A car priced at 2000 Euros is about to appear on India�€™s roads very soon. India has about 40 million households in its bike economy �€“ people who can afford to ride a motorbike. Most of them can afford to purchase a small car at 2000 Euro, albeit some of them with loan from a bank. Even if one fourth of them decide to purchase the new car, there will be 10 million new cars in the market. This is 10 times the number of cars that come on the roads every year at present.

According to press reports, the new car will have 30-40% better energy efficiency. Thus, the number of cars will increase by 10 times at 60-70% emissions per car as compared to the present generation of vehicles. The net result is that emissions will increase by 6 to 7 times in a year or two. If all those in the bike economy decide to purchase the small car, emissions can go up by 25 times. This is merely the emission from cars. What about emissions from car factories, metal processing units, mines, so on and so forth?

Can I then plead to all those who were out of the automobile market not to purchase the car they can finally afford? They will first ask me to give up my car and ask all others like me to give up their cars before they listen to sermons from the haves. If we extend the same logic globally, people in developing countries are telling those in North America and Europe that they have a right to enjoy fruits of modern technology even at the cost of environmental balance. It is not the place of those in the developed world to impose restrictions on the aspiring classes of the world without giving up their own privileges and comforts.

The privileged and the aspiring both have valid arguments. It is dangerous to allow the spread of goods at cheap prices that can pollute air and water, making life impossible for future generations. It is equally dangerous to grant monopoly to first time polluters to possess all material goods, while depriving the late comers from comforts of the world. If, of course, the whole world goes on consuming, there may be time when there is no water, land and petrol left to consume. However, such a day is several decades away. It is difficult to expect people to give up their present to take responsibility for the future.

One of the greatest challenges of our time is to develop a framework that addresses genuine aspirations of the aspiring classes and long term viability of our environment. In order to meet this challenge, we need

• High quality public goods in place of several private goods
• A new technological platform using clean technologies, information technology and nanotechnology to increase resource efficiency substantially
• New sets of social contracts from local to global levels to discuss terms of sharing the burden of our future.

Our success will depend on our ability to adapt a new value framework where we appreciate shared community benefits more than private gains at the cost of others. This in turn demands moving away from a competitive economic model to a collaborative economic model. It will require sharing, rather than patenting, research in new technologies.

Our failure will give rise to new conflicts. The Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee was extremely wise in emphasising the relationship between peace and environment by awarding Nobel Peace Prize twice in one decade to environmental activists. We already recognise the impact of climate change �€“ global warming, melting glaciers, changing seasons, rising sea-levels, and fears of water and food security. Our response cannot be limited to intergovernmental agreements on emission controls. We need to build new peace underpinning a new value framework where commitment to common good is capable of conquering over the intrinsic selfishness in human nature.

Our commitment to a new set of social contracts at all levels is absolutely essential if we care for our children and grand-children. It is simply impossible for resources to last forever. The Club of Rome predicted in 1972 that the world would run out of oil by 2000. It has been proved wrong. Many experts now believe that we will run out of oil by 2050. Again they may be proved wrong as new reserves and new technologies are developed. The question is: How long can we go on? 2050? 2100? Perhaps, we may make the hydrogen fuel cells work or develop a mix of gas, solar power, wind energy and geothermal energy that reduces our dependence on oil. However, much before we run out of oil, we run the risk of facing acute shortage of water and arable land. Will we find bio-technological solution to our food insecurity?

Can we go on increasing our dependence on technology to find solutions to our problems? Or are we willing to question the very basis of our social fabric which is influenced by greed? Are we going to gloat over our ability to win wars? Or are we willing to negotiate the new peace? Are we going to take pride in discovering tricks to survive under the clouds of smog? Or are we going to breathe in fresh air?