Unleaded fuel is high on benze OVERVIEW economic growth, it is now widely recognised, creates environmental problems. This nexus needs environmental management built on two principles. The balance principle and the precautionary principle. So the state, while promoting growth, must use its regulatory and fiscal powers in the cause of environmental harmony. And, the second principle demands that this balancing action be taken before the environmental damage begins and not after.

But try telling that to the Indian state. Among a host of environmental misdemeanours -- crimes, really -- the dramatic rise in air pollution in most Indian metropolises over the last one decade is a direct result of an inefficient state, both in terms of balancing responsibilities and precautionary actions. Delhi and Calcutta are already among the worst polluted cities in the world. Others like Bangalore, once a 'garden city', are rapidly deteriorating. As urban India braces itself for a wonderful, oxygen-less 21st century, I would like to ask the question: where does this pollution come from?

In the pages that follow, we at the Centre for Science and Environment have tried to answer this question. In these pages, you will notice that we talk of air pollution by vehicles, and not air pollution in general. The reason is a simple one. In many cities, especially in Delhi, vehicular air pollution is the key culprit.

I would like to dwell on the genesis of our focus on vehicular pollution, which has led to a report called -- dead on target, I think -- slow murder: The Deadly Story of Vehicular Pollution in India . (What you will read here is based on the report.) It began during the high summer of 1995, when I saw a large number of cars line up in the heat to get their emission levels checked. Even as an environmentalist, I was not aware of all the contours of this highly technical problem of vehicular pollution. But this tailpipery struck me as a little imbecilic; as if only vehicle maintenance was at the heart of the problem. I was aware this was not the key policy measure industrialised countries took to reduce air pollution. And at a dinner in Washington dc , Vineet Nayyar, formerly chairperson of the Gas Authority of India, had told me, "Anil, your biggest problem is the quality of fuel that state refineries are supplying the cities. Strangely, none of you environmentalists seem to be taking up the issue." That was true, and I had begged ignorance.

In that June heat, my first reaction was that as an environmentalist, I must issue a press statement urging Delhi's citizens to refuse to get their tailpipes checked unless the government gets its act together. After former environment minister Maneka Gandhi adopted the environmental gimmick of checking tailpipes in 1991, everybody down to Madan Lal Khurana and Sahib Singh Verma has found it a great publicity stunt to force citizens to get their cars checked and happily place the blame for pollution on the carowner. A scandal, to my mind, more murderous and injurious to public health than the entire hawala scam put together.

Since then, it has become clear to me that tailpipe checking is clearcut harassment of the citizen by the state in the name of environment. Since then, I have been led into many questions in our search for an angry and fitting reply to such harassment, one that would place the many unknown twists of the problem of vehicular pollution before the public. Is it because we produce cars that should be banned the moment they leave factory gates? Or is it because no one is really planning ahead to meet the traffic needs of our cities? Could it also be that we have a crassly materialistic middle class which will stick to its aged vehicles and refuse to phase them out, as it happens in most Western countries (so that even if a new technology is introduced, it will take 15-20 years to make an impact)?

What is also clear is that vehicular pollution is a created problem, not a 'natural' one. If you look at the total emission picture of a city in the 1950s or 1960s, you would see three types of emissions. Emissions from industrial sources, including power plants; from vehicular sources; and those from household sources. The energy market changed, especially in the 1960s and 1970s; as kerosene and lpg made their way into kitchens, smoky firewood and coal went out. By the 1980s, these emissions were insignificant.

In 1991, Parliament passed the Air Pollution Act, precisely to take care of industrial and vehicular pollution. It is easy to take care of industrial pollution. Numerous technologies like electrostatic precipitators can help reduce factory pollution. Or, pollution controllers can re-locate factories (never mind if that spoils a greener and cleaner locale, and harms settlements near the relocated plant). But what of vehicular pollution? A city is stuck with its vehicles. It lives with them. Cars have to be tamed to cut down on pollution.

This is the toughest part of urban air control. And so, our decision to focus on pollution by vehicles.

The report, and these 'analysis' pages, tell you innumerable things. They tell you that vehicular pollution is a combination of

bad vehicular technology;
poor fuel quality;
poor vehicle maintenance; and
non-existent traffic planning.

They tell you
of the games being played in the corridors of the ministry of environment and forests ( mef ) and the ministry of surface transport on the one hand, and the tinkerings of our great automobile manufacturers on the other;

that in the mid-1980s, T N Seshan told the ministry of industrial development that no more new scooter manufacturers should be allowed in India, but nobody even bothered to respond to him;

how vehicular standards have passed from one committee to another, and generously diluted;

of the dirt the ministry of petroleum and the Bureau of Indian Standards lets through in the fuel you use;

that India calculatedly imports poor quality crude because it's cheaper, and never mind what the sulphur in it does to your body, so long as the great sahibs and sahibaans can drive to the subji mandi ;

how poor metropolitan traffic management is in India;

implicitly, that if you happen to live in that arch-capitalist city called Singapore, which is dictatorial but also clean, you are going to get the hell taxed out of you if you plan to buy a car, so that only millionaires can own them. And all the great marketing managers, media stars and advertising executives, the new hoi-polloi of a city growing in a globalised economy, like Delhi, calmly go around playing footsie.

When we requested the state-owned Indian Institute of Petroleum, running on taxes we pay, to test samples of Indian transport fuel and compare them with international standards, we were told to buzz off, though we offered to pay for the study. Testing fuel quality, I am told, is no joke. It requires expensive equipment which only state institutions have. Now that's information, knowledge and transparency for you!

To me, it is clear that the standard system of governance -- create a law and build an institution to implement it -- has not worked in the case of environmental issues, like air pollution by vehicles. mef today has no mechanism whatsoever, excepting some disorganised boards and expert groups, to analyse or implement complex issues which span several disciplines and inter-ministerial and Centre-state territorialities.

What should we do? I think we can get the industry to respond more than the disinterested, incompetent and corrupt government. If making money while destroying the environment can be defined as an environmental crime, then wouldn't it be fair to launch a cam paign that describes eminent industrialist Rahul Bajaj as India's Environmental Criminal Number One, as far as urban air quality is concerned? Call T R Baalu (the petroleum minister) or Jai Narain Prasad Nishad (minister for environment) environmental criminals as much as you want, they will still get their votes. But such a campaign would greatly hurt the corporate image of Bajaj.

In any case, we have little time to lose. Read how all of us have been kept in the dark by all those who didn't bother about clean air -- we call them smog incorporated -- and get back to us. We want to hear from you, about how we can work together on this issue which means so much for our health and that of our children. Can we all demand the right to clean air?

Carbon monoxide (co) This poison gas is produced when air and fuel combust in the engine of cars, two-wheelers, and three-wheelers.

Oxides of nitrogen (no x ) Formed during combustion, they emerge from exhaust as nitric oxide ( no ). And in the atmosphere, gradually convert to nitrogen dioxide ( no 2 ). no 2 , most noxious, participates in a series of reactions with oxygen and ultraviolet radiation to form photochemical smog.

Unburnt hydrocarbons (hcs) Especially emitted by petrol-driven vehicles, it's the fuel your engine could not burn.

Oxides of sulphur (so x ) Vehicular exhaust contains sulphur monoxide, which oxidises in the atmosphere to sulphur dioxide ( so 2 ). Mostly emitted by diesel-driven vehicles.

Lead additives in fuel account for 80-90 per cent of lead in the atmosphere. Also emitted via evaporation losses from engine and tank.

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (pahs) come from incomplete fuel combustion. Diesel exhaust contains high volumes of particulate-bearing pah s.

Suspended particulate matter (spm) are tiny particles in diesel exhaust. pm -10, less than 10 microns in diameter, is directly respirable.

Ozoneis a principle ingredient of smog. Ground-level ozone is dangerous.

Benzene comes from crude used to manufacture fuel. Its levels in crude are maintained, often enhanced, while producing unleaded fuel. Main sources of emission are vehicles, and evaporation losses during handling, distribution and storage of fuel.

it is one thing to know what vehicular exhaust is, or contains. It is quite another thing to know precisely how much of all these chemical compounds are actually present in the ambient air that we breathe. Where the physical chemistry of vehicular exhaust meets with reality, there is insufficient data, information that contradicts, and a lot of confusion.

According to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, vehicular pollution in the city increased from 398.7 metric tonnes per day (tpd) to 1314.33 tpd between 1977 and 1987. But according to another estimate by the Central Pollution Control Board ( cpcb ), pollution peaked from 583.96 tpd to 659.57 tpd between 1987 and 1992. Chronology is maintained, but the figures just don't match! The point is that vehicular pollution is most inefficiently monitored in this country. Studies that exist often do not contain information on particular pollutants.

Often, it is not possible to even pinpoint the degree to which different sources (such as power plants or industries) contribute to the poison in the air. This has a dangerous implication. It means vested interests, such as the automobile industry, have a readymade escape route when it comes to owning up responsibility. They can carry on slow murdering.

Suspended matters
a comparison between different sources of pollution (industries, power plants) shows that emissions from diesel vehicles are assuming dangerous proportions in Mumbai. These emissions are high on spm , 90 per cent of which are directly respirable. And the tiny pm -10s have insinuated themselves into the lungs and lives of 1,90,000 children now suffering from bronchitis.

Diesel, high in sulphur content, is also behind high so 2 concentrations in Mumbai's traffic junctions, varying between 80-162 m g/m 3 , much above the national air quality standard for so 2 in such areas (80 m /m 3 ). All those diesel trucks running through this city. And now that the fleet has been joined by all those new-fangled diesel-powered cars and jeeps...

Capitally polluted
like a benighted prayer, 1,300 metric tonnes ( mt ) of pollutants are huffed into Delhi's skies, straight from the exhaust pipe. Everyday. Is being the fourth most polluted city in the world a distinction?

Delhi has the maximum road length. All of 1,595 km. But the sheer volume of traffic hogs it up. In 1993, 2.1 million vehicles were registered in Delhi. Of this, 69 per cent are two-wheelers, and four per cent are three-wheelers running on petrol-fuelled two-stroke engines. Two-stroke engines are emission-inefficient because some of the petrol remains unburnt. So exhaust from these vehicles contains more co and hc s. Delhi's emission profile shows how grossly they pollute. co : 810 mt; and hc s: 310 mt . Yes, everyday.

Did you know that buses account for only one per cent of vehicles in Delhi?

Bumper to bumper
calcutta's roads are bewildering: buses, trams, taxies, autorickshaws. Yet, its transportation needs are mostly met by personal vehicles. Forty four per cent of vehicles here are two-wheelers. And a fair number of rickshaws and bicycles. Just where is the space for all these vehicles to move? This precisely is Calcutta's problem. Its road length is a mere six per cent of the total city area. And congestions are nightmarish. In this city, vehicles crawl.

When vehicles crawl, they belch some more. This is because the engine cannot burn fuel efficiently. In this densely populated city, the impact is disastrous. Public Health officials report an increasing trend of acute respiratory infections among Calcutta's inhabitants. Bronchitis, oedema of the lungs, ischaemic heart diseases, dust allergies.


dilution is the norm
this is a fact: the process of revising vehicular emission norms in India seeks to progressively reduce emission levels, becoming more stringent with time. The first ever regulation of April 1991 stipulated control only on co and hc emissions. The April 1996 norms seek to reduce emission levels by 40-50 per cent in comparison to 1991. The latest norms also take no x emissions into account. The next date for revisions is 2000 ad . It seeks to be stricter.

This is also a fact: the process of revising vehicular emission norms in India is a progressive watering down of expert recommendations, becoming less stringent with time. In 1991, a committee was set up to recommend emission norms for 1995 and 2000 ad , headed by H B Mathur of the Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi. Mathur instituted two subcommittees under him. Then began the wrangling. A subcommittee headed by S Raju came up with its own set of standards, more dilute and allegedly pro-automobile industry. Then in 1993, the ministry of environment and forests ( mef ) issuedits own set of recommendations, even more lax. The ministry also postponed the date of implementing norms by a year, from 1995 to 1996. Finally, when the standards were officially declared in April 1996, they turned out to be even more watered down than the three earlier sets of recommendations. To the automobile industry, with love.

Some crucial parameters were changed. Vehicles emit more when the engine is cold. The initial recommendations were based on this logic, technically called the cold start measurement. mef rejected this parameter. The 1996 norms are based on warm start measurement, a neat average, or climbdown. You see, it takes more sophisticated technology, or greater social responsibility, to control emissions during cold start.

Another parameter used to set standards is the driving cycle, which simulates average road driving conditions (see: Driving in a cycle). The Mathur and Raju recommendations were based on the Indian driving cycle. But the 1996 norms are based on the European driving cycle. Naturally, they are less stringent, because smoother, wider, less congested road conditions mean that cars function more efficiently, even in simulation. But where is the autobahn?

Mathur committee(1991) 5.0-9.0* 2.0-4.0
raju subcommittee(1991) 6.2-11.1 2,7-4.6
MEF original 7.40 1.97
MEF notification(april,(1996) 8.68-12.4 3.0-4.36

Dear automobile industry, from your ever obedient servant, the Union government
ever since the first set of emission norm recommendations were made, the automobile industry has been going blue in the face. The industry begged for time to redesign engines to upgrade technology. It was given four years to meet standards. Time enough. And what did they do? They came up with -- thunder and enlightening! -- the catalytic convertor.

A catalytic convertor is placed near the exhaust pipe in cars to chemically convert engine emissions into environmentally benign gases. Indian automobiles are fitted with three-way convertors. They promote reactions that oxidise hc and co . Simultaneously, no x emissions are reduced. Such convertors work best when a chemically correct mixture of air and fuel is consistently maintained. This can be achieved only if a closed loop air:fuel ratio control system is introduced.

No Indian manufacturer uses this system.

There are other gaffes. Emissions are maximum when a car engine rumbles into life. On the other hand, a convertor needs some warmth, functioning effectively only when exhaust temperatures range between 250-850 c . In short, it is useless when most needed. So what is it doing there?

That is what consumers are asking, though for a different reason. Convertors require unleaded fuel. Good for us, thought the automobile industry after the Supreme Court made catalytic convertors mandatory in the four metros in a 1994 order; unleaded fuel is not our problem. The public sector refineries managed to provide the unleaded fuel, but only in short supply. Game drawn for the refineries and the manufacturers, and the consumer drawn into restricted mobility! Now consumers are drawing out, carrying out a 'bypass' on the convertor at the corner mechanic, or buying their cars from outside the four metros.

the driving cycle is a statistical formulation. It simulates driving patterns a vehicle is likely to go through on city roads and serves as a reference model for testing vehicles. It helps in arriving at an emission-efficiency profile.

Logic suggests that the Indian driving cycle ( idc ) is a more realistic measure. The automobile industry prefers the European driving cycle ( edc ).

idc has been developed by the Automotive Research Association of India. Indian roads being as they are, the cycle shows frequent and sharp acceleration and deceleration curves and a long idling time. edc , on the other hand, is based on better road conditions and shows gentler curves.

In idc , emission levels increase considerably since vehicles emit more while idling or speeding up. So standards arrived at on the basis of such a cycle are bound to be more stringent. And any technological change would have to meet such stringency.

New emission standards have made tie-ups imperative and most of the technology is edc -based. So Indian manufacturers find it expedient to adopt it. Industry representatives admit they do not possess the know-how to modify imported technology and measure up to idc . H B Mathur is dead against the shift. 'We cannot copy driving cycles from others. Our cycle is representative of our conditions. If the European driving cycle is adopted, vehicles will continue polluting, though the paper will show differently."

Well, it has been adopted.


made in india
figuratively speaking, vehicular emission norms have firmly caught Indian petrol-driven cars , and their makers, by the tailpipe. Technically, 1996 and 2000 ad standards for evaporative and crankcase emissions, in addition to controls on what emerges from the exhaust, have sent yowling manufacturers deep into the engine, and they seem to be groping thereabouts most emission-inefficiently.

Crankcase emissions, or gases and vapours that escape under pressure from the combustion chamber to be discharged into the atmosphere via the crankcase, contribute to about 20 per cent of hc emissions. The 1996 norms wish these emissions to be reduced to zero. This is not a problem for models like the Contessa, the Maruti and Premier 118 ne , already equipped with systems which assist in recycling the gases for complete combustion. But it is certainly a crank-out for models like the Gypsy, the Mahindra and Mahindra jeeps and petrol-run Ambassador cars. So far so good.

Evaporative emissions present a problem for all Indian petrol-driven cars. Its major sources are the carburettor bowl (that part of a carburettor where the fuel is contained) and the fuel tank. hc vapours escape from the fuel tank while fuelling, and from the carburettor during the hot soak period. Control devices for evaporative emissions are simply not produced. And testing facilities for it are a rarity; only Maruti Udyog Ltd has them.

True to form, industry has asked for a delay in adopting these norms. Other technologically emancipated strategies include getting indicative norms for 2000 ad diluted and crying foul of emission testing procedures currently prevalent in India. Like other countries, India follows the conformity of production (cop) testing procedure, where mass production of a vehicle is expected to conform to a prototype approved by the testing agency. However, vehicles are picked at random from the assembly line for testing.

This makes the system more stringent. Not only should cars have to keep within prescribed emission limits, they also should have to keep well below it to account for variation during mass production. That needs a consistent shopfloor.

It seems Indian carmakers don't have such shopfloors. Instead of polishing up the assembly line, they wish to polish off cop itself. They wish the us averaging system be adopted, where a log is maintained on vehicles produced everyday and an average is taken of the last six months' emission data.

When it comes to the driving cycle, Indian carmakers think they are making cars for European roads. When it comes to cop , they think they are in the us . Where exactly are Indian cars made?

how many strokes...
...must one engine have before you can call it emission-efficient? This is the question bedevilling the automobile industry. Equally, it points to the core technology option in controlling pollution.

Except the Hero Honda and Kawasaki Bajaj 100 cc motorcycles which have four-stroke engines, all two-and three-wheeler models in India run on two-stroke petrol engines. India is the second largest producer of two-wheelers after Japan and has a disproportionately large number of them zooming about: 65 per cent of the entire vehicle population. But its two-stroke engines are also responsible for, respectively, 70 per cent and 48 per cent of total hc and co emissions.

Two-stroke engines have certain advantages over the four-stroke variety, which endear it to manufacturers. They are light, easy to manufacture, and cost less. They have an easy cold start and are not difficult to maintain. Since they have lower pumping and friction losses, their effective power is higher (twice the number of working strokes than the four-stroke engine). Two-wheeler consumers thrive on this power, and manufacturers thrive on them.

Yes, such terms of endearment hide its higher polluting capacity, caused by the unburned fuel that escapes with the exhaust. This is because the air-fuel mixture enters the combustion chamber through an aperture facing the exit point for the exhaust gases. About 20-40 per cent of the fuel is lost in this manner. So hc and co emissions increase. In fact, hc coming out of a two-stroke 150 cc scooter equals that from a four-stroke 1,500 cc car engine.

To develop the next generation of emission-efficient two-wheelers, industry is trying to modify the conventional two-stroke engine in stages. The focus is on evolutionary changes in the existing carburettor system. But dilemmas remain unsolved. Engine modifications to achieve emission levels are sought to be done without compromising on fuel economy and more power, both market demands. Balancing the two requires more sophisticated solutions, for tinkering around the carburettor will not allow vehicles to meet 2000 ad norms. Solutions like fuel injection technology (fuel injection systems introduce the fuel into the engine cylinder separately from the scavenging air. Direct injection eliminates fuel short-circuiting, so that two-stroke engines become cleaner). Piaggio Veicoli Europei, manufacturers of Vespa scooters, have developed a fuel-injected two-stroke engine.

Two-wheeler sales elsewhere are miniscule compared to car sales; so two-wheeler norms are lenient. Indian manufacturers use this as an excuse to demand lenient norms. It would be closer to the truth to say that industry approaches vehicular pollution with its head buried in excuses, its intelligence devoted to sniffing out corruptible beadles, and a big 'can't do'! Surely tycoons can afford to clean the air?

Subscribe to Weekly Newsletter :
Scroll To Top