Latest news with #TimesEvoke
Time of India
3 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
‘Once, access to nature was segregated by race- now, green ‘techno-fixes' seek profits'
Rob Nixon is Professor of English at Princeton University. Speaking to Srijana Mitra Das at Times Evoke before World Nature Conservation Day (28 July), he discusses changing ecological views: We are seeing a world where climate science is now being denied and 'Drill, baby, drill' are acceptable words — has your concept of 'slow violence' against ecology become faster? The pace of change is accelerating. In America, there is certainly the defunding of environmental agencies and the denial of climate science — yet, it is harder now to deny this than it was earlier and the forces trying to do so are a little less sure and vocal. However, we now have the phenomenon of a clutch of billionaires emerging from places like Silicon Valley with an idea of the 'techno-fix' — this includes huge plans like solar geoengineering, diverse grand megaprojects of reorganising the environment technologically. In my view, these are almost surrogate ways of climate denial. These people accept climate science but the only solutions they offer are techno-determinism, driven by profit and hostile to regulations. These projects don't ever focus on reducing emissions — the approach assumes the only solution will be technological as opposed to new forms of governance, civic action, etc. Money can be earned from these initiatives — these groups thus are not climate denialists but once you start discussing neoliberal politics, the need for regulation and redistribution of opportunity, they oppose those. So, the techno-utopians are, in a sense, playing for Team Climate Denial as they are not interested in reducing emissions or ensuring environmental justice . You write of the 'environmentalism of the poor' — can you describe that? This is an effort to emphasise the poor, both urban and rural, have environmental values and make ecological choices. As ecosystems get degraded, the poor are most vulnerable to making difficult choices between protecting the environment and surviving threatened circumstances. For a long time, it was assumed the automatic spokesperson for nature would be a white person from the Global North — today, there is a bigger chorus of voices, including people who have direct environmental experience. This helps reconcile issues like food and water security with conservation in a very different way from having only the voices of people in Washington, Geneva or London. Their decisions don't take into account the fact of sharing land with other creatures. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Knee Pain After 50? Try This Before Reaching for Pills Read More Undo You write of South Africa as well — was access to nature itself divided on a racial basis during the apartheid era? Yes. In terms of the whole edifice of conservation, particularly in southern and eastern Africa where the largest populations of white colonialists lived, there was 'fortress conservation' or the protection of animals at the expense of locals. There was racial segregation and exclusion in terms of black access to natural spaces — for many black Africans, it seemed like white conservationists liked animals more than them. A big shift taking place now — there is much more respect for rural Africans as possessing environmental knowledge. There is growing recognition of how they have lived for centuries with the land and ecosystems and developed reservoirs of knowledge which old-style colonial conservation never respected, nor engaged with. The idea was conservation did not come 'naturally' to the colonised. Fortunately, there has been a change in that now. Yet, the long history was extremely segregationist and discriminatory — if a white person killed animals, they were a 'hunter', but if a black person did the same, they were a 'poacher'. An identical activity was given different designations according to the race of the person carrying the weapon. Did colonial control also impact nonhuman species in South Africa? The big driver for tourism — and thus, for conservation, which attempted to make wildlife into a touristic money-spinner — in southern and eastern Africa, which includes South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, was charismatic megafauna. So, most conservation focus was on elephants, lions, buffalos, leopards, rhinos, etc. At times, to present an experience with these species for eager American and European visitors, the animals were transported to places they couldn't adjust to or survive in. I grew up in an area which didn't have much savanna. Hence, no giraffes existed there naturally — but tourists wanted giraffes as part of their smorgasbord of creatures. So, the authorities would bring giraffes in and they would not stay well. Now, there is greater attention to habitat conservation and ecosystem preservation in a far more holistic way while not wanting to lose the revenue that comes from megafauna. Also, there are more — but not enough — game parks owned and run by black South Africans. Hopefully, that will grow and present a counter-hegemonic view of what conservation means to indigenous people. These sites can help by discussing ways for conservation that didn't only spring from the heads of colonialists but instead emerged from people's real experiences of living with animals on the land. Views expressed are personal
Time of India
20-07-2025
- General
- Time of India
The other Big Oil
We usually think of 'big oil' as slick fossil fuel 'supermajors' which power modernity, from its automobiles and aviation right down to the smartphone in your hand. However, there is another 'big oil' in our lives — these are the liniments used in everyday products, from bread to baby food, lipsticks to detergent. Some oils are made for cooking, a global trade of over $200 billion in 2024. Of all these inputs, across edibles and usables, palm oil reigns supreme — global production in 2024 was 77 million tonnes, as compared to 21 million for sunflower. Palm oil is expected to expand to 240 million tonnes by 2050. Its plantations are 10% of Earth's permanent cropland — each person consumes an average of 8 kgs palm oil a year. Chemistry — and its intertwined equation with economics — is the driving force behind this domination. Compared to other plant-based oils, palm oil is perennial, less demanding of soil and most productive, generating six times more per acre than sunflower and eight times more than soybeans. With a history of slavery, colonialism and indentured labour, it has always been a cheap material while its combination of fat and consistency lend themselves to multiple products. Given how palm oil is in both pizza and paint, its presence is phantomlike — undiscernible, yet pivotal. However, while that makes palm oil seem regal in our kingdom of commodities, its sweeping cape hides a darker side — palm oil plantations demand cutting down tropical forests. The infernos lit to clear these drive greenhouse gas emissions, making Earth unstable, while the loss of the homes nature gave them has placed wonderful species, from orangutans to elephants, tigers to rhinos, at the fearsome door of extinction. Importantly, while palm oil demand began in the Global North as it enriched itself on the back of slaves, today it is driven by the Global South — India, China and Indonesia use 40% of all palm oil. Here too, it carries superhero swagger — and underlying tragedy. It was adopted as people grew better-off and fast food chains plus processed edibles appeared gleefully on the scene. Yet, as people consumed such 'modernity', they also developed its ailments, from obesity to diabetes. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like AirSense 11 – Smart tech for deep sleep ResMed Buy Now Undo However, the world must work out safeguards around this massive source of livelihoods. As Times Evoke's global experts emphasise, knowing the provenance of what we use is vital. This can steer us towards sustainable options, from supporting small farmers to choosing locally-produced alternatives with lighter carbon footprints. Join Times Evoke in discovering palm oil's journey through history and cartography — we can still change the trajectory of the other 'big oil'.
Time of India
20-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
‘Palm oil prevails from soap to napalm — it feeds billions but pollutes Earth'
Jonathan E. Robins Jonathan E. Robins is Associate Professor of History at Michigan Tech University. Speaking to Srijana Mitra Das at Times Evoke , he discusses the story — and challenges — of palm oil: What is the history of palm oil? ■ This product had been used for thousands of years in Africa. But the beginnings of the transatlantic slave trade in the 16th and 17th centuries brought people, food and products outside Africa. Palm oil was used to feed enslaved captives on slave ships. It was also used as a cosmetic — before they were auctioned off in America, it was applied to make the skin of enslaved people look shiny and healthier. It also played a role in the colonial scramble for Africa — palm oil was an important motivation for European empires to seize territory, trying, for instance, in Nigeria and Cameroon to secure and monopolise access to oilproducing regions. Later, it reached Southeast Asia — in the 19th century, the British began to expand their control over the Indian Ocean area. They transferred oil palm seeds and other plants they thought were economically useful across the region. The Dutch were also involved — a consignment of oil palm reached then-Dutch East Indies in 1848, taking root there. Who were the workers growing this crop? Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Redefine Your Future with a Top Online MBA SRM Online Enquire Now Undo by Taboola by Taboola ■ Initially, in Southeast Asia, there was little local interest in palm oil because coconut was a well-established industry. In the 20 th century, when prices for all commodities, but particularly edible oils, began to skyrocket around WWI , high prices for oil drew Europebased companies to invest in oil palm plantations in the region. They copied the established business model for rubber, where colonial governments took land from local people and leased it to European companies — they then imported workers from India, Java or China, often under indenture contracts. The wages these plantations paid were simply not high enough to attract locals — they thus relied on recruiting labour from places with fewer opportunities, limited access to land, overpopulation and often, famine conditions which compelled people to seek overseas work, even at low wages. How did palm oil then get involved in post WWII development plans? ■ In the 1950s-60s, the World Bank and former colonial powers, like the British and French, began looking for projects that could create jobs in ex-colonies and increase supplies to address what many believed was an impending global food crisis. Being a labour-intensive crop, the palm oil industry provided a lot of employment while creating a material useful for food and other products. Eventually, that became part of the development narrative of post-colonial economies like Malaysia, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, etc. Instead of rejecting colonial crops, independent governments embraced them as a source of revenue that could be channelled into other development projects. What is the history of palm oil, fats and 'an industrial diet'? ■ This story begins in the 19th century when a series of discoveries in chemistry revealed new ways of manipulating natural fats from plant and animalbased oils. Manufacturers were seeking to reduce costs — one way was by making raw materials interchangeable. So, they used chemistry to modify fats from different plant and animal sources. The cheapest products using palm oil first were candles and soap — it then found itself in food. In the late 19 th century, new products, like margarine, cooking and frying fats, began to be developed. They were simply sold as new 'industrial' fats — one week, they might be made with hydrogenated cottonseed oil, another week, with palm oil. For manufacturers, these fats being substituted so easily was very appealing. Palm oil became such a significant part of this system because the plant is an extremely efficient producer of fats and has both unsaturated liquid components and saturated fats, which makes it applicable across industries. Can you tell us about its presence in modern soap? ■ West Africans made soap using palm oil centuries ago — in the 18th century, European travellers there described such locally-made soaps. Europeans began using it first as a colouring agent. Raw, unrefined palm oil has a striking red or orange colour — when fresh, it also has a very interesting scent. This combination made palm oil an attractive ingredient for early soap manufacturers. In the 19 th century, as Britain moved to abolish the slave trade, British merchants and shipping companies began exporting more and more palm oil to make up for that commercial loss. Its price fell and as it became cheaper, soap makers began to use it as their main ingredient. How did it make its way into weaponry? ■ The main connection is through a product that all fats contain called glycerine — for years, this had been discarded as a waste product but then, chemists discovered it could be used to make, among other things, explosives. Nitroglycerin was the first major explosive based on this. A series of other applications derive from this use of palm oil — napalm was initially developed using palmitic acids drawn from it, a thickened sort of gasoline product that burns. Later manufacturing shifted to other materials — yet, palm oil was important enough to give this weapon its name 'napalm'. What are palm oil's environmental impacts? ■ The Southeast Asian industry in particular grew at the expense of destroying primary forest which was first targeted by colonial plantations. This continued post-independence. Deforestation is also of great concern in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. But other impacts include water pollution — factories extracting palm oil use enormous amounts of water. Until the 1980s, most byproducts of this process were just dumped into local waterways, causing pollution. This is still a problem in many 'frontier' areas where oil palm is a newly developed industry. The mills started there often don't have the equipment and infrastructure to safely process waste — hence, deforestation combined with water pollution produces very negative impacts. PROFUSE, YET UNSEEN: Palm oil is widely used Palm oil employs millions though — are there sustainable ways forward? ■ It's a challenge because palm oil is often invisible in the products we consume — rarely can we see its colour or taste its flavour. Those components have been intentionally removed from most palm oil added to consumer products. I'd suggest people think about palm oil with curiosity and concern. It is a very important food product, it sustains billions and converting it now, for instance, into biofuel is a concern for some who worry that the rush to embrace biodiesel and 'green fuels' will not only accelerate deforestation but also increase food prices. These issues are one reason I use a commodity approach in my research — this allows us to grasp onto physical objects that connect us to different regions, organisations, governments, corporations and real people who produce and consume these things. Commodities help us avoid abstractions — they ground our understanding of global challenges, environmental to economic, in a way where we can see their origins in history and hopefully use that to address our own world.
Time of India
13-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
India and China were the world's richest nations — rice grew their wealth: Francesca Bray, University of Edinburgh
Francesca Bray is Professor Emerita of Social Anthropology at the University of Edinburgh. Speaking to Srijana Mitra Das at Times Evoke , she outlines the history of rice — and its workers: What is the core of your research? Over my career, I've looked at multiple aspects stemming from my original research, which was on the history of agriculture in China . From that came an interest in agrarian networks and social systems linked with these. Gender, with its associated crops, was one such topic — this is when I grew particularly interested in rice. Does rice represent global commodity networks? Rice is rather special in today's world — wheat and corn are global commodities, bought and sold between countries in greater quantities than usually consumed in their home economies. Rice is an exception — although it has world markets, most rice produced is actually consumed within the societies that grow it. Rice has resisted the large-scale industrial monoculture model and rice fields are still smaller than wheat, soybean or industrial maize. Rice encourages smaller farmers and more diversity of crops and occupations. IT'S AT SO MANY LEVELS: Rice, grown in a variety of ways by small farmers, from flat paddies to layered terraces, evolved its own technological development and sparked entrepreneurship — Live Events Did rice cultivation shape pre-colonial societies? With the ability of its farms to remain small, rice did away with feudal relations — the management of farms by small agriculturalists meant their labour was not directly controlled by a landlord. As long as they paid their rent, they were fine. Secondly, it encouraged small farmers to become entrepreneurs, working at household scale or with local manufacturers and often buying land of their own. In southern China, the notion of wealth growing within generations was strong because people could change their status. In Malaysia, peasants contributed taxes to a king's coffers but they weren't feudal labour — they were independent farmers. How do you view the characterisation of ricebased economies being slower and less technological than wheat-eating nations? The historian Roy Bin Wong's book 'China Transformed' suggests the principle of symmetrical comparison — instead of saying 'Europe went this way and China and India didn't, so what did they do wrong?', we should ask what people wanted there and whether they were successful at managing it. The south Chinese rice-centred economy actually grew enormously over the centuries, becoming a global powerhouse. It didn't give rise to an Industrial Revolution like England's and mechanisation wasn't big but many systems for raising capital, making it available at a distance, etc., developed there. The 19 th century onwards, interactions in the Indian Ocean-Pacific world between Western capitalism and what was supposed to not be capitalism in Asia had several financial systems which came from South India, East Asia and Islamic nations. WERE YOU ALWAYS PEARLY? Rice includes harsh realities like colonialism and forced labour India and China were actually the richest economies on Earth — rice was a significant factor in this wealth and the social organisation of businesses around it helped produce capitalism. So, it's not helpful to say, 'They were slow and got overtaken', because if you look in detail at the interactions, there was mutual influence — of course, since the people writing such books were English or Dutch, they preferred to say they were the ones bringing progress. How did colonialism then impact rice? Rice was an essential product in the rise and expansion of colonialism and the emergence of a global industrial economy — during the colonial era, rice became a cheap staple food for poor workforces around the world. By 1700, rice was the main provision of the slave trade between West Africa and the Americas — it then became the staple of colonial labour across the tropical zone. In the 18 th century, rice plantations in Brazil and South Carolina harnessed African skills to grow the crop for export to Europe and the Caribbean. Through the 19 th century, as they expanded colonies in Asia, British, French and Dutch powers carved out export-based rice zones in Indochina and Indonesia — they also priced the rice industries of America out of the market. Independent kingdoms in Southeast Asia like Siam (Thailand) also entered the fray and opened new rice frontiers to feed miners, plantation workers and growing urban populations. A latecomer colonial power, Meiji Japan , met its expanding resource needs by annexing Taiwan and Korea and taking control of their rice production. Chinese merchants controlled most of the rice trade across Southeast Asia. FROM STAPLE TO SPECIAL: Rice is many- splendoured The area under rice increased as colonial workforces expanded — by the mid-19 th century, new technologies for draining, pumping and levelling meant swampy deltas and flood plains could now be turned into paddy fields. In Indochina, rice industries were set up to feed migrant workers in mines and plantations — in Punjab and Bengal, the British intensified rice systems developed by the Mughals to expand commercial cropping of indigo, cotton and sugarcane. Colonial policies drove the emergence of what the historian Peter Boomgaard calls 'monotonous rice bowls', monocrop zones depending on intensive labour by workers who had little opportunity to diversify or increase their incomes. Typically, they were tied down by debt — colonial governments introduced taxes that had to be paid in cash while moneylenders charged high rates of interest. It was in this fertile soil that the Green Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s was planted. What role has gender played in rice? IT'S NOT JUST HIS-STORY: The chronicles of women rice farmers are often wilfully erased Even between China and Japan, which were very close in many respects, the gender coding of rice cultivation was different. China was a particularly intense example of a gender coding where men were supposed to be in the fields growing grain and women in the house, weaving cloth. This view dated back to the early imperial period in China and outlived the eventual switch to monetary payment. The notion that men should be out in the fields and women at home remained fundamental in Chinese political economy and concepts of identity, gender and morality. It seemed to fit with Chinese circumstances since many rice regions in China were textile producers, which did start with women producing the textiles. As the economy commercialised though, more and more men came into the textile industry which began to expand to workshops outside the home. Meanwhile, in many regions, women were out working in the rice fields — but since this wasn't regarded as 'proper' or 'ideal' women's activity, their hard work was often erased from the history books.
Time of India
13-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
‘India and China were the world's richest nations — rice grew their wealth'
'India and China were the world's richest nations — rice grew their wealth' Francesca Bray is Professor Emerita of Social Anthropology at the University of Edinburgh. Speaking to Srijana Mitra Das at Times Evoke , she outlines the history of rice — and its workers: What is the core of your research? Over my career, I've looked at multiple aspects stemming from my original research, which was on the history of agriculture in China. From that came an interest in agrarian networks and social systems linked with these. Gender, with its associated crops, was one such topic — this is when I grew particularly interested in rice. Does rice represent global commodity networks? by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Secure your family's future! ICICI Pru Life Insurance Plan Get Quote Undo Rice is rather special in today's world — wheat and corn are global commodities, bought and sold between countries in greater quantities than usually consumed in their home economies. Rice is an exception — although it has world markets, most rice produced is actually consumed within the societies that grow it. Rice has resisted the large-scale industrial monoculture model and rice fields are still smaller than wheat, soybean or industrial maize. Rice encourages smaller farmers and more diversity of crops and occupations. IT'S AT SO MANY LEVELS: Rice, grown in a variety of ways by small farmers, from flat paddies to layered terraces, evolved its own technological development and sparked entrepreneurship — Did rice cultivation shape pre-colonial societies? With the ability of its farms to remain small, rice did away with feudal relations — the management of farms by small agriculturalists meant their labour was not directly controlled by a landlord. As long as they paid their rent, they were fine. Secondly, it encouraged small farmers to become entrepreneurs, working at household scale or with local manufacturers and often buying land of their own. In southern China, the notion of wealth growing within generations was strong because people could change their status. In Malaysia, peasants contributed taxes to a king's coffers but they weren't feudal labour — they were independent farmers. How do you view the characterisation of ricebased economies being slower and less technological than wheat-eating nations? The historian Roy Bin Wong's book 'China Transformed' suggests the principle of symmetrical comparison — instead of saying 'Europe went this way and China and India didn't, so what did they do wrong?', we should ask what people wanted there and whether they were successful at managing it. The south Chinese rice-centred economy actually grew enormously over the centuries, becoming a global powerhouse. It didn't give rise to an Industrial Revolution like England's and mechanisation wasn't big but many systems for raising capital, making it available at a distance, etc., developed there. The 19 th century onwards, interactions in the Indian Ocean-Pacific world between Western capitalism and what was supposed to not be capitalism in Asia had several financial systems which came from South India, East Asia and Islamic nations. WERE YOU ALWAYS PEARLY? Rice includes harsh realities like colonialism and forced labour India and China were actually the richest economies on Earth — rice was a significant factor in this wealth and the social organisation of businesses around it helped produce capitalism. So, it's not helpful to say, 'They were slow and got overtaken', because if you look in detail at the interactions, there was mutual influence — of course, since the people writing such books were English or Dutch, they preferred to say they were the ones bringing progress. How did colonialism then impact rice? Rice was an essential product in the rise and expansion of colonialism and the emergence of a global industrial economy — during the colonial era, rice became a cheap staple food for poor workforces around the world. By 1700, rice was the main provision of the slave trade between West Africa and the Americas — it then became the staple of colonial labour across the tropical zone. In the 18 th century, rice plantations in Brazil and South Carolina harnessed African skills to grow the crop for export to Europe and the Caribbean. Through the 19 th century, as they expanded colonies in Asia, British, French and Dutch powers carved out export-based rice zones in Indochina and Indonesia — they also priced the rice industries of America out of the market. Times evoke Independent kingdoms in Southeast Asia like Siam (Thailand) also entered the fray and opened new rice frontiers to feed miners, plantation workers and growing urban populations. A latecomer colonial power, Meiji Japan , met its expanding resource needs by annexing Taiwan and Korea and taking control of their rice production. Chinese merchants controlled most of the rice trade across Southeast Asia. FROM STAPLE TO SPECIAL: Rice is many- splendoured The area under rice increased as colonial workforces expanded — by the mid-19 th century, new technologies for draining, pumping and levelling meant swampy deltas and flood plains could now be turned into paddy fields. In Indochina, rice industries were set up to feed migrant workers in mines and plantations — in Punjab and Bengal, the British intensified rice systems developed by the Mughals to expand commercial cropping of indigo, cotton and sugarcane. Colonial policies drove the emergence of what the historian Peter Boomgaard calls 'monotonous rice bowls', monocrop zones depending on intensive labour by workers who had little opportunity to diversify or increase their incomes. Typically, they were tied down by debt — colonial governments introduced taxes that had to be paid in cash while moneylenders charged high rates of interest. It was in this fertile soil that the Green Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s was planted. What role has gender played in rice? IT'S NOT JUST HIS-STORY: The chronicles of women rice farmers are often wilfully erased Even between China and Japan, which were very close in many respects, the gender coding of rice cultivation was different. China was a particularly intense example of a gender coding where men were supposed to be in the fields growing grain and women in the house, weaving cloth. This view dated back to the early imperial period in China and outlived the eventual switch to monetary payment. The notion that men should be out in the fields and women at home remained fundamental in Chinese political economy and concepts of identity, gender and morality. It seemed to fit with Chinese circumstances since many rice regions in China were textile producers, which did start with women producing the textiles. As the economy commercialised though, more and more men came into the textile industry which began to expand to workshops outside the home. Meanwhile, in many regions, women were out working in the rice fields — but since this wasn't regarded as 'proper' or 'ideal' women's activity, their hard work was often erased from the history books.
