Over the last few years the debate on air pollution has reached a crescendo. Britain, France, India, China all face the same dilemma – bad air quality. The breadth of the problem proves we live on the same planet.  According to the World Health Organisation air pollution kills an estimated 7 million people annually, 24% of all strokes and 25% of all heart disease can be attributed to air pollution. According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) the reduction in global economic output caused by air pollution will equate to USD 330 billion by 2060. And a World Bank study, states that in 2013 air pollution cost India 8.5% of its economy.

Déjà vu: In India, one of the first attempts to deal with air pollution was in the late 90s and early 2000 with Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) fueled public transportation in Delhi. Delhi has the world’s largest fleet of public transport buses powered by CNG. Unfortunately, other Indian states have not followed suit.

CNG was proposed as the answer to Delhi’s ailments of the late 90’s. However, the benefits of the shift to clean fuel has been sullied by the smoke from other sources. Therefore one can be excused for feeling a sense of deja-vu when one hears the discussion on air pollution today.

Over the years there has been a shift in how environmental issues have been viewed and therefore communicated. The transition has been from simple semantics to changing our lens. Remember when what is now called Climate Change was called Global Warming? Climate Change is just a succinct way of saying the world is growing warmer and there are consequences to follow. Climate deniers will use this change in terminology to claim there is no danger from anthropogenic heating. However, the magnitude of danger from the planet heating up has not been diluted by discussions branching off into its impact. 

Can this be said with the air pollution or plastic debate?

Clearing the Air: While we focus on the impact of air pollution – deaths, morbidity, economic loss etc are we forgetting the effect it has on the Climate and the environmental destruction that causes it?  According to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe ‘Ecosystems are impacted by air pollution, particularly sulphur and nitrogen emissions, and ground-level ozone as it affects their ability to function and grow’. Increased ground level ozone can impact the growth and development of plants. Air pollution can also cause eutrophication of water bodies.

The air pollution A-cappella that we hear today fails to include the voice of the environment. Truth be told this separation of man and environment is not new. 

There was a time when the focus was on the unbridled usurpation of natures bounty and not on the impact of this pillage on humans. People believed that they were custodians of the environment. Therefore, protecting the environment was linked to preventing pollution or the preservation of forests and oceans. The environment-human link was unsaid, though communities and workers benefited from pollution prevention. 

The story of plastics: Plastic disposal i.e. incineration became an issue when some of the byproducts of burning plastics - dioxins and furans - were found to cause cancer. Then, images of birds and fish choking on plastic soon began to be circulated around the world highlighting the visible environmental impact of plastic use in everyday life. It began to be found in the stomach of whales in the sea too. Interestingly in India, though plastic is being found in cows slowly killing them, gau rakshaks have not yet protested against this form of ill-treatment of the animal.

The plastic vortex in the Pacific once again raised the issue of this material finding it’s way to oceans creating large dead zones with no sea life.

The discussion of plastics impacting human health has returned to the fore in recent times. Micro plastics, used in body-washes, toothpastes and other items is now being found in fish and sea-salt something that people consume regularly.

From One Extreme to Another: This swing between environment and humans is also visible in the discussion on air pollution - it is now anthro-centric focusing on human health and not on the environment. It’s almost as if roles have changed, from being custodians and therefore protecting the environment humans now claim to be victims, the perpetrators remain the same. One could get philosophical and argue that through these transmogrifications the human-environment link has always remained.

Has human economic progress and way of life distanced us from nature and given the delusion of a capacity of being separate from the environment? Therefore could one consequence of this chasm be that the emotional tug that leads to drastic regulations is now absent? Are parents worrying about their sick child a more effective catalyst to prevent air pollution? There is a belief that the political consequence of doing nothing to prevent human death and morbidity is greater than the uproar from industries upset with new regulations. The focus on health is a foil to the unwritten license to pollute. 

Are we so removed from nature that to protect it we now need to highlight the self-harm?  

However, focusing on health consequences may be shortsighted. It can dilute the problem and the solutions become farcical. In the case of air pollution, stubble burning has got everybody’s attention giving vehicles, thermal power plants and industry breathing space. White good manufacturers now sell room air purifiers as a way to deal with air pollution. While the remedy for plastic pollution is less consumption.

Paradoxically, our progress has been such that today we are more than ever at nature’s mercy. Humans have long passed the threshold of looking at  their survival in isolation from environmental protection or vice-versa. Though, human advance has been at the cost of the environment it’s survival depends on the environment.

(Samir Nazareth writes 

on socio-economic and 

environmental issues)