choking cities

As Delhi dominates the airpocalypse narrative, the rest of India quietly chokes to death

Let’s drop the focus on air quality rankings. It’s not a Delhi problem. It is a national problem.

In early 2015, the World Health Organisation released its annual Ambient Air Pollution Database, which catalogues levels of particulate matter (PM 2.5 and PM 10) across 91 countries and 1,600 cities, ranking them on the basis of annual average ambient concentration of both pollutants.

The database placed 13 Indian cities in the top 20 most polluted around the world, ranking Delhi first in terms of annual average concentration of PM2.5 – which is particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter, or about 30 times finer than a human hair – the more harmful of the two pollutants.

This ranking triggered a period of sustained media coverage of the deplorable air quality in the national capital, along with a series of feverish repudiations from policymakers with objections raised regarding the validity of the data and the methodology employed. Articles reporting on Yale University’s Environmental Performance Index the previous year, which ranked India as worse off than China and several of its South Asian neighbours, triggered a similar debate that quickly disintegrated into a Delhi vs Beijing squabble.

During both years, as with reporting on the latest World Health Organisation Ambient Air Pollution database earlier this year, the media as well as the general public, completely lost sight of the bigger picture. The spotlight in each case was reserved exclusively for Delhi, given its centrality in the Indian media and political discourse, with little attention provided to the broader message being conveyed by either the environmental performance index or the Ambient Air Pollution database, which is that the issue is regional in its influence, national in its import, and with severe implications for the health of the Indian citizenry.

Lack of data

The Ambient Air Pollution database exercise involves compiling data across multiple sources including data reported by national agencies, regional networks, UN agencies, other development agencies, and peer-reviewed literature. The vastness of the exercise and the sparseness of the monitoring, especially in a country like India, means that there is often a lack of data on either PM 10, or more often, PM 2.5.

This gap is plugged through national conversion factors that provide a reasonable proxy of the ambient concentrations. The lack of temporal coverage also ensures that a few readings collected through the year are averaged out to produce a picture that provides plausible deniability when questions are raised with policymakers. With these caveats in place, it is important to understand that the exercise remains useful in identifying hotspots for expanded monitoring, or regions that require urgent policy action.

The media and policymakers, while ignoring the above issue, committed the cardinal sin of focusing solely on Delhi in their narrative, ignoring the fact that in both instances, a dozen other Indian cities were listed alongside Delhi in the top 20, with ambient concentrations often in the same range. These included rapidly industrialising tier-2 and tier-3 cities such as Agra, Varanasi, Kanpur, Gwalior, Patna, Raipur and Ludhiana, many of which are earmarked to become smart cities as part of the government’s flagship urbanisation programme.

The big picture

If one were to take a step back and look at work done in satellite-based estimations of PM2.5, validated by ground monitoring data, the picture starts to look clearer. Taking off from the proverbial blind men and elephant tale, the focus on Delhi, even over the last few weeks, ensured ignorance of the vast swathe of the Indo-Gangetic plain which suffers exposures seven to 15 times above what the World Health Organisation deems safe.

Annual ambient air quality exposure in India.
Annual ambient air quality exposure in India.

The picture painted by satellite data shows us that the problem is in fact regional, with the inter-connectedness of the Indo-Gangetic plain ensuring that no action plan that ignores the states around Delhi will ever be successful in improving air quality. It also tells us that the focus now needs to extend beyond Delhi, which is quite well monitored, to these tier-2 and tier-3 towns where monitoring is sparse, awareness is non-existent, and accountability is virtually absent. Our own analysis of the data from the last year shows us that the annual variability of PM 2.5 of select cities in the Indo-Gangetic plain, in comparison with Delhi, is not very different, reaffirming the need for a regional multi-sectoral action plan, with focus on all sources of air pollution.

Comparison of air quality across four cities in the Indo-Gangetic plain for the period November 2015 to October 2016. (Source: Central Pollution Control Board.)
Comparison of air quality across four cities in the Indo-Gangetic plain for the period November 2015 to October 2016. (Source: Central Pollution Control Board.)

This exercise also shows us that the need for open and accessible air quality monitoring data in tier-2 and tier-3 cities is greater than ever. There are large gaps in the data sets from these cities, and given the lack of technical manpower in the State Pollution Control Boards, a high likelihood of calibration errors as well.

The Central Pollution Control Board’s move last year to also remove historical data from its website and to move towards a 24-hour rolling average for the Air Quality Index only makes the need for data from other sources more immediate. Ultimately, what ranking cities in India has resulted in is some form of action to alleviate the woes of Delhi residents, while ignoring the vast swathe of the Indian population that continues to suffer from alarming levels of air pollution exposure.

Bhargav Krishna manages the Centre for Environmental Health at the Public Health Foundation of India, and is a co-Founder of Care for Air. Kishore Kumar Madhipatla of the Public Health Foundation of India also contributed to this article.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Do you really need to use that plastic straw?

The hazards of single-use plastic items, and what to use instead.

In June 2018, a distressed whale in Thailand made headlines around the world. After an autopsy it’s cause of death was determined to be more than 80 plastic bags it had ingested. The pictures caused great concern and brought into focus the urgency of the fight against single-use plastic. This term refers to use-and-throw plastic products that are designed for one-time use, such as takeaway spoons and forks, polythene bags styrofoam cups etc. In its report on single-use plastics, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has described how single-use plastics have a far-reaching impact in the environment.

Dense quantity of plastic litter means sights such as the distressed whale in Thailand aren’t uncommon. Plastic products have been found in the airways and stomachs of hundreds of marine and land species. Plastic bags, especially, confuse turtles who mistake them for jellyfish - their food. They can even exacerbate health crises, such as a malarial outbreak, by clogging sewers and creating ideal conditions for vector-borne diseases to thrive. In 1988, poor drainage made worse by plastic clogging contributed to the devastating Bangladesh floods in which two-thirds of the country was submerged.

Plastic litter can, moreover, cause physiological harm. Burning plastic waste for cooking fuel and in open air pits releases harmful gases in the air, contributing to poor air quality especially in poorer countries where these practices are common. But plastic needn’t even be burned to cause physiological harm. The toxic chemical additives in the manufacturing process of plastics remain in animal tissue, which is then consumed by humans. These highly toxic and carcinogenic substances (benzene, styrene etc.) can cause damage to nervous systems, lungs and reproductive organs.

The European Commission recently released a list of top 10 single-use plastic items that it plans to ban in the near future. These items are ubiquitous as trash across the world’s beaches, even the pristine, seemingly untouched ones. Some of them, such as styrofoam cups, take up to a 1,000 years to photodegrade (the breakdown of substances by exposure to UV and infrared rays from sunlight), disintegrating into microplastics, another health hazard.

More than 60 countries have introduced levies and bans to discourage the use of single-use plastics. Morocco and Rwanda have emerged as inspiring success stories of such policies. Rwanda, in fact, is now among the cleanest countries on Earth. In India, Maharashtra became the 18th state to effect a ban on disposable plastic items in March 2018. Now India plans to replicate the decision on a national level, aiming to eliminate single-use plastics entirely by 2022. While government efforts are important to encourage industries to redesign their production methods, individuals too can take steps to minimise their consumption, and littering, of single-use plastics. Most of these actions are low on effort, but can cause a significant reduction in plastic waste in the environment, if the return of Olive Ridley turtles to a Mumbai beach are anything to go by.

To know more about the single-use plastics problem, visit Planet or Plastic portal, National Geographic’s multi-year effort to raise awareness about the global plastic trash crisis. From microplastics in cosmetics to haunting art on plastic pollution, Planet or Plastic is a comprehensive resource on the problem. You can take the pledge to reduce your use of single-use plastics, here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of National Geographic, and not by the Scroll editorial team.