[sustran] FW: INDIA: OMISSIONS IN EMISSION STANDARDS

[Paul Barter]

-----Original Message-----
From: mkorbjuhn at worldbank.org [mailto:mkorbjuhn at worldbank.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2002 10:47 PM
To: Clean Air Initiative -- Asia
Subject: FYI: INDIA: OMISSIONS IN EMISSION STANDARDS


FYI

------------------------

INDIA: OMISSIONS IN EMISSION STANDARDS
Feb 05 01:11 - BSTN - RBB - Reuters Business Briefings

Sunita Narain

What do you say when a Cabinet minister - a reasonably vocal one at that -
refuses to appear on television to take part in a panel discussion on a
serious  public policy issue? Ram Naik, the Union minister for petroleum and
natural gas, and I were invited by a private television network to discuss
the A R Mashelkar committee report on auto fuel policy.

Naik first threw a fit. Then a compromise was worked out: he would first
defend the report and then I could go on air to discuss its implications on
public health and pollution control policies. Interestingly - and
significantly - he did wait in the studio to hear my comments.

The Mashelkar committee was set up by Naik days before the last deadline of
the  Supreme Court to phase out diesel buses in Delhi and replace these with
compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles was due. The deadline has been missed
again - for the third time. And, again, the government has found a new
excuse.

This time, it proposes to go to court chanting the Mashelkar-mantra - that
policy should be based on emission norms and not technology and multi-fuel
options should be allowed. What could be more logical and reasonable?

But such sagacity would need two qualifications. One, the prescribed fuel
quality and auto emission norms would have to meet air quality targets. Two,
if the air quality standards are not met and we have unhealthy air, someone
would be held accountable and taken to task. In the US, for instance, the
Clean Air Act lays down penalties that the federal government can impose on
state governments when they fail to comply with air quality norms. We have
nothing of the kind. Instead, we have heavily-polluted cities and
governments that get away with slow murder.

We can agree that norms should dictate policy, but only if the norms have
any meaning on air quality. Mashelkar's road map for fuel quality would take
us straight to hell. The strategy adopted by the committee is to make
incremental gains - move from Euro II equivalent norms, which we have today
in a few metros like Delhi, to Euro III by 2005. The rest of the country,
irrespective of how polluted a particular city is, would move from Euro I to
Euro III by 2010.

The problem is that we introduced emission norms for vehicles very late.
Till 1991 there were no norms and in 1996 the norms were Euro-0 - or
emission standards poorer than the first set in Europe. It is only in 2000
that the country got emission norms equivalent to Euro I, which were
introduced in Europe in 1992.

Delhi was fortunate to get Euro II simply because the Supreme Court demanded
that the norms should be advanced by five years - and the automobile and
fuel companies had to deliver. But even this means that, on Delhi roads
today, less  than 18 per cent of the vehicles meet Euro I or Euro II norms.
And as we can do  little to get rid of the huge numbers of old vehicles on
the roads, the only  option is to phase in much better vehicles and fuel as
fast as possible. It is  for this reason that the slow and steady route is
not an option for us.

It is also well understood that the quantum jump in clean technology will
come  with the introduction of Euro IV norms, due in 2004 in Europe, as
these are  substantially more stringent. For instance, even as Euro III
norms make soft  adjustments - going from 500 ppm sulfur diesel in Euro II
to 350 ppm sulfur  diesel - it is Euro IV which leapfrogs to less than 50
ppm sulfur diesel which  then allows diesel manufacturers to fit
after-treatment devices like particulate traps to meet the stringent
particulate emission standards. But leapfrogging  needs guts, which the
committee seems to have singularly lacked.

The multi-fuel sermon is equally meaningless. Why would anyone disagree on
using different fuels as long as the fuel is clean? But how can you devise a
strategy for pollution control based on dirty existing fuel that we have in
our cities. For instance, if the Delhi and Union governments renege on CNG,
their gift to us would be to run buses on existing diesel fuel with Euro
II-compliant vehicles - which only slightly better than what we have today.
CNG, on the other hand, gives us Euro IV equivalent emissions as far as
deadly particulates are concerned.

What baffles me is why the minister would be so worried about engaging in a
public debate. Many months ago, he had called environmentalists who ask for
clean fuel "reactionary". We had then responded by calling him a dinosaur.
But sadly his mindset has not become extinct. We can only hope one day it
will.

(c)2002 Business Standard Ltd.

BUSINESS STANDARD 05/02/2002 P14