When we think of air pollution, the smoggy outdoor haze of metropolitan cities comes to mind. With India being home to 21 out of 30 of the world’s most polluted cities, the visualization as an outdoor phenomenon is not completely wrong.
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]
The ambient concentration of particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5 particles that have an aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 micrometers, 20-30 times less than the size of a single strand of human hair) in our cities is far more than the World Health Organization (WHO) guideline of 10µg/m3 as well as that of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) Standard 40µg/m3.
As a result, we prefer staying indoors in the safety of controlled environments to protect ourselves from this health hazard. However, many of us are unaware that the level of indoor air pollution in majority of Indian households is far worse than the outdoor ambient air pollution one.
On an average, the Indian population spends 80% of their time in an indoor environment. The PM2.5 concentration in majority of Indian households ranges from 86-882 µg/m3. A higher PM2.5 concentration in a closed environment is ten times more harmful than a similar outdoor concentration because contained areas enable potential pollutants to build up more than open spaces do.
There are several sources of indoor air pollution. These include smoke from fuel burned for heating and cooking, smoke from tobacco, building materials (paints, varnishes, wood flooring, etc.), adhesives in furniture and electronics, broken CFLs and tube lights, excess moisture, and overall outdoor air pollution.
Out of these sources, burning solid fuel for cooking is the leading source of indoor air pollution in India. According to a recent Global Burden of Disease estimation, solid fuel burned for coking accounted for six lakh premature deaths in 2019 in India.
Census of India Projected Population 2019 and Indicators of Social Consumption suggests that 36% of the total Indian population uses solid fuels (firewood, crop residue, cow dung cake, coal, lignite and charcoal) and kerosene as primary cooking fuel as of 2020. The use of solid fuels and kerosene as primary cooking fuels is much higher in rural areas (51%) than in urban areas (9%).
There is a decrease in the use of solid fuels as primary cooking fuel in India because of rising income and the implementation of policies like Prime Minister Ujjwala Yojana. In the recent estimation by Global Burden of Disease, it is still ranked sixth among the top risk factors for premature mortalities in India.
A deeper analysis of the latest available microdata of National Sample Survey, Access to Clean Cooking Energy and Electricity and Indicators of Social Consumption indicates that 77% of the Indian population uses solid fuels for cooking either as primary or secondary fuel, much higher than primary solid fuel use data of 36%.
This means that current studies might be underestimating the number of premature mortalities associated with indoor air pollution. The analysis indicates that many LPG users also use solid fuels for cooking as a secondary fuel.
However, there is no or limited direct data available for secondary fuel use by LPG users; therefore, many-a-times, we only consider primary fuel data for scientific studies and policymaking. There are several reasons for the use of secondary solid fuel use by LPG users that includes economic, accessibility of LPG, social, and behavioral reasons. This shows that scientific and policymaking communities need to strongly consider this invisible data of secondary use of solid fuels by LPG users while framing India’s indoor pollution policies.
Besides improving outdoor and indoor air quality by focusing on clean cooking fuel for households would also give other co-benefits such as empowering women and protecting children. Conducting mass awareness programs for secondary solid fuel users who already own an LPG connection can reduce indoor air pollution and associated emissions of 41% of households (secondary fuel user) out of a total of 77% (primary and secondary) solid fuel users. This is a low hanging fruit which will reduce both indoor and outdoor air pollution, however not much is being done in this direction.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.
This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.
It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.
The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.
Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.
India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.
More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.
An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.
India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.
Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.
And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.
A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.
We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.
We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.
In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.