Safe air isn’t an impossible aim: Given the administrative will, here’s what could be done right away

Of growing concern is the fact that most other urban areas in India beyond the NCR are also generating increasing levels of air pollution, with the number of ‘good’ air quality days trending towards zero.

Sadly, while all arms of government at various levels fail at even creating an illusion of solutions, attempts to distract the general populace by whipping up sentiments on nationalism (rejection of World Health Organization standards on air quality), religion (allowing the use of ‘green’ crackers on festivals) and culture (recall the massive traffic jams during the festive season and the use of crackers through the year on every ‘joyous’ occasion) muddy the air.

Further distraction is provided by the advocacy of poorly-thought out, end-of-pipe solutions such as cloud-seeding or water-spraying, which only help shirk responsibility for hard regulations.

Not only do these fail to provide an effective solution but could even aggravate environmental and health impacts. There has been no meaningful debate on the use of water sprinklers in this water-scarce region, nor on the quality of water being used and the associated equity and health impacts. Similarly, the adverse effects of cloud-seeding are well documented and severe enough to warrant a very serious evaluation of its deployment.

Our lack of aspiration on providing good quality air is visible in our air quality index (AQI), which serves to numb the populace on the severity of health impacts.

The argument used by the government for its lax pollution standards, which it rarely enforces anyway, relates to India’s specific geography and climatic conditions—our annual average standard for PM2.5 (fine particles) is eight times the WHO standard and four times for PM10.

What we overlook in these arguments is that WHO standards are not concerned with geophysical or socioeconomic differences; rather, they are based on the best available evidence on what exposure to different forms of pollutants, given varying levels of intensity and duration, does to human health. If India wants to argue that its population is more resilient to air pollution than the rest of the human species, then we need hard proof of that—after all, we have rejected as inadequate WHO standards set on the basis of scientifically valid evidence.

Additionally, so-called background pollution levels can sometimes be a red herring. For instance, scientists have been sounding an alarm on the relentless invasion of our National Capital Region by the Thar desert in Rajasthan as a result of poor land and water management practices for decades. And when we destroy hills of the Aravalli range, this background pollution is likely to intensify further.

Do lax and opaque air quality standards reduce performance pressure on the government by creating a false sense of well-being? In mid-December, the environment minister had boasted that “good to moderate” air quality days (AQI 200; PM2.5 under 90 micrograms per cubic metre) increased from 110 in 2016 to 200 in 2025.

India’s definition of ‘moderate,’ however, overlaps with what the WHO defines as unhealthy. Also, this implies that by its own definition, for 165 days, NCR residents are exposed to unhealthy to hazardous air. For comparison, the WHO guideline for short-term exposure to above-standard PM2.5 is set at 15 micrograms per cubic metre for a maximum of 3-4 days.

Government officials often point to farm fires in Punjab and Haryana as a significant part of the problem. No doubt, these contribute to the deterioration of air quality. But December has experienced the poorest air quality in the last 7-8 years, with the stubble-burning season well behind us. Consequently, the debate has shifted once again to the complexity of our air pollution crisis. The Union minister for transport and highways has acknowledged that 40% of this pollution comes from vehicles.

Apparently, we have little understanding of the causes of air pollution and their contribution to air quality. While scientific modelling of the impact of various intervention measures will take time, we must recognize that GRAP restrictions are reactive and cannot absolve decision-makers of the responsibility of taking more effective action.

A few steps that can be initiated immediately include the following:

One, re-introduce mandates on electro-static precipitators for thermal power plants while we define a pathway to phase out coal;

Two, shift the focus of public expenditure from the expansion of highways, particularly those that are destroying our fragile ecosystems;

Three, make a comprehensive effort to smoothen the flow of traffic—regulate the number of vehicles on the roads throughout the year, deal with traffic disruptions strictly, even if caused by cultural or religious processions, and hasten the country’s shift to electric vehicles;

Four, expand the green cover in urban areas and re-evaluate the development of India’s cities; and five, engage with the industrial, commercial and service sectors in urban India to hold them accountable for environmental externalities.

While not comprehensive, these measures illustrate the space available to the government for an immediate-to-short-term systemic response that could have a long-term impact, even as more sustainable solutions to this crisis are planned.

The author is an independent expert on climate change and clean energy.