Reluctance to curb firecrackers may worsen India smog
NEW DELHI: With a toxic smog beginning to envelop New Delhi as winter approaches, residents of the Indian capital are set to make matters a lot worse by burning hundreds of thousands of firecrackers to celebrate the Hindu festival of Deepavali early next month.
India, which has the world’s 14 most polluted cities, has made little effort this year to curb the sale of ear- splitting firecrackers that explode through Deepavali night.
The smoke from them shrouds New Delhi and its satellite cities in a haze that can linger for days as wind speeds drop in the cooler weather, adding to pollution caused by the burning of crop residue, vehicle emissions and industrial gases.
Authorities, reluctant to step in to curb the rampant use of firecrackers on Deepavali, one of the most important festivals for millions of Hindus across the country, are passing the buck to the Supreme Court to restrict the sale and use of fireworks.
“It’s not always easy for the government to step into sensitive issues like banning fireworks on Diwali
but it works for us and others if the court decides to step in on this,” said a senior official in the Hindu nationalist government of Prime Minister
Narendra Modi, who declined to be identified in line with government policy.
A spokesman for the federal envi- ronment ministry declined comment. A spokesman for the Delhi city government was not available for comment.
Last year, the Supreme Court temporarily banned the sale of firecrackers in and around the capital city, an area with a population of about 20 million. That reduced the use of fireworks – cutting resulting emissions by about 30% – government officials said.
This year, the court, which has heard submissions from the city government, the environment ministry and the firecracker industry, has so far refrained from giving an order to ban the sale of firecrackers.
The court has not indicated whether it will make a ruling before Deepavali, which falls on Nov 6.
“The situation is going to be grim,” Ritwick Dutta, an environment lawyer associated with the not-for-profit Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment, said.
“You cannot have something monitored solely by the Supreme Court whose ruling last year can be seen only as a stop-gap arrangement.” — Reuters