We are killing our urban residents through the air they breathe.
It took an American President’s visit and news about the air purifiers ordered for him and his entourage for air pollution to become a talking point in the Indian media. The US embassy now has its own air monitors to determine levels of pollution. How shameful it is that we refuse to acknowledge the poisonous quality of the air we breathe until someone from distant shores comes here and comments on it. That the air in India’s cities is toxic is hardly news; what is new is the rate at which it is growing — 300% in the last 15 years. We can take small comfort from the fact that polluted air is democratic; it affects everyone. Yet, democracies are notoriously unequal; so too is the impact of pollution. If you are affluent, you can insulate yourself to some extent through air purifiers and air conditioners. But everyone else — the poor, the ordinary commuter using public transport, police personnel standing through the day at traffic crossings, people living in informal settlements — can avoid it only if they decide not to breathe at all. Perhaps that is the reason that outdoor pollution does not receive the urgent attention that it ought to get.
The basic facts about the inherent dangers of outdoor pollution are well known. Apart from sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, the most dangerous as far as human health is concerned is suspended particulate matter (SPM). This is broken up into two: PM10 (SPM that is 10 micrometres) and the finer and more dangerous PM2.5 (SPM that is 2.5 micrometres). It is the latter that is more easily inhaled and absorbed in the body leading to deadly consequences. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), there were an estimated 3.7 million deaths of people under 60 years of age in 2012 that could be attributed to outdoor pollution. In South Asia, outdoor air pollution is the sixth most dangerous killer.
The WHO has evolved standards for permissible levels of PM10 and PM2.5 in the air. These are 20 µg/m3 (micrograms per cubic metre) of PM10 and 10 µg/m3 of PM2.5. If we were to apply these standards, no Indian city passes the test. But India has decided that its people are perhaps more hardy and can survive higher levels of pollution. Hence the National Ambient Air Quality (NAAQ) standards in India are 60 µg/m3 for PM10 and 40 µg/m3 for PM2.5. Yet even by these more diluted standards, the majority of Indian cities that are monitored do not come anywhere near these standards.
How have we allowed this situation to come to pass where poisons obscure the skyline in our cities? The obvious factor is the increase in fossil fuel burning. In the bigger cities, the chief cause is the explosion in privatised transport — cars and two-wheelers. Even if public transport uses clean fuel like CNG, the sheer volume of petrol- and diesel-burning vehicles negates this benefit. Furthermore, poor or inefficient public transport gives a further impetus to privatised transport. In addition, the poor in cities continue to depend on biomass for heating and cooking, thereby increasing the load of SPM. In cities like Delhi, an additional factor is the pollution from the hinterland where at certain times of the year, farmers burn fields of rice husk. As air does not respect state borders, this particulate-laden air makes its way to the outskirts of Delhi, increasing its burden of pollution. The list of culprits includes inefficient use of energy in buildings, diesel generators in use where electric supply is undependable and the pollution from the chimneys of coal-burning power stations in the vicinity of cities. Together these have ensured that if there is one list Indian cities scale it is that of the world’s most polluted cities. Thirteen of the 20 most polluted cities in the world are in India with Delhi getting the first prize.
This data is based on sporadic monitoring; if Indian cities increased air-monitoring systems, the actual picture would probably be worse. But even on available data, it is clear that urban air pollution needs to be treated as a major health hazard that requires urgent attention. City plans — for expansion or reorganisation — must factor in this reality so that priorities are dictated by the need to limit air pollution rather than exacerbate it. Such choices should have been made more than two decades back — such as prioritising public transport. In addition, steps to curb the growth of private cars and phasing out older polluting vehicles must be taken. For those dependent on biomass, cleaner and affordable alternatives must be provided. There is no easy or instant fix. Yet, some cities around the world, including Beijing that distinguished itself for being the most polluted, have taken steps in this direction. What are India’s urban planners and policymakers waiting for?
