The Middle of the Road

"The tree which moves some to tears of joy is in the eyes of others only a green thing that stands in the way" - William Blake. I was reminded of this quote when I read this short editorial in NY Times by Maura J Casey. In a world with little tolerance for eccentricity, it is hard to imagine that decision being made today, says the author. Difficult to digest, yet absolutely TRUE.

NY Times Editorial

When I saw employees of my small Connecticut town digging around a tree near my home, I feared they were getting ready to cut it down. Thankfully, they were just replacing a nearby street sign.

The tree is an ordinary maple, but it stands at the juncture of two roads. Not at the side of the road, mind you. In the middle. When you turn from one street to the other, you have to drive around the tree, which is at least 60 years old, and grows smack in the center of the pavement. It is a reminder of a slower time that always makes me smile.

The road is one of the few remaining lightly traveled ones in town. Once, all of this town’s roads were lightly traveled. Tractors and milk trucks ambled in greater numbers; now today’s busy commuters whiz by. The traffic — which at certain times of the day can be near constant — forced the town to install its second stoplight about five years ago, followed soon after by a few fast-food franchises. A Chinese restaurant moved in, and now we can pick up kung pao chicken without having to drive 15 minutes to the small city nearby. Such are the privileges and the constraints of civilization.

That’s why the site — and sight — of the tree, the silent, leafy sentinel of a slower time, is at once amusing and comforting. Sometime, decades ago, town officials decided to pave around the tree instead of cutting it down for the convenience of cars despite the fact that it probably made more sense to remove it while widening the road. But it was a perfectly good tree, and someone argued, successfully, that it be left alone. In a world with little tolerance for eccentricity, it is hard to imagine that decision being made today.

A Sapling Grows Into a Giant; The Streets Around It Change, Too

I grew up in Madras. As was the case with numerous other places, even Madras had its places which had lots of trees. As the economy grew, more people made money, credit culture also took great shape, enticing millions of individuals all over the country to go for their personal transport which in turn lead to traffic jams finally resulting in authorities resorting to road widening projects. Madras also participated in this journey for personal vehicles. In short, we had more vehicles than what we could handle. Never mind if the trees were still healthy. Never mind if the trees gave a cool shade to the citizens all these years. The only way by which roads could be widened was by reducing the footpath and removing trees. There were also accidents due to trees. Heartlessly, our local administrations, over the years, have faithfully carried out the tasks of reducing footpaths and removing trees, though in the later case, they were ably aided by property developers, flat owners, owners of hoardings etc. The sufferers were those who had to walk around - in the absence of footpaths and in the absence of cool shades of the trees.

Once a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) resulted in the Madras High Court ordering a stay on the felling of trees along G. N. Chetty Road, North and South Usman Roads, C. P. Ramaswamy Road and TTK Road until an expert panel looked into the issues. Authorities are confronted with a decision making issue - save trees or widen the roads and ease the traffic. The easiest decision to take is to support the public, property developers etc. as at the end of the day, they are the people who are going to vote for politicians. See, we are a democracy where only people have voting rights. Trees don't vote! While PILs helped in saving some time, often the contractors who are given the job, are in great hurry and clear the trees before anyone could react. Transplantation could be tried out wherever possible, but it has not been successful, as it is not a statutory requirement. The easiest solution is cutting of trees, which our people have faithfully done, most of them under the cover of night. In the end, trees lost their lives and Madras lost its tree cover.

I was reminded of the lost trees of Madras when I read this article about a tree in New York Times. Some highlights from the article.

"...The tree, on Kane Street near Tompkins Place, became a giant, with branches that reach across Kane, roots that have torn apart the sidewalk, and a trunk wrapped in vines that leans into the street like an old man warning cars away. In recent weeks, though, residents who live appreciatively in the mulberry’s shade feared the tree faced a new threat: a city chain saw. Then, one morning in early June, Mark Melamed saw posted signs explaining that trees on the street were scheduled for trimming or removal. The family feared the worst. The Melameds’ 16-year-old daughter, Caroline, went to school that day “close to tears,” her mother, Helen Melamed, said. The mulberry’s branches scraped Caroline’s window, providing a leafy prism on the neighborhood. She anxiously called home from school to find out what had happened to the tree...."

Bottlemania: How Water Went on Sale and Why We Bought It

Highlights from a book review by Lisa Margonelli in New York Times. Lisa Margonelli is an Irvine fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of “Oil on the Brain: Petroleum’s Long Strange Trip to Your Tank.”

• Why did Americans spend nearly $11 billion on bottled water in 2006, when we could have guzzled tap water at up to about one ten-thousandth the cost? The facile answer is marketing, marketing and more marketing, but Elizabeth Royte goes much deeper into the drink in “Bottlemania: How Water Went on Sale and Why We Bought It,” streaming trends cultural, economic, political and hydrological into an engaging investigation of an unexpectedly murky substance.

• In 1987, Americans drank only 5.7 gallons of bottled water per person per year, but the cumulative impact of ad campaigns and the vision of Madonna fellating a bottle of Evian in “Truth or Dare” more than doubled consumption by 1997. In 2000 the chief executive of Quaker Oats bragged to analysts that “the biggest enemy is tap water.” By 2005, the enemy had become the consumer’s bladder; and in 2006, Pepsi, which owns Aquafina, spent $20 million suggesting that Americans “drink more water.” That year we drank 27.6 gallons each at a rate of about a billion bottles a week.

• But marketing swings both ways. As quickly as bottled water became a symbol of healthy hyperindividualism — sort of an iPod for your kidneys — a backlash turned it into the devil’s drink. one expert tells Royte, “the total energy required for every bottle’s production, transport and disposal is equivalent, on average, to filling that bottle a quarter of the way with oil.” Mayors from San Francisco to New York suddenly became aware of the new symbolism of bottled water as a waste of taxpayer money, a diss of local tap water and a threat to the environment. Some canceled their city’s bottled water contracts.

• By the time I finished “Bottlemania” I thought twice about drinking any water. Among the risks: arsenic, gasoline additives, 82 different pharmaceuticals, fertilizer runoff sufficient to raise nitrate levels so that Iowa communities issue “blue baby” alerts. And in 42 states, Royte notes, “people drink tap water that contains at least 10 different pollutants on the same day.” The privatization of pristine water is part of a larger story, a tragic failure to steward our shared destiny. And if you think buying water will protect you, Royte points out that it too is loosely regulated. And there is more — the dangers of pipes and of plastic bottles, the hazards of filters, and yes, that “toilet to tap” issue. But there is slim comfort: Royte says we don’t really need to drink eight glasses of water a day. Drink when you’re thirsty, an expert says. That’s refreshing.

The Indian Context
This book review caught my attention for various reasons. The protests that erupted in the State of Kerala over excessive water use leading to depletion of ground water resources in the local community is still fresh in the mind. The second issue that comes to mind is the study made by Delhi-based NGO, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), headed by Ms Sunita Narain, revealing that all soft drink brands sold by Coke and Pepsi comprised a cocktail of pesticide residues. This had forced some of the State Governments to restrict sales of cola products. Further, Coca Cola was also in the news being accused of disposing hazardous sludge outside its bottling plant in Palakkad, Kerala.

In the Indian context, people use bottled water especially while travelling, more for health considerations as tap water is considered not safe enough to drink without purification/boiling etc. Thus, many people while travelling consume Coke/Pepsi feeling that its safe - but which subsequent tests proved not so safe. As regards the bottled water, it was interesting to learn recently from a conversation I had with a person who had visited a water bottling plant. He had been told that bacteria is eliminated at the plant stage while bottling, but it develops/grows after 4-5 hours. Thus, even bottled drinking water is not safe, this person was told! But, as we know our Indian conditions, we still feel bottled water is safe - may be, continuous advertisements have reinforced that thought in our minds.

"Drink when you’re thirsty, an expert says. That’s refreshing," concludes the book review. Very true. Only the question is which water - bottled water or tap water? May be if we are at home, tap water - duly boiled would be good for consumption and if we are travelling then we will have no alternative but to consume bottled water.