Delhi's winter pollution action plan relies heavily on restrictions on public activities rather than long-term measures to reduce emissions.
The Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) was designed as an emergency response to severe pollution, not a substitute for sustained action.
Delhi has around 6,840 buses against a requirement of at least 10,000, leaving commuters without adequate alternatives to private vehicles.
Better public transport connectivity across Delhi-NCR, alongside electric buses, taxis and three-wheelers, is essential to reducing vehicular pollution.
Industrial pollution remains a concern, with factories in unauthorised areas lacking access to reliable and affordable cleaner energy alternatives.
Delhi’s season of despair starts with the winter setting in. Soon toxins will settle closer to the ground and choke us. This will be worse on windless days and on days when winds bring smoke from neighbouring fields where stubble is burned. The question, as every year, is what we have done to make this season less harmful. The good news is, Delhi’s government has announced steps to tackle winter pollution, showing that it sort of cares about our health.
The bad news is these measures are, at best, half hearted, weak and worse they signal a complete giving up on controlling pollution. The action plan is about shutting down the city; putting the onus on the public to suspend day-to-day activities. I say this knowing full well that our activities like driving to work adds to pollution; the sheer number of private cars and two-wheelers is major contributor to air pollution. But the plan works only when commuters have viable alternatives, such as adequate and augmented public transport and roads where people can cycle or walk, before directing us to work at 50 per cent capacity for the coming three months — from November to January.
The government has taken a page from the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) playbook, without a clue of what this really means. Let me explain, as I was among those involved in taking the idea of GRAP to the Supreme Court (SC). This was in 2016, when I was a member of the erstwhile Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (EPCA) for the NCR, and reporting to the SC.
We proposed GRAP as a smog alert emergency measure, and not as a substitute for real action to tackle air pollution,. It was called “graded” because restrictions would be introduced based on the severity of air pollution. This plan was predicated on knowing weather data and wind directions. The idea was if there was advance information on bad air days, restrictions could be brought in urgently and this would improve air quality or reduce health risks.
That same year, EPCA took to SC the matter of trucks and other heavy-duty vehicles passing through Delhi. They added big time to pollution, particularly at night, when cold temperatures and stagnant air could not disperse pollutants. The SC levied a congestion or pollution tax on the entry of these vehicles and pressed the Union government to expedite the construction of alternative bypass expressways. Over the next two years, many decisive and tough actions were directed, including the fast transition to BS 6 fuel and vehicle technology.
When the SC cleared green signal to GRAP in 2016, it was cognisant of the disruptions it would cause. Closing schools, for instance, would come at the cost of education and create problems for parents. It was not a measure that could be taken lightly. In the original GRAP, notified by the Union government in 2017, schools were to close only on days when air quality deteriorated to “severe” or “public emergency” category. Governments could introduce restrictions on heavy-duty vehicles entering the city and on plying of private vehicles. The objective was to limit these measures to days when they were absolutely necessary and, meanwhile, to keep taking steps so that the measures would not be necessary. The inconvenience would prod governments to take year-long hard action. Shutdowns were not policy.
The government may argue that this is its plan. its plan is grand. But frankly, there is no merit in this. The pollution control measures are either half-baked, inadequate or without the full-throated determination needed to clean up the air of Delhi-NCR.
Why do I say this? Consider two issues that will clear the air. First, the number of vehicles plying Delhi’s roads. The only real way ahead is a timebound plan to augment public transport, not just in Delhi but across the NCR and between its cities. We also need to make the transition to cleaner vehicles — electric buses, taxis and 3-wheelers should complement the electrified metro. Based on EPCA’s recommendations, the SC had by 2019 laid the foundation for this — it directed (in 1998 and reiterated again and again) the need for at least 10,000 buses in the city, large or small; it cleared the way for the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation to expand its network and for the first of high speed rail corridor (Delhi-Meerut) to be built.
Obviously, much more needs to be done, particularly to interconnect the NCR so that it moves as one and to connect different modes of transport so that we can travel, switch and reach our destination at affordable and convenient ways. But what we are doing is too little, too late. Today, Delhi has only about 6,840 buses, instead of 10,000. In other cities of the NCR, there is virtually nothing for interconnections. The Delhi government’s plan to electrify its bus fleet is notable, but with this we need a plan to increase the ridership and provide a viable alternative to people as they shift from personal cars.
Second, the issue of industrial pollution from factories operating in unauthorised areas in and around the city. These have been directed to stop using coal, but there is little effort to ensure that viable alternatives are available, whether reliable and cheaper electricity or natural gas.
I could go on. But my gripe is that we are not acting at scale, taking tough and timebound action to bend the pollution curve.