In a world reeling from climate change effects, nuclear energy has offered a cleaner and viable alternative to fossil fuels. However, concerns regarding safety and radioactive waste management persists in developed and developing nations alike. Public protestations against authorities’ poor implementation and communication have been grounds for power plants or processing sites from operating in the first place.  

In the 1970s, West Germany was witness to such public protestations against nuclear power. On one occasion, when Germany had announced plans to produce a quarter of electric power with nuclear energy, the public at Wyhl launched a protest having a nuclear reactor operate in their vicinity, claiming potential ecological threat. Ecological institutes had lent support to this view. But authorities failed to engage, considering the argument to have lacked merit. However, a blowback ensued, bolstered by lobbyists applying pressure. Authorities buckled under pressure, in what was just the first of many such public protests nuclear power plants.

In Germany, for long it had just been the “green” political parties, which had been uncompromisingly anti-nuclear. But following the meltdown at Fukushima nuclear power plant in 2011, even fence-sitters have joined the bandwagon. The Germans plan to phase out nuclear power plants completely by this decade. Notwithstanding that, they are still able to achieve net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2045. However, commentators still wonder whether Germany has squandered an opportunity out of irrational political compulsions; now instead pursuing still expensive means of renewable energy. Their next-door neighbour, France meanwhile, has built more power plants in the intervening decades.

France did witness large-scale protests, such as against the Superphenix spent fuel disposal plant, that led to its shutdown in 2000. But protests in France, mirroring those in Germany are rare. Protests are relatively less effective under a government content with centralized, institutionalized policy making. Despite the lack of public engagement in this case, it helped there was de-facto consensus among political parties, in support of nuclear power.

If public concerns existed, these were mostly addressed through existing environment safety laws. As such, nuclear power plants did not cause a stir amongst voters immediately. But this began to change when the green parties in France came to the foyer in the 1990s. In their 2015 article, scholars Sylvain Brouard and Isabelle Guinadeau said: “The pro-nuclear consensus was broken only after the Green Party became a potential coalition partner for the PS (Socialist Party); the PS manifesto has become less and less pro-nuclear since then in order to preserve the pre-electoral coalition with the Greens.” 

The resultant policy faced little public accountability as a result. Forecasts on electricity demands were vastly overestimated, with there being far more nuclear power plants built than necessary. Also, these plants are particularly vulnerable during winters, thereby relying on heavy electric power imports during the season. Since hitting peaks in the 1970s and 80s, when nuclear energy accounted for some 80% of energy and electricity demand in the country, that figure has dipped sharply, and will so until about 50% soon, considering a renewed push to alternative renewable resources.

It helped that neither France, nor Germany had dealt with a radioactive mishap, unlike the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in erstwhile Soviet Union, or the Three Mile Island disaster in the United States; instances where people were exposed to harmful radioactive exposure. And so, it should be little wonder the public are consulted to address problems that concern their own safety. Often, governments adopt a top-down approach in explaining their position to the public about their policy. But there must be space for dialogue. Science policies are only effective when they are framed democratically; when policy makers fail to consult beforehand with their beneficiaries – the public.

Including members of the public with “lay” expertise often invites criticism for their lack of subject-matter expertise. While this holds true, especially in advocacy for public participation in scientific advisory committees for example, a critical angle – or unique perspective – can prove beneficiary. In a 2012 article examining public engagement practices notes, scholars Alan Irwin, Torben Elgaard Jensen, and Kevin E. Jones, notes: “Criticism, rather than voicing negative prospects and possibilities that must be overcome before meaningful action can occur, has potential value (and relevance) as a meaningful action in its own right.”

For a fact, scientists relying upon scientific evidence themselves, are often beleaguered with the uncertainties and risks involved in handling affairs. There is space for lay persons to take part in risk assessments, that can help identify potential hazards to them, and risk compensation pathways that can compensate them in the event of a disaster. All of this makes policy making more holistic, and in spirit with celebrating participatory democracy in decision-making.

In an era when deforestation and climate change threaten ecosystems worldwide, one man from Gujarat—a state on the west coast of India—is rewriting the narrative of environmental restoration.

Dr. Radhakrishnan Nair, fondly known as Nairji, has created 122 forests across India, transforming barren landscapes into thriving ecosystems. His most remarkable achievement, Smritivan (a memorial forest) in Gujarat—recognized as the world’s largest Miyawaki forest—stands as a testament to his vision. Spanning 470 acres and home to over 500,000 trees, this forest is not just a memorial but a beacon of ecological hope. Nair’s work demonstrates how one individual’s determination can combat global warming, restore biodiversity, and inspire communities to embrace a greener future.

From entrepreneur to green crusader

Born in Kasaragod, Kerala, R.K. Nair’s path to becoming India’s “Green Hero” was anything but conventional. After failing his 12th-grade exams, he took on a series of odd jobs, eventually rising to become a successful entrepreneur in the garment industry. But a pivotal moment came in 2011, in Umargam, Gujarat, when he witnessed the felling of 179 ancient trees for road construction. The cries of displaced birds and the destruction of their habitat struck a deep chord.

“I felt the birds were speaking to me,” Nair recalls. “That day, I vowed to create forests where no one would harm them.”

This epiphany led to the founding of Forest Creators with his friend Deepan Jain in 2014. Using corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds, Nair began planting trees—starting with 1,500 saplings on a single acre. Today, he has planted over 3.2 million trees across 12 Indian states—from Gujarat to Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan to Uttar Pradesh. His approach blends the Japanese Miyawaki method, known for rapid and dense forest growth, with a localized adaptation he calls Bharatavanam, tailored to India’s diverse ecosystems.

Smritivan: A green miracle in the Desert

Nair’s crowning achievement is Smritivan, a sprawling forest in Bhuj, Gujarat, established in memory of the 13,805 victims of the 2001 Gujarat earthquake. Originally conceived in 2004 but long stalled, the project gained new life when Nair took charge. Despite the 470-acre terrain being arid and hilly, he began planting in July 2021. “By August 2022, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated the memorial, the forest had reached an astonishing 16 feet in height, with 223,555 saplings planted in the first phase alone. Today, Smritivan houses over 525,000 trees, with plans to add 40,000 more,” Nair says, in an interview with EdPublica.

A report from the Gujarat Ecology Commission, accessed by EdPublica, highlights Smritivan’s ecological transformation. Now home to 117 tree species, the forest supports 79 bird species, 28 types of butterflies, 21 reptiles, nine mammals, and two species of fish. The dense canopy and mulched soil prevent erosion, retain moisture, and enrich the land with organic matter. “With an 86% tree survival rate, species like neem and casuarina are flourishing,” according to the report published in 2023.

The forest has also led to localized temperature reductions, while its 50 check dams help replenish groundwater. A one-megawatt solar plant further bolsters its sustainability, making Smriti Van a global model of eco-restoration.

A report from the Gujarat Ecology Commission, accessed by EdPublica, highlights Smritivan’s ecological transformation. Now home to 117 tree species, the forest supports 79 bird species, 28 types of butterflies, 21 reptiles, nine mammals, and two species of fish

Industrialist Anand Mahindra recently shared a viral post on X, praising Nair for building the world’s largest Miyawaki forest.

Ecological impact: Restoring balance

Nair’s forests are more than green patches—they are ecological engines. “In Chhattisgarh, the coastal forest of 103,000 trees raised groundwater levels dramatically—from 160 feet to just 12 feet—reviving wells and sustaining communities,” Nair claims. Across India, his forests have restored biodiversity, attracted wildlife, and helped rebuild natural food chains.

The Gujarat Ecology Commission underscores Smriti Van’s role in carbon sequestration, a vital tool against climate change. Experts recommend ongoing assessments to quantify its carbon storage potential, which could significantly offset emissions.

Nair’s method ensures long-term ecological success. He doesn’t merely plant trees—he nurtures ecosystems. By selecting native species suited to local conditions, his forests are resilient and sustainable. They grow 10 times faster than natural forests, mimicking 150-year-old ecosystems in just 10–15 years. Dense planting (3–4 saplings per square meter) encourages vertical growth, mimicking natural competition for sunlight.

A Vision for the future

Nair’s ambition is bold: planting one billion trees by 2030. Backed by governments, corporations, and citizens, Forest Creators is scaling up to meet this audacious goal. His work has earned international acclaim, including an invitation to represent India at a NASA conference and a UNESCO Prix Versailles award for Smritivan.

Yet, Nair remains grounded—dressed in his signature white mundu, shirt, and cap—a nod to his Malayali roots and the spirit of India’s farmers.

Beyond ecology, Nair’s forests are also community spaces. Smriti Van has become a popular destination for its tranquil trails and vibrant festivals, with 94% of surveyed visitors citing its fresh air and peacefulness. Future plans include guided tours and educational programs to engage youth in environmental stewardship.

A Global inspiration

R.K. Nair’s story is a clarion call for individual action in the face of global crises. His 122 forests—especially the monumental Smritivan—showcase what one person’s vision and persistence can achieve. By restoring biodiversity, cooling urban climates, and sequestering carbon, Nair’s work supports global efforts to fight climate change. As he marches toward his billion-tree goal, he reminds us that a single seed, planted with purpose, can grow into a forest of change.

The U.S. retail sector, once dominated by small, independent merchants, has transformed over the past century into a landscape controlled by retail giants. In the late 19th century, most U.S. retail was local. However, this shifted with the rise of catalog retailers like Sears and Roebuck, which saw rapid growth, followed by Montgomery Ward’s expansion. By the 1930s, chain stores began to proliferate, with the Atlantic and Pacific (A&P) supermarkets leading the pack with over 15,000 locations.

Fast-forward to today, and the dominance of retailers like Walmart, Amazon, and Target is undeniable. Currently, 90% of Americans live within 10 miles of a Walmart, and five of the top 10 U.S. employers—Walmart, Amazon, Home Depot, Kroger, and Target—are retailers. In addition, logistics giants UPS and FedEx play a crucial role in supporting the retail economy.

This prevalence of massive retail chains is largely unique to the U.S., where domestic consumption is a driving force behind economic growth. Additionally, the U.S. has five times as much retail space per capita as Japan and the U.K., and 10 times as much as Germany. Unlike in Europe, the U.S. has few regulations limiting shopping hours.

How did we arrive at this point? While major chains like Walmart and Amazon are known for their business prowess, the full story involves over a century of political and legal debates that shaped the landscape of U.S. retailing. MIT political scientist Kathleen Thelen, in her new book Attention, Shoppers! American Retail Capitalism and the Origins of the Amazon Economy, dives into the role of political and legal forces in the rise of large, low-cost retailers.

“The markets that we take as given, that we think of as the natural outcome of supply and demand, are heavily shaped by policy and by politics,” Thelen explains.

Thelen’s book offers a unique perspective, drawing comparisons with European economies and taking a historical approach to the growth of chain retailing. For instance, she highlights how alternative commercial arrangements, like cooperatives, were stifled by U.S. antitrust laws, which favored big corporations while suppressing smaller competitors. This legal framework gave a significant advantage to large retailers, including Sears, which relied on the U.S. Postal Service’s money order system to reach customers who lacked bank accounts.

Smaller retailers resisted the expansion of large chains, particularly during the Great Depression, but big retailers found ways around regulatory constraints. “Antitrust laws in the United States were very forbearing toward big multidivisional corporations and very punitive toward alternative types of arrangements like cooperatives, so big retailers got a real boost in that period,” Thelen says. Over time, antitrust law increasingly prioritized consumer prices, further benefiting low-cost retailers.

As Thelen argues, prioritizing price reduction often leads to lower wages for workers, with large retailers driving down wages both directly and through pressure on suppliers. “If you prioritize prices, one of the main ways to reduce prices is to reduce labor costs,” she says, noting that low-cost discounters are often low-wage employers.

In her analysis, Thelen suggests that the American retail system’s focus on low prices, low wages, and high consumer convenience has led to a “deep equilibrium,” where low-wage workers rely on these retail giants to make ends meet. Meanwhile, the speed of modern delivery systems has become a normal part of American shopping culture.

“The triumph of these types of retailers was not inevitable,” Thelen reflects. “It was a function of politics and political choice.” With ongoing debates about labor law reforms and antitrust enforcement, the current retail equilibrium may persist for the foreseeable future, unless significant changes are made to the system.

Through Attention, Shoppers!, Thelen offers readers a comprehensive look at the economic forces that have shaped the retail sector, helping explain the giant retail landscape many Americans take for granted today.