Whatever it is that makes an environmentalist is the same, fundamentally, as that which makes a human rights activist. I would have disagreed with this thought until not so long ago - before joining Greenpeace, in fact. Fresh out of University College London with a Masters in Human Rights, I was out to change the world. Only when I joined Greenpeace did I realize that there was no point changing the world if we cannot sustain one in the first place.
It was Amnesty International that brought me here. A number of people I was working with in Amnesty's International Secretariat were ex-Greenpeace and vice versa, which I found very strange initially. On digging deeper, I saw the similarities between the two organizations in terms of campaigning tactics and even membership. The only difference was the campaigning issues central to each organization, which I now see as being inter-linked.
Environmental and human rights issues aren't mutually exclusive of one another - and as climate change worsens they look increasingly likely to fuse. So, after a festive Christmas party with Amnesty colleagues I heard that Greenpeace was looking for someone with my skills and experience. A few days later I found myself sitting among the great and the good of Greenpeace's London office, blogging away on everything imaginable.
And it wasn't too long before I started doing what Greenpeace is best known for: in quick succession I found myself outside of the Japanese embassy protesting against whaling, followed by throwing paper planes at the Department of Transport to oppose airport expansion. The recurring undercurrent between protesting for the environmental cause and, say, demonstrating for the release of a tortured prisoner, is that the ultimate goal is the same: to protect the right to life universally.
The UN estimates that approximately 150,000 people die every year as a direct result of climate change. Of what importance are international laws or treaties if people die of unprecedented environmental disasters brought on by climate change? It's already happening in the world's developing nations where low-lying areas are being swallowed by rising seas, and advancing deserts are displacing communities. As the developed world continues to belch out tones after tonnes of carbon, it is the poor in the developing world paying the price with their lives, in order to sustain western lifestyles.
But it's not just the developed nations that are to blame. I originally come from the city of Mumbai in India - where there is virtually no control over the emissions released by vehicles. It's not uncommon to see old vehicles (of which there are many) pump out clouds of thick black smoke running unchecked throughout the city and indeed the country. With the Indian economy booming, it won't be long before a population of over a billion will suddenly have access to vehicles and other middle class luxuries and start emulating western unsustainable lifestyles.
Imagine the impact on the environment of a billion people buying Tata's ludicrously cheap Nano car as India generates wealth for its citizens. But on the other hand is it fair to ask India and China to stop modernizing when developing nations have enjoyed these luxuries for decades? The situation we are in now is as a result of past actions of developed nations, but the situation we'll be in the future will be a combination of developed nations continuing to pollute joined by developing nations that were previously marginal polluters.
What needs to be tackled first is cutting down of emissions by developed nations - which is why the new Kingsnorth coal-fired power plant in this country is such a bad idea. Last year's climate camp and the Rainbow Warrior's visit there this year were all part of the awareness-raising campaign against the use of burning dirty coal to generate power - and it's starting to work.
I enjoy being part of these diverse campaigns at Greenpeace - whether it's with the Greenwash Guerillas or forming a big NO to oppose Heathrow's 3rd runway. But my favourites would have to be: number one, exposing the dumping of toxic waste on to poor nations and, number two, promoting world peace through non-violent action.
As an activist in both the environmental and human rights movements, I inevitably compare the two and find that the issues often overlap one another. Human rights often mean the protection of conditions necessary for people to live purposefully. Devoid of a healthy environment, it's impossible to create or preserve conditions that foster human development - and so it becomes ever easier to violate human rights. The way I see it, polluting the environment is actually a direct infringement of the rights of those directly affected by it.
And, as we're all starting to find out the hard way - it's got to stop.
