India’s poor air quality its impacts:

An unseen health crisis: India’s poor air quality its impacts:

the topics was published in the HINDU-25/11/24

Why it is important: GS 3/GS1 – Impacts of Air pollution on Social/ Economic/Health

• India’s poor air quality has been silently affecting communities for decades, with lethal results. “Air pollution is the biggest environmental risk to health, even the leading cause of premature death in India.
• Nearly 2 million lives were cut short in India in 2021 alone due to pollution-related diseases. Among the most affected are pregnant women, children, the elderly, and those already facing health challenges.
• “For these populations, the risk of respiratory infections, impaired lung function, and even cardiovascular conditions due to pollution is devastating and far-reaching,” she said.
• Exposure to air pollution can permanently impair lung development, leading to chronic respiratory issues and asthma in children. “These aren’t just minor inconveniences,”
• “This is a fundamental health crisis where children grow up with a lifetime of diminished health and quality of life.”
• To her, the real tragedy is that risks fall heaviest on the most vulnerable. “Those with fewer resources are the hardest hit. They often live closest to pollution sources and lack the means to protect themselves. This is a crisis of inequality as much as [of] health.”

India’s  steps and challenges/Way forward :

Key facts and views of experts:

• India launched the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) in 2019 to reduce particulate matter pollution by 20-30% by 2024, before adjusting the target to a 40% reduction by 2026.
• According to experts, the NCAP has significant room for improvement. “The NCAP has become, for many, a symbol of intent without effective action.
• We have policies, but where we’re faltering is in ground-level implementation.
• Health must be a central focus of environmental policies, whereas current efforts are “piecemeal and lack teeth.”
• The NCAP’s measures as “band-aid solutions” and there is need of stricter enforcement and a shift toward health-centric policies and ground-level action.
• The NCAP needs localised strategies focused on specific emission sources,”
• The NCAP to go beyond monitoring pollutants to focus on reducing emissions and prioritising health outcomes.
• The NCAP’s goals need to integrate public health directly. Pollution control isn’t just about air quality. It’s about people’s lives.
• The program must shift from mere monitoring to actively reducing emissions with health as its primary focus.”
• To make the NCAP effective, we need a structural overhaul, particularly in how we produce and consume energy.
• The NCAP lacks the comprehensive, multi-sectoral approach required to achieve meaningful progress. it needs to be accompanied by policies that protect vulnerable populations disproportionately affected by air pollution.
• NCAP is a beginning, but a whole-society approach that spans sectors and prioritises the vulnerable is essential.

Economic and social costs:

• “Poor air quality isn’t just costing lives; it’s costing livelihoods.
• Swaminathan also called air pollution an economic crisis because it raises healthcare costs and lowers productivity (through lost work and school days).
• Poor air quality leads to increased hospitalisations and higher healthcare costs, adding a financial burden on families and the health system.
• Vulnerable, low-income communities bear the heaviest burden: “The poorest are most exposed yet least equipped to mitigate these effects,” according to Dr. Swaminathan — a situation reminiscent of the effects of climate change.
• “The burden of non-communicable diseases linked to pollution continues to rise” even as climate-related challenges like heat waves exacerbate health and productivity losses.
• Kumar’s ‘My Solution to Pollution’ campaign, under his foundation and the Doctors for Clean Air initiative, encourages communities to take small but meaningful action. “People can’t wait for government solutions alone,” he said.
• “If 140 crore people commit to small actions, like reducing idling cars outside schools or limiting waste-burning, we can significantly reduce the local pollution load.” A pilot program to prevent idling vehicles near school zones showed improved air quality, a potential model for broader change. “If each of us does our part, we can reduce pollution at the ground level.”

The clean energy caveat:

• Despite increasing public awareness, India’s heavy dependence on fossil fuels remains a significant obstacle to change. While the government promotes electric vehicles, Dr. Kumar warned their benefits would be limited if their batteries were charged with coal-fired electricity.
• He contended that an overhaul of energy infrastructure is required, including a complete transition away from coal.
• “We’re tackling the problem from the wrong end,” Chaturvedi, the environmental economist, said. “We’re addressing symptoms — dust suppression, controlling stubble burning — but not the root cause, which is our reliance on fossil fuels and inadequate clean energy infrastructure.”
• “True progress in air quality will require a pivot from coal to renewables, coupled with a robust national investment in sustainable infrastructure.”
• Pant also pointed out that people in rural locales bank extensively on biomass and also need access to cleaner energy. “For many rural families, wood and animal dung are the only affordable options for cooking fuel,” she said, adding that the health impact of household pollution, particularly for women and children, is as important as urban air quality.

Reforms and accountability:

• Experts said it could be critical for the NCAP to adopt a regional approach rather than presume one size can fit all. Dr. Pant suggested localised targets could allow India’s diverse regions to address their most pressing pollution sources — industrial emissions, agricultural burning, or urban vehicle congestion — differently. “Air pollution is deeply complex. By prioritising interventions at the state and local levels, we can tailor strategies to where they’re needed most,” she said.
• Second, while experts have mixed reactions to listing pollution as a cause of death on death certificates, Dr. Kumar said this explicit acknowledgement could increase public awareness.
• “When you add pollution to the death certificate, you’re making people see the cause-and-effect link in their lives,” Dr. Swaminathan agrees: “Having an official link on death records could push more serious health and policy actions against pollution.”
• She also proposed establishing a regulatory body akin to the U.S. Environment Protection Agency to enforce environmental standards and integrate interdisciplinary policymaking. “India lacks a comprehensive body to regulate air, water, and other pollutants that threaten public health,” she said. Dr. Pant echoed her, saying “a unified regulatory body could streamline and strengthen India’s fragmented environmental policies.”
• But Dr. Kumar was wary of bureaucratic hurdles: “We don’t need more agencies; we need stronger enforcement.”

Toward lasting solutions:

• The UNEP reports called for systemic changes in the transportation, energy, and health sectors to curb pollution effectively.
• Experts agreed a national clean air strategy should prioritise public health, climate mitigation, and community engagement.
• “Investing in clean air today is investing in India’s economic and social future.”