I was stuck in traffic in Bombay when I first read about India's new wonder car, the Tata Nano.
My windows were closed, despite the heat, and I had a scarf wrapped around my face to escape the smog streaming in through the driver's window - he was wiping the city's pollution off his face intermittently with a cloth. All around us families on motorbikes, often with two small children clutching onto the handlebars were weaving in and out of the early traffic - an everyday reality in India's metropolises, and the image which inspired industry giant Ratan Tata to develop his budget "one-lakh" car (about £1,250) to improve safety for commuting families.
Green groups have largely denounced the new wonder car, predicting rightly that more cars can only mean increased carbon emissions: development = wealth = polluting lifestyle choices. I am the first to agree that developing countries need to act boldly to improve their environmental policies; if we wait until they reach the carbon output of developed countries it will be too late for everyone.
But we would do better to censor our own behaviour first. The carbon footprint of the average UK citizen weighs in at a hefty 11.01 tonnes per year, the average Indian's is just 1.34 tonnes. Australians are pumping out 28 tonnes per year.
International carbon emissions need to be reduced, but also
massively recalibrated. I can't blame Mr and Mrs Average Bombayite for
wanting their children to be tucked inside a car instead of choking on
the traffic fumes, two days was enough for me.
Back to the car. There is no doubt that more cars mean more
pollution. But the Nano emits just 120g of carbon per kilometre. The
Chinese, who seem to be favouring huge status-lending gas-guzzling
vehicles, and all those 4x4 converts, might take a lesson from this
responsbile car design.
Commenting on the aesthetics and functionality of the Nano, rather than its environmental implications, an American observer quipped: "You can fit five people inside, if nobody breathes." Something the target market has plenty of practice in judging by the current situation.
How safe is it? Not all cheap things are rubbish, but this is SO cheap that I'm wondering where they've skimped. If it's so good, when are they going to market it over here? I'm guessing it won't pass EU safety standards.
Posted by: Greenman | Monday, 14 January 2008 at 09:32 AM
The Indian car looks like a copycat of this - "Think". I minor difference is that Think is electric - and charges for 120 miles overnight. It is good for 60mph - this is a software limit.
So why not start in India with electric cars? We presented this in Tehran - and they are seriously considering a version - with solar panels to charge it during daylight - making the 180km limit to 180 km / 120 miles nighttime driving.
:-)
Posted by: Knut H. Flottorp | Tuesday, 15 January 2008 at 03:45 PM
The link is - for everyone:
http://en.think.no/
Think is a car you can buy now, it works, it is 0 emission, battery powered. Then it is "Made in Norway".
Posted by: Knut H. Flottorp | Tuesday, 15 January 2008 at 03:48 PM
It is Mumbai and not Bombay.People of Mumbai are called Mumbaikars and not Bombayites. Atleast that is what mumbaikars would like to be called and no i am not being a nationalist
I am not sure if I am alone in this observation..Why cant journalists writing on the the 'hapless' developing world cannot get down from their high horse which makes them either sound condescending, less than wholesome in praise (if that 'thirld world' event they are reporting deserves the praise), exceedingly critical or worse still act as the morally superior judge on what the 'others' shud be doing.
This one is from the first category.condescending.(Hmmm that Indians are getting big ' attitude)
It will be nice if for a change they can see things from the other angle ..the world will look nicer i can promise
Posted by: enartha | Wednesday, 16 January 2008 at 12:30 PM
Hi Enartha - I have just visited Mumbai. I took a guide book to Mumbai with me and told everyone I knew I was visiting the Indian city of Mumbai. Newspapers and their websites follow coherent style rules to ensure the uniformity of language across the publication and The Independent uses 'Bombay'. As does, interestingly enough, Rohinton Mistry, the city's favourite author. Do please explain that 'other angle' I've missed in discussing the nano, and how you think I have been condescending, as it is not intentional and I am not exactly sure whether you are referring to something specific I have written or something more general.
Posted by: Ethics Girl | Wednesday, 16 January 2008 at 12:53 PM
So Indians get a car for 1000 quid - we get 4.5 million free energy efficient light bulbs. Are we pulling in opposite directions?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/fun/competitions/promotions/article645906.ece
Posted by: david | Thursday, 17 January 2008 at 10:23 PM
Um, how about using TRAINS for getting around in Mumbai? I worked there for 6 months and took the rail network downtown, which was about 5x faster and pretty comfortable with a breeze from the doors. There are way too many people freezing in hermeneutically-sealed cars with the air conditioning blasting, while everyone outside chokes on their fumes!
Posted by: Susan Cooke | Thursday, 31 January 2008 at 11:46 AM
The reason why The Independent chooses to use Bombay is pretty simple- it’s a British newspaper. Dear Sophie, allow me to enlighten you on the parts that your guidebook and two visits didn’t do (apparently). The reason why Indians chose to change the names of several cities like Kolkata-Calcutta, Madras-Chennai and Bombay-Mumbai was to shed your country’s colonial hangover and ‘Indianise’ the names to make them sound like what they had before your dear ancestors colonized us. Even after leaving you choose to assert your superiority by choosing to ignore what we have ‘lawfully’ named our cities.
Another reason why some of people in Mumbai choose to cling to Bombay is simple nostalgia. Several don’t like the new name and have their own versions of what could have been better etc etc. However, Bombay is now Mumbai whether Great Britain likes that or not as we no longer need your approval for the same. Majority of Mumbai publications use the word Mumbai and very occasionally will you find the old word. We don’t hate the word, Mumbaikars arent offended by being called Bombayites but the term ‘kar’ is derived from Marathi, the local language as opposed to the English ‘ite’ and people are likely to identify with it more.
Another note, as an Indian who has lived and gone to college in Mumbai (London too by the way) and an avid reader of fiction, I have never read Mistry. He is a popular writer but only intellectually challenged people can term ‘any’ writer as any city’s ‘favourite’ as these things are relative. What were you going by? Sales figures? What was your source? Perhaps your guidebook? (he he)
Although I don’t think you were as condescending as some of the western media the tone of your piece was yes, very condescending. With our growth and your recession (not to mention the fact that (one of) the richest man in Britain is Indian and we now do most of your jobs better than you (one word- outsourcing), maybe you guys should learn to sing a different tune now. Its about time, don’t you think?
Posted by: PowerWoman | Thursday, 22 May 2008 at 08:14 AM
Power Woman I can really understand your views about colonialisation and you are right; being a Brit I can see the superiority complex of Britain towards the countries that it colonised however, do not forget that the caste system in India is horrific and worse than any colonial power. There is a terrible inbalance of wealth in India and of course the richer higher class Indians think it is their right to be well off - I do not see much in the form of charity there; I have lived in India for 2 years by the way. I am always amused how many Indians copy the value system of the rich aristocracy of Britain and somehow the airs and graces of something that was challenged in Britain long ago. I think India needs to move on and the only way to do it is to apply your education and your privileges to your own country...the same goes to overseas Africans. Ther only culture which I can say really gives back to its own motherland and does not try to copy the values of other countries is China. India has a love/hate relationship with Britain, it resents its colonial history but it just can't get off trying to be British....the best aspect of British culture you could choose to adapt to India would be the utilitarian vlaues of human rights and equality for all within your culture.
Posted by: loppo | Thursday, 22 May 2008 at 08:57 AM
xapdfnew ouxvngqbw xvdar moxs jwmgcpaxf bocjikdqs oxvw
Posted by: dzpyogwvr xlprgfnz | Wednesday, 18 March 2009 at 10:20 AM