A recently published report of the Food & Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has identified the livestock sector as a major contributor to global warming, land and air pollution and loss of biodiversity with an implied hint that at fault is mostly the developmental efforts of the poor nations. Livestock occupies 26 per cent of the ice-free terrestrial area of the planet for grazing and 33 per cent arable land is used for feed crop production. Besides, the livestock expansion has been a key factor for deforestation. The livestock sector accounts for 18 per cent of green gas emission, primarily contributed by methane generated from enteric fermentation by ruminants. Moreover, it consumes 8 per cent of the global human water requirement, which is already under stress. Among the identified 35 hot spots for biodiversity, 23 are reported to be affected by livestock!
No doubt, the report is cause for  concern, as are other reports on impending threats to world ecosystems published from time to time.
The latest UN Climate report has predicted that adverse climatic changes will affect millions of life forms and resources of the planet, especially in Afro-Asian countries, by the middle of this century; the worst of which is the complete meltdown of the Himalayan glaciers. Even the projected global consumption and demand of palm oil till 2020, is reported to be a serious threat to the rain forests of Malaysia and Indonesia! If there is anything consistent in these reports, it is that the doomsday scenario prediction seems to be getting nearer every time a new report comes out! There is  often an unsaid but underlying statement that this doomsday is a direct fallout of  "unplanned" development, especially by the emerging and under-developed economies. Remedial measures to deal with the worsening global environment are needed. It is imperative when the explosive growth in global population vis-à-vis the pressure on life-support systems is over-reaching sustainability.
For instance, the UN Population Division has projected the world population of about 10 bn. by 2050; at the same period the total population of “hungry” people is likely to increase from 1 bn. to about 3 bn. until the requisite measures are taken to reduce it. It is known that a major chunk of pressure on development is driven by rich nations – the discrepancy is more so in agriculture, and more so in livestock! According to a study titled Redefining Progress 2000, nature provides 5.5 acres of bio-productive space for each person which will reduce to 3 acres by 2050. In contrast an American uses, at present, 30 acres of bio-productive space to support his or her lifestyle!
If one looks at the much maligned energy scenario, it could be observed that in contrast to 1.2 bn. people in the developed world consuming energy at the rate of 7.4 kw per person or 8.9 tw (trillion watts) per annum, merely 1 kw per person or 4.1 tw per annum of energy is being consumed by 4.1 bn. residents of the developing world. The wealthiest 20 per cent of world population is consuming 80 per cent of goods and services produced from the earth's resources and therefore contributing that much more to worsening the environment! The figures mentioned are just to focus some of the glaring disparities that already exist in this world.
Therefore, in seeking solutions and framing future policies to improve global environment, these disparities need to be reckoned with. Otherwise, it would continue to widen the gap between the developed and developing worlds, fuelling more socio-economic and environmental problems. The solution, everyone says, is in technology, specifically green technologies!
Green has become a colour of pride and the more “greenie” points you have, the better you are supposed to be doing. Most of the solutions being offered today, technology or otherwise, are likely to retain the technological dependence on the developed world and thereby, arguably, continue the technology servitude for emerging economies. They also  tend to neglect the locally developed and relevant environment-friendly solutions. The future of the environment is recognition of solutions and adaptation to local needs. Indigenisation – seemingly costlier – will lead to sustainable development.
IANS