The Delhi government has decided to approach the Supreme Court seeking a relaxation on the current ban on 10-year-old diesel vehicles and 15-year-old petrol vehicles. The move is a dramatic U-turn after barely months ago insisting that they will not be dispensing petrol to old vehicles that do not meet the age criteria.
According to the government, the new standard will not be the age of the vehicle, but rather whether it meets pollution norms or not. This is a step in the right direction, especially when looked at holistically. The ban was put in place to tackle Delhi’s horrid air quality levels, especially ahead of the onset of winter. The idea was that having newer vehicles would result in cleaner emissions and help improve street-side air quality.
On the flipside, however, it would mean that it was a move that forced people to replace their cars quickly. While in theory it was hoped it would also dissuade people from buying expensive fuel-guzzling cars, in reality it meant that people simply burnt through their vehicles quicker. There is no doubt that there is merit in the argument that a newer car is a cleaner car. But the gases produced by a car aren’t just limited to those released while running. The entire process of making a car, from mining the metal to manufacturing the parts and putting it together, consumes a lot of resources and, of course, energy.
Delhi’s old car ban simply creates fresh demand for newer vehicles, while the other vehicles are either scrapped or are sold off to other parts of the country where they can legally run. It is not without reason that often the most environmentally friendly thing to be doing is to hold on to stuff -- not just cars -- and use them for as long as possible. Essentially, to run them into the ground. This is true of mobile phones, cars, electrical appliances, electronic devices, clothing, etc, items which we are encouraged to constantly upgrade by the media around us.
Delhi’s pollution problem is not limited to cars. But it is certainly facing the problems that any city that is designed and built around cars faces. Large, wide, expansive roads, feeble public transport and long travel distances mean people overly prefer to use their vehicles to get where they want to be. Then there’s the dust that the movement of vehicles kicks up, and you realise that replacing old vehicles with new ones doesn’t really make that much of a difference, and in fact might end up being more bad than good for the environment as a whole.
To that extent, approaching the Supreme Court for relaxation of the rule is a good thing. But it should not be used as a substitute for other efforts to get people to abandon personal vehicles in favour of public transport, the shuttering of polluting units in the vicinity of the capital city, burning of biomass, domestic fires and other sources of pollution that wreak havoc annually on the state capital.
The government needs to think of multiple measures working in coordination to help change people’s behaviour from mindless resource consumption to one that is conscious of the way that collective action can bring a cleaner and better future for all.
