Every winter, Delhi’s air pollution becomes “record-breaking” and makes global headlines. Many of our actions are short-term reactions or mild fixes, including the GRAP (Graded Response Action Plan). They ask us to stop construction, stop doing this and that, etc. But do we have enough options that we can avoid the problem equitably?
At a seminar I’d organised with India’s leading air pollution experts, one senior audience member mused, “Why don’t we have more people marching against air pollution than against bans on jallikattu (traditional bullfighting)?” It’s a sobering question.
Story continues below this ad
It is well known that there is a mix of causes and stakeholders, not to mention the geography and physics with “inversion” and concentration of pollutants, that exacerbate Delhi’s air pollution. There are easy-to-blame and visible causes like crop burning, but these are limited in duration, and not the majority cause. It’s a mix of vehicular emissions, construction, road dust, home/biomass burning, etc. A simplified solution would be to stop doing “bad things” — but that’s easier said than done.
I offer a multi-dimensional framework or pathway to improvement. Many of these are well known but not integrated holistically, spanning (1) timeframes, (2) stakeholders, and (3) incentives (and penalties). An alternative lens is to call these cause-effect linkages. If we ask someone to do something, is it helping, and are they incentivised accordingly?
First, we cannot “fix” this anytime soon — and instead should have an annual plan and three- and five-year plans. If we consider Los Angeles with its infamous smog (and similar inversion), they took many years and a switch to unleaded fuel for vehicles to help reduce their famous smog. China took only a few years to have a dramatic turnaround, primarily based on aggressive fuel switching (rise of gas and electricity), especially for industry and heating, as well as strong enforcement. Are we ready for this?
Story continues below this ad
We’ve had many “source apportionment” studies, and we know there is a mix, and also that these vary over time in their contribution. What is less well appreciated is how actions do (or do not) impact the AQI over time. If we shut down a coal power plant, it will take something in the order of a few weeks for that pollutant to dissipate. So an “emergency declaration” can’t always suffice for reactive action. When we declare an emergency and stay home, we have to ask — how much does this improve the AQI or how much does it help lower the impact on citizens? There are strong equity issues to consider. The rich and even the middle class have always enjoyed “exit strategies” for poor infrastructure — be it air purifiers, staying indoors, diesel generators, borewells, RO water treatment, tuitions for education, etc.
Even AQI measurements need to be enhanced. Delhi enjoys the largest number of regulatory-grade sensors in India, and a nice app, Sameer, by CPCB, shows real-time data. But do we have highly localised data on emissions? By design, these sensors are not placed at hotspots like traffic intersections, where we can have transient emissions. But those matter locally. Other countries are now deploying much more granular sensors to learn about hotspots. Such revamped analysis can pinpoint not just what type of source is responsible but where it is located. Unfortunately, some of the problem comes into Delhi. This will require a mechanism that is more than local.
Here’s some bad news. Each individual thinks they can’t do much on their own. Conversely, they want someone else to do the heavy lifting. Many policies have focused on larger point sources, like power plants, but we need a policy where we “spread the pain” throughout, while being mindful of low-hanging-fruit or bang-for-buck. Else, we risk not getting buy-in.
This is a collective action problem and cannot be solved via top-down mandates alone. It also cannot be solved by sticks (bans) alone — people need alternatives. We’ve had some wins. Improved power supply lowers the need for back-up power and diesel use, and we’ve had some luck reducing diesel generators for weddings or functions (temporary use) in pockets of Delhi/NCR. Similarly, “don’t drive” or odd-even licence plate restrictions aren’t long-term solutions. Having good public transport, last-mile interconnectivity, etc. are more useful. (And, in the long run, can we imagine urban design towards walkable or 15-minute cities?)
Ultimately, a lesson from climate change is to look for both mitigation and adaptation. Given that we must be realistic in fixes, we need to allow for short- and medium-term human-centric solutions. This can mean simple things like making quality (N95, properly fitting, age-appropriate) masks freely available, to helping security guards stay warm without needing to burn biomass all night long (some RWAs have told me the reason they don’t want the guard to stay indoors and thus warm is that the latter will go to sleep!).
Across both mitigation and adaptation, we must consider incentives — people want to achieve outcomes (mobility, warmth, lighting, cooking, etc.). If we say, “stop building your home”, it’s a cost. Instead, can we improve the use of coverings, wetting, vacuuming/filters, etc. to trap dust? Many steps are done in the open — can some cutting be done in closed environments? This needs portable structures, and also a mask for the operator. Such a mask shouldn’t just help improve their lungs but also improve the safety of their face!
most read
Blanket air sprayers don’t really work, but let’s think about water more holistically. If we visit countries in East Asia, with daily rains, their roads are dry in half an hour. This needs proper slopes and proper drainage. This would help not only with road lifespan and usability but also help remove any dust that rain or water can capture. Else, like today, we have temporary cleaning-up with rainfall, but then the dust isn’t taken away and remains on the roads, and, after evaporation, leads to more airborne dust over time.
Similarly, for vehicles, the Pareto 80:20 rule is likely even more skewed. Selected “dirty diesels” are orders of magnitude more polluting than even a 10-year-old well-maintained petrol car. We will have to be innovative in how we identify and tackle causes. I’m not going to claim any specific cost-benefits or policies or actions — those need investigation. But gradualism won’t be good enough. I’m not sure we need yet another empowered committee — we need an empowered action committee, which can combine knowledge, innovation, monitoring, coalition-building, action, and financial support. A final lesson: Delhi offers both a warning and learnings for the rest of India, all of which seems to be on a path of worsening pollution. This shouldn’t just be about Delhi but all of India.
The writer is a scholar of technology and policy and senior fellow, Centre for Social and Economic Progress (CSEP). All views are personal.
