Responses to The Alarmist Perspective

This is shaping up into a valuable debate, for me at least.
Here are two responses to 'The Alarmist Perspective' (below):
Response 1:
Again, as you said, I think you've done a better job than the article in articulating what the problem is. And

while that has it's use (I'm not for a moment implying that just because you don't have a 100% doable solution, you stop talking about the problem), you still haven't given me much clarity on what can be done. I ask that because even if the government won't listen (as of now, that may change), industry might. For selfish reasons like "we care about the environment, buy our products". It's happening in the West, it'll come here. But my sincere advice to you in your struggle would be not just to tell us all what's wrong, but identify realistic ways of changing or at least amending it.

Response 2:
I'll try and keep it as short as possible - I thought the article was thought provoking. However, most such writing is rarely ever action-oriented, which in turn means that although it aims at drawing attention to a problem, offering solutions is not the aim.

In this case, especially, offering solutions is not entirely possible. Not because we aren't well equipped but simply because solutions will come with understanding and that won't come when there's such widespread ignorance about the absolute criminality that for instance, gas spewing generators perpetuate.

As for your take on the issue, especially the theoretical aspect of it, Za, it makes a lot of sense to fit such patterns into a larger psycho- economical framework. Where I work, this is what we are trying to tell the government - that growth is usually viewed as progress when actually it might imply a change. In theoretical terms, what we view as a linear and upward trajectory might be a parallel process. So, we've been trying to get the planning commission to listen to the idea of having separate planning processes for growth that will necessiate sustenance of what we already have and growth that will take us further. As we explain to the babus, the difference is if I have an apple, do I want to keep it fresh or do I want to make it into juice? And more importantly, that making it into juice will means I have to keep it fresh first.

I hope that makes sense to you? I work with a government where the going is tough. It might offer some hope to say that I see the will to change things only growing. That has come about because we lot (that Za calls social activists, who are actually just restless creatures gnawing at the government day in day out) refuse to give in to a normative discourse, which in this country is very very easy to do. Instead, we are stressing the pragmatic benefits of taking an alternative approach. I must say that I am very very impressed with how increasingly attentive the political establishments are in this regard.
As for the corporate giants, I am repulsed by how little they do. Body Shop for instance go around advertising their "good" behaviour. But what about it's nine other sister concerns all owned by L'Oreal that don't do anything even remotely close to what Body Shop preaches through it's product advertising? Sorry, perhaps I expect too much. But I don't agree when it is alleged that the government might not listen, but corporates will for whatever motive. History shows otherwise. We must remember that at the end of the day, the government is a non profit organisation - which means it will do whatever necessary to govern the country and that won't happen if the country is going up in smoke. I know I said I'd keep it short. Blimey!

I also received a very well thought out, valuable comment on some of my economic points in a Comment to the original post.

This post is getting rather long though, so I will summarize my arguments for and against all three responses in a separate one. Keep the arguments coming!