I have been fascinated by this Scale for a while, but I earlier (mistakenly) believed it was invented by Carl Sagan.
The Kardashev Scale is a method of measuring a civilization’s level of advancement.
Russian astronomer Nikolai Kardashev first proposed it in 1964.
The scale has three designated categories: Type I, II, and III.
These are based on the amount of usable energy at the disposal of a civilisation.
In general terms, a Type I civilisation has achieved mastery of the resources of its home planet, a Type II of its solar system, and Type III of its galaxy.
On this Scale, Earth is below Type I because we, earth-dwellers, have not learned to harness the energy available in hydrogen in sea water (say, through nuclear fusion) or the energy received from the nearest star (solar power).
This poor, Type-I-failed civilisation of ours is busy fighting wars for fossil fuel instead.
Energy usage and the rich-poor divide is linked.Here’s how Harish Hande of Selco India (www.selcoindia.com), a for-profit social enterprise, explains the linkage. He says a relatively wealthy Indian earning Rs 30,000 a year emits 4.95 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually, which is only slightly less than the average Westerner, who emits 5.05 tonnes of carbon dioxide every year.
But India’s overall average carbon dioxide emission is 1.67 tonnes because the poor emit only 1.11 tonne.“It’s a similar situation in China. In a sense, the rich in India and China are hiding behind the poor and pointing fingers at the West when, in fact, we can leapfrog over the West’s mistakes with sustainable technology,” he says. (http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/india/article.cfm?articleid=4460)
In a way, what Hande is asking is whether Indians can start thinking like a Type II civilisation, and invest “in need-based technologies rather than fitting the problem to the solution”.
Will the young new Indian business creators bypass the dogma of the Western development? Remember that Harish Hande’s Selco is a profit-making enterprise! While the West invested in gigantic centralized generation, why not pursue decentralised generation of power, with hundreds of solar generators creating a local grid? Estimates of losses due to transmission and distribution in India are believed to be between 33 and 40 per cent, one of the highest in the world.
While the West invests approximately $1 billion to create one artificial new pharmaceutical molecule (they recover the investment from unsuspecting patients), why not pursue healing from natural sources as a medical priority? With the business of ayurveda not conducted according to a massive centralised model? While the West builds dams, why not find technologies that regenerate ponds and lakes? India is on the verge of ‘hydrological poverty’ anyway.
The poor pay the same as the rich for a shampoo sachet, but pay 5 to 10 times more for water! Either that, or we continue to prove Kardashev right!
The writer is co-founder of Chlorophyll and can be reached at kiran@chlorophyll.in