics and economics, what should be anticipated with Donald Trump coming to power, and what is being done at the local level to counter climate change: Edited excerpts from the interview:

What were the motivations behind writing this book?

The book is a compilation of some of my writings of my experiences of the many years of being an activist and researcher. It is a subject I keep coming back to: The tensions between insular tendencies of society and the broader consequences of globalisation. I am a child of de-globalisation. I have seen the world move from de-globalisation to an era dominated by free trade. Over time, I have seen how this shift has impacted the world.

Also read: Amitav Ghosh on the Indian exodus from wartime Burma and people as battlegrounds

My biggest complaint against globalisation is that it has not benefited anyone. Contrary to expectations of globalisation benefiting the rich, it led to dissatisfaction among both the wealthy and the already marginalised poor. The collapse of WTO’s third ministerial trade talks in Seattle, USA, between November 30 and December 3, 1999, led to protests by both the rich and the poor against “untamed globalisation”. The rich world exported their most polluting and labour-intensive industries to the emerging world. There can be no sustainable growth unless it is inclusive and affordable.

So, can we imagine a trade order that prioritises and strengthens localisation, which can stand up to globalisation? It is important to strengthen the local and then link it to the global. By doing so, we can ensure food resilience, empower local communities and effectively utilise local capacities without taking away from the local base.

You write that Donald Trump’s election in 2018 was a sign that a new era of de-globalisation was setting in. The US, under him, withdrew from the Paris Agreement, and protectionism overthrew globalisation. What do you think are the implications of him being re-elected? How will it impact the global order, particularly the environment?

Donald Trump’s victory poses a threat to the environment. He has begun talking about reducing gas prices and how Europe should buy gas from his country — this is the fossil fuel lobby’s dream. Many governments, especially those with vested interests in fossil fuels, are going to use this to their advantage. This development comes at a time when climate change is much more of a threat now. The challenge is between electoral politics and politics of fossil fuels and of convenience.

Also read: Beyond apocalypse: As COP29 goes on, how climate fiction showcases our relationship with Earth

What do you think will be the counter to Trump’s climate denial?

The biggest counter to Trump will be China. They have a large share of the world’s rare earth materials needed for green energy technologies. China processes over half of the world’s lithium, cobalt, and graphite, and is a leader in solar energy. It would be interesting to see how they prioritise their exports, given the growing demand for green technologies, which is required for manufacturing solar panels and electric vehicles (EVs).

Do you see any local initiatives in India to address climate change? What changes do you see in how India is building its industry?

Let’s take the example of Bengaluru. The city needs to make sure its water bodies are recharged with clean water. Rain events will intensify due to climate change, so proper management of water and waste is important. Some solutions include capturing rain water and increasing dependence on groundwater. But one challenge is that since the state government gets water from outside there is no money left for treating sewage. Despite these issues, there are some promising developments. Bengaluru is exploring a wastewater recycling plan, so at least there is some thinking.

In India, the environment movement has been hydra-headed, there is a difference of opinions between conservatism and development, middle-class and rural environmentalists. I have a development perspective. The gradual closing of the free-trade world will also have implications for Indian industry’s exports. The government has announced fiscal incentives for solar cell and module manufacture and imposed higher import duties on Chinese products. While it is difficult to say if this will hinder India’s renewable programme, on the other hand, there is an obvious advantage in building our industry.

The book is written in a relatable style, in particular for the younger generation. Is this deliberate?

I have explored these issues in my previous writings and I usually assume that people already know about these issues. We are increasingly becoming a less informed society as our circles of information have shrunk. So, this is a contemporary book because another generation needs to know this.