A cousin of mine in Moradabad got married not too long ago. The parents’ gift to the bride and groom: a brand new Tata Manza. This symbol of an up-and-coming India is not uncommon at weddings these days. Only a generation ago it would have been unthinkable, especially in a mid-size UP town.

Having grown up in both India and the US, I’m delighted to see average Indian families now reaching socio-economic levels richer countries have had for many years — levels that enable them to buy cars. But as an engineer and researcher, I can also see from experience why we need to consider the environmental and public health impact of that socio-economic growth.

It’s not news to anyone that air quality throughout India is bad. We breathe some of the dirtiest air in the world. Just last year, a global study by the World Health Organisation (WHO) found outdoor air pollution to be the fifth largest killer in India, accounting for over 6,20,000 deaths in 2010.

Vehicles are a major part of the problem. Studies have found that vehicles account for between one-third and one-half of pollutant emissions in many Indian cities.

Diesel vehicles, in particular, spew huge amounts of particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen, the pollutants most harmful to human health. Worse, almost all particulate emissions from vehicles are in the form of small particles, under 2.5 microns in diameter, which penetrate deep inside our lungs and infect our bloodstreams.

In short, the growing number of vehicles in India is not only expanding Indians’ independence and freedom. It is also worsening our air quality and causing cardiopulmonary disease.

We should not overlook these consequences — the strains on healthcare spending, increasing congestion, harm to worker productivity, negative impact on quality of life, and increased expenditures on foreign oil — in our dash to develop and motorise.

Tougher standards

There is a way out of this dilemma. And while a full solution will require a comprehensive approach that redesigns transportation and urbanisation in India to be less focused on personal vehicles, a number of feasible measures can and should be implemented in the near term that will mitigate the negative effects of vehicles well into the future.

One is to implement ultra-low sulphur fuels — fuels that contain less than 10 parts per million sulphur — and Bharat VI vehicle emission standards, putting India on par with Europe and the US. The argument that India cannot afford to take those steps now does not stand up to scrutiny. Most Indian oil and vehicle companies conduct business internationally, which means they already meet tougher standards abroad. If their products met the same standards at home, Indian vehicles would emit up to 90 per cent less particulates and nitrogen oxides than they currently do.

The Auto Fuel Policy Committee formed this year under the leadership of Saumitra Chaudhari of the Planning Commission has the opportunity to bring about these changes in India. Charged with recommending reforms through 2025, the committee should also put in place mechanisms to ensure India does not again fall behind international best practices.

Apart from mandating tougher standards, India can do a better job of enforcing them. Corruption is nothing new in the country, and the oil and vehicle industries are not immune to it. On the oil side, fuel adulteration has long been — and continues to be — a problem. On the vehicle side, General Motors was recently found to be illegally tampering with its Tavera model to meet emissions regulations —and not on a small scale; the auto giant sold 1.14 lakh non-compliant Taveras over eight years.

Feasible measures

Here, too, feasible measures can be implemented in the short-term that will have long-lasting effects. Fuels should be regularly tested at petrol stations — where people purchase them — and not just at refineries. Vehicles on the road — where people live and breathe —should be periodically tested against their original emission standards. And there should be strong penalties for non-compliance. These actions would incentivise industry to ensure that its products perform as they are supposed to for the duration of their useful life. Whatever burden this might impose would actually be a boon for many companies, because it would allow them to catch problems early on rather than face troubles, such as the one confronting GM now.

Our research at the International Council on Clean Transportation indicates that if India were to take aggressive action to reduce vehicle emissions, it could reduce the number of premature deaths by more than half a million over the next 20 years. The monetised benefits of these avoided deaths would be three times higher than the costs.

Reforming vehicle emission and fuel quality regulation are not all that India needs, by any means. Increasing mass transit, making non-motorised transport a convenient option again, as it was just a generation ago for our parents, and cleaning up emissions from non-transportation sources will all be necessary for Indians to enjoy their right to clean air. But we have to recognise that vehicles are here to stay. And one day I’d like to see a car at a wedding without having to worry about its effects on the bride and groom’s future children.

(The author is Researcher, Passenger Vehicles Program, The International Council on Clean Transportation)

Related Topics