 |
|
Delhi's recent policy restricting fuel access to diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years is facing intense scrutiny and criticism. The core objection lies in the policy's singular focus on vehicle age, completely disregarding factors like the vehicle's maintenance history and actual usage. This approach, critics argue, not only undermines the incentive for responsible vehicle upkeep but also unfairly penalizes citizens who have diligently paid road taxes for a longer vehicle lifespan. The policy, implemented via Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras at fuel stations, has been labeled as 'Orwellian,' evoking concerns about surveillance and overreach. The imposed fines – Rs 10,000 for four-wheelers and Rs 5,000 for two-wheelers – coupled with the threat of vehicle impoundment or scrapping, have ignited widespread resentment. The policy's implementation raises fundamental questions about fairness, practicality, and its overall effectiveness in addressing Delhi's persistent air pollution problem. The policy's most glaring flaw, according to critics, is its failure to account for the fact that many older vehicles are still well-maintained and possess valid Pollution Under Control (PUC) certificates. This raises serious doubts about the relevance of the PUC system itself. If a vehicle's age is the sole determinant of its emission levels, what is the point of conducting pollution checks and issuing certificates? This apparent contradiction highlights the policy's arbitrary nature and undermines public trust in environmental regulations. The financial implications of the policy are also a major source of concern. Diesel vehicle owners in India pay road tax for a 15-year lifespan, but Delhi's policy effectively cuts this lifespan short by five years. This disparity has led to demands for refunds of the unused road tax, raising questions about the government's responsibility to compensate affected citizens. The logistics of such refunds – how and when they would be processed – remain unclear, adding to the uncertainty and frustration surrounding the policy. The policy's critics also point to the stark contrast between Delhi's infrastructure and the stringent vehicle regulations implemented. While the policy mirrors those in developed nations, Delhi's roads and public transport system are ill-equipped to handle the consequences of a mass vehicle ban. Concerns have been raised about the capacity of public transport to accommodate displaced commuters, the availability of adequate vehicle scrapping infrastructure, and the potential environmental impact of the scrapping process itself. Furthermore, the push towards electric vehicles (EVs), while laudable, is hampered by a lack of supportive infrastructure, such as charging stations. This creates a bottleneck and limits the accessibility of EVs for many citizens. The policy is also criticized for being a 'soft target' that conveniently sidesteps other major contributors to Delhi's air pollution, such as road dust, construction dust, and stubble burning. Addressing these factors requires political will and coordinated action across multiple states, which may be why the government has chosen to focus on private vehicles instead. While vehicular emissions are undoubtedly a significant source of pollution, they are not the only source. Studies have shown that private cars account for only a fraction of the total PM2.5 emissions in Delhi, with two- and three-wheelers and heavy-duty vehicles contributing a much larger share. Moreover, regional sources like stubble burning and road dust can contribute significantly to air pollution, especially during certain times of the year. By focusing solely on private vehicles, the policy diverts attention from these broader and often more challenging sources of pollution.
The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) study in 2024 highlighted that motor vehicles contributed to 51.5% of local PM2.5 emissions in Delhi between October and November. Interestingly, within this vehicular contribution, two- and three-wheelers accounted for 50%, heavy-duty vehicles made up 30%, and private cars only contributed around 20%. These figures demonstrate that a focus solely on private vehicles might not be the most effective strategy for combating air pollution. The article argues that the Delhi government appears to be targeting a convenient segment of the population – the middle class – who are more likely to own private cars and are thus directly affected by the ban. This raises questions about the fairness and equitability of the policy, especially considering that other, potentially larger, sources of pollution are not being addressed with the same level of urgency. The piece cites Sushant Sareen, a senior fellow at Observer Research Foundation (ORF), who called the policy a 'stupid rule,' arguing that vehicles should be scrapped based on their pollution levels, not their age. He suggests enforcing strict pollution norms rather than imposing a blanket ban on older vehicles. Sareen’s view underscores the sentiment that the policy lacks nuance and fails to distinguish between well-maintained, low-emission vehicles and poorly maintained, high-emission vehicles. Deepty Jain, assistant professor at IIT Delhi, echoed similar concerns, emphasizing that a vehicle's emissions depend on various factors, including its age, make, model, kilometers driven, and overall fitness. She highlights that maintenance can significantly influence emission levels, suggesting that a more holistic approach to vehicle regulation is needed. Another point raised is the lack of adequate compensation for those affected by the ban. An X user, Abhay Anand, criticized the government for forcing citizens to take out loans for new vehicles while continuing to tax them heavily. This sentiment reflects the frustration and financial burden faced by many Delhi residents as a result of the policy. The article concludes by suggesting that the policy, while potentially well-intentioned, overlooks practical realities and broader pollution sources. It suggests that a more comprehensive and nuanced approach is needed to effectively address Delhi's air pollution problem.
Overall, the article presents a critical perspective on Delhi's policy of banning older vehicles, arguing that it is a poorly designed and implemented measure that is unlikely to achieve its intended goal of reducing air pollution. The policy is criticized for being unfair, impractical, and ineffective, and for failing to address the root causes of Delhi's air pollution crisis. The focus on vehicle age is seen as arbitrary and discriminatory, ignoring the importance of vehicle maintenance and other factors that contribute to emissions. The lack of compensation for affected citizens is also a major point of contention. The piece also underlines the importance of addressing broader pollution sources, such as road dust, construction dust, and stubble burning, which are often overlooked in policy debates. The article calls for a more comprehensive and nuanced approach to air pollution control that takes into account the specific circumstances of Delhi and its residents. It suggests that the government should prioritize policies that are evidence-based, equitable, and effective in reducing emissions from all sources, rather than simply targeting a convenient segment of the population. This would involve investing in public transport, improving road infrastructure, promoting cleaner fuels, and enforcing stricter environmental regulations. The article serves as a reminder that air pollution is a complex problem that requires a multifaceted solution. It also highlights the importance of public participation and accountability in environmental policymaking. The Delhi government's vehicle ban is a case study in how well-intentioned policies can backfire when they are poorly designed and implemented without considering the practical realities and broader consequences. Moving forward, it is crucial for policymakers to engage with stakeholders, consult with experts, and carefully assess the potential impacts of their policies before implementing them. This will help ensure that environmental regulations are effective, equitable, and sustainable in the long term.
Source: Delhi banning 10-year-old cars is mindless coercion | 5 reasons why