The Supreme Court has ruled on Wednesday that there will be a ban on registration of diesel-run SUVs and cars with engine capacity of 2000 cc and above in New Delhi. This order has taken the debate on air pollution one more step forward.
At 9 pm, CNN-IBN kickstarted its debate with the question, is this ban is enough to clean up Delhi’s foul air?
In an interview to the channel, Harish Salve the amicus curae in the case, started by citing a previous ruling by the apex court.
In 2001, the Supreme Court said trucks coming into Delhi must only be those destined to Delhi. But the order sort of fell into disuse. The governments thought as long as the toll tax is being paid, trucks can enter Delhi. Now we suggested that there be an environment compensation charge if trucks come in. We suggested that the charge be doubled.Harish Salve, Amicus Curae
Salve said Delhi is in a crisis situation and it is now commuter inconvenience vs death. And that the level of inconvenience doesn’t even come close that it can be compared with the danger level.
He also said,
This inconvenience is because of incompetent governments. This court order is not for the benefit of the government or to cut down benefits of the automobile industry. These orders are for the future of our children.
But Salve made an excellent point that the people of Delhi should now work not on bypassing these rules but try and make it a citizens movement.
“Blaming the government is good for politics but not for our lungs,” he said.
When opened to the panel, Hormazd Sorabjee, the editor of Autocar agreed that the impact of diesel on the environment cannot be ignored. However, he pointed out that such a ban cannot be brought-in overnight.
Global opinion is against diesel but name one city that has banned it overnight. You think this ban is going to clean up the air? Going forward modern diesel technology will find a solution.Hormazd Sorabjee, Editor, Autocar
On being asked how the government intends to tackle with the public transport arrangement, AAP MLA Adarsh Shastri agreed that it would be challenging for the government but desperate times call for drastic measures.
“The policy should be odd/even for all vehicles with exceptions of car pooling and there are questions and challenges going forward,” he said.
Also on the panel was environment lawyer Ritwick Dutta. He said people in India have what is called the “Not In My Backyard Syndrome”.
The National Green Tribunal and the Supreme Court have passed an order and we have done this in the past too. But as long as you don’t restrict vehicle registration itself, you do not deal with the problem.Ritwick Dutta, Environment Lawyer
De-incentivising Manufacture
Anumita Roy Chowdhary, the Associate Director of CSE, pointed out that it is time to de-incentivise manufacture of diesel vehicles. Chowdhary said, “In other countries higher taxes are leading to de-incentivising the automobile industry itself and leading to an automatic ban in production of diesel cars. Here, the standards itself allow diesel cars to legally pollute more. The emissions must be controlled”.
Chowdhary also said, that the state government must manage public transport efficiently. The state government should make sure that they do not overcharge and build good, reliable public transport whenever the public demands it.
At this point, Adarsh Shastri said that the top court’s order is merely an immediate solution and that the government will look into mid- and long-term solutions.
Meanwhile on Times Now, an equally divided panel of supporters and those against the Supreme Court order debated aggressively.
CSE Director Sunita Narain was on the panel and she pointed out that the price differential between diesel and other fuels is a major motivator for the consumer to buy diesel vehicles.
The hard fact is that a person who owns a Mercedes Benz pays lesser than a person owning a two wheeler. The reason why people buy diesel is the price differential. A private diesel car will run 10,000 to 15,000 km a year but a commercial car will run about five times that count.Sunita Narain, Director, CSE
But the argument was countered, although not accepted.
Hormazd Sorabjee was on the panel on Times Now too and made the debate a little edgy when he said, “The rich people are frankly not polluting as much as the poor”.
His argument was that the four wheelers used by the rich have better technology than the autorickshaws or the two wheelers.
The argument was supported by some and countered by the others. It was difficult to comprehend who said what.
The debate came to an end with Mohandas Pai stating that this step by the apex court is only the first of many and that this issue will be taken up again by the court in January 2016.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)