Pollution makes damage

New Delhi is in the news again as respirable[re-sp(u-)ru-bul(breathe,स्वसन)] particulate matter is said to have crossed hazardous[ha-zu-dus(dangerous,जोखिम)] limits. On the one hand, this is environmental damage that affects everyone, while on the other, it is damage with multiple determinants — vehicle exhaust, construction dust, Diwali firecrackers, pollution caused by the burning of paddy stumps and agricultural residue, and, of course, apathy[a-pu-thee(lack of emotion,उदशीनता)] .
While this is an important first attempt, the Bill falls short in understanding the scope, ramifications[ra-mu-fu'key-shun(complexity,जटिलता)] and extent of environmental damage.
Damage beyond pollution

Water pollution makes potable water undrinkable, soil pollution contaminates ground water or renders[ren-du(make,बना देना)] soil infertile, while air pollution exacerbates[ig'za-su,beyt(worsen,बिगाड़ना)] respiratory ailments. While pollution is an important source of damage, all damage is not just pollution.

While the Bill suggests that there are three kinds of environmental damage — substantial, non-substantial and minor —  It states that “substantial damage means damage to the environment whether by release of environmental pollutant or environmental pollution or handling of hazardous substance or any other substance.

But there are several other types of environmental damage that merit inclusion in the Bill that change the ecological integrity or character of an ecosystem. For example, land degradation can affect plant pollination and forests can turn barren.

The second major point is the role of distance as a factor in determining environmental damage, and its use in setting the extent of penalties. The Bill suggests that the costs of environmental damage, in the form of hazards and pollution, “may extend to 10 crore rupees” within a 5 km distance from a project site.

In several cases such as radiation or air pollution, proximity to the site of damage exacerbates damage and suffering. While air pollution causes grievous[gree-vus(dangerous,critical,विकट,दुख़द)] harm, the nature of the pollutant is such that it causes more harm through proximity, and not through distance.

Finally, thought needs to be given about capping penalties for environmental damage. Should such penalties have a ceiling?  As the Bhopal gas tragedy showed us, environmental damage can last for generations, and it requires long term and sustained redressal.

Perhaps what is of most interest in the Bill is the proposal to set up a two-man adjudicating[u'joo-du,keyt(judge,निर्णय)] authority to decide on pollution and whether environmental damage has been caused. Given the poor performance of pollution control boards, the question on whether environmental damage should be considered by government officials or independent courts assumes importance.

In the end, there are questions related to both science and perception. While science and laboratory tests can determine impact on health, there must be larger consensus[kun'sen-sus(agreement,सहमति)] on whether we want to go beyond the perception of pollution as constituting environmental damage.

Download monthly pdf of October