Why I do not support the Bullet Train Project

I was pointed to an article during a Twitter discussion on the Bullet Train project a little while back. Entitled "The Economics of the Bullet Train and Whether It Makes Financial Sense To Take a 0.1% loan", it concludes that the project is economically feasible. As a student of earth science, this is my response to the article, as well as my take on the Bullet Train in the context of the climate crisis.

The Assumptions

With no background in economics, finance or rail technology, I am not in any position to comment on those aspects of the project. Hence, I begin with the assumptions that:

1. The interest rate is very generous (with whatever assumptions required about exchange rates, etc).
2. The Shikansen system is plain awesome.

I focus instead on the what the author of the article calls "The "Other" Aspects".

My Contentions

"Is a bullet train desirable when we don't have enough toilets?" Personally, I do not think building toilets is the Government's job. That a social movement regarding better sanitary practices is required is quite evident -- however, the same awareness could also be achieved with improvements in the education system, especially at the primary and middle school levels. The author's lack of confidence in the concept of education is evident though.

I think the primary question is -- "Should the Government be investing in luxury, when basic needs aren't met universally?". My answer is an emphatic no. The author's example of laptops does not apply here -- it is not a citizen's responsibility to provide for the basic needs of Indian masses, but it certainly is the Government's responsibility. A citizen, in his/her private capacity, is free to make choices regarding their money and their budgets, and is free to choose between luxury items and basic needs. When Governments start focusing on status symbols before providing for roti, kapda, makaan and shiksha, I have a problem with that.

The Climate Perspective

I believe there is a moral issue when a Government takes away State funds from, say, education or law and order and diverts it to "hyper-development" or status symbols. It is important to distinguish "hyper-development" from development of basic infrastructure, and the latter may change definitions as a country develops. In my opinion, a public transport system is basic infrastructure, but the bullet train is not. I think the financial returns from a high speed rail corridor are over-estimated, especially without any consideration of its environmental and carbon costs.

The development, operation and maintenance of the bullet train will involve huge carbon emissions. This will impose carbon costs on India (and the world, but I am more concerned with India). It will especially impose extra costs on the communities that derive protection from flood costs by the mangroves. Both Maharashtra and Gujarat are facing more flooding due to the climate crisis. I think it is short-sighted to first destroy the natural defenses we have against floods, and then try to divert more funds to disaster relief later on. Simply put, we are aggravating a disaster we should be trying to avoid.

It is a reasonable argument that we will still be affected by emissions from other countries, and we can do little to stop that. In such a situation, the Government should be focusing on utilising its existing carbon budget to first ensure disaster preparedness and adaptation to the climate crisis, before investing in any luxury or "state-of-the-art" projects.

The Moral Perspective

Should a Government be prioritising projects that will benefit a small and relatively affluent section of the society? One may argue that the poor man contributes little to the State coffers, which is why I think this is a moral debate and not an economic one. Since the poor get to vote, they should receive benefits from their Government too. Even though this is a globally recognised crisis, and India's vulnerability to this crisis ranks among the highest, little attention has been paid to providing adaptive help to vulnerable communities. The same investment, if put towards alleviating the agrarian crisis, would be far more equitable.

However, there is a greater problem here. The climate crisis is an inherently unfair problem -- those who contributed the most towards the crisis, i.e. the rich nations are less vulnerable to it than the poorer ones. We understand this on a broad scale, and hence we condemn the developed nations for wreaking this crisis on us. But consider this : every time a relatively rich Indian takes an unnecessary flight, or wants to get from Ahmedabad to Mumbai in less than 3 hours instead of 7-8 hours (not basic needs), he/she is also benefitting from a luxury at the expense of the poor. The poor person's struggle for sustenance should not be aggravated by a rich person's desires. It is not simply a matter of the Government's funds being diverted from the poor to the rich, it is also a matter of imposing extra costs on the poor and vulnerable, for the luxuries of the rich.

In fact, (I think) this is why we have laws -- it is the lawmakers' responsibility to frame laws which ensure that one person's actions do not harm others. In the case of the bullet train, it would be a small section of the society harming everybody (including themselves) through these actions. But that small section of the society is much less vulnerable to climate impacts and can afford to guard themselves.

As a last point, we must keep in mind that low-income farmers generally have a negative carbon footprint. Essentially, they are contributing to the solution for the climate crisis, while being impacted more by it. They are also the ones bringing the average Indian carbon footprint down.

Conclusions

I welcome the Maharashtra Government's decision to halt the bullet train project. I think an in-depth consideration of the carbon costs of the project is critically required. It is not necessary that the project be called off -- the Government could, for example, include an extra cess that would be diverted towards climate solutions. However, I do not support this. First, it does not make sense to aggravate a crisis and then try to solve it. Secondly, the Government's handling of such a cess is a matter of additional policy attention as well as public concern.

This does not mean that all development projects be called off. A simple idea is that the costs of those emitting carbon should be paid by the same people, and not be transferred to other people. This is the essence of the carbon tax, in fact.

There are no perfect solutions that will please all, but we should remember that development is not an absolute, rigid or binary concept. We do not have to compete with other nations, nor should we try to mimic them.

It is our job to find a Plan B, since there is no Planet B.

▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂

The "Other" Contentions

"But we'll also understand the technology ourselves.." -- On a side note, I dislike the author's assumption that Indian engineers are incapable of developing required technology on their own, without foreign assistance. My personal experience has been that India lacks development not because it lacks talent or technical understanding, but because it lacks political will. (I also extend special credit to Indian innovators who succeed not because of the environment, but in spite of it.) Again, if we would invest more in education, we would not need international assistance.

Suggested Reading

1. Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train: Why farmers call it unfair
2. Panel pulls up govt. for diverting coal cess

▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂

For email subscriptions to such posts:

Email Address