The Delhi government’s cloud seeding experiment this week has been widely regarded as a failure, except by the authorities involved.
The chance of success is low, given the stringent conditions required for cloud seeding and the poor track record of the geo-engineering technology. It has been labeled a gimmick, unscientific, and political theatre by some scientists.
The two flights conducted on October 28 were overseen by IIT-Kanpur. The estimated cost was Rs 1.2 crore, almost forty per cent of the Delhi government’s budget of Rs 3.2 crore for the cloud seeding trials. It would cost about Rs 25 crore to conduct cloud seeding in Delhi throughout winter, the IIT-K director told a television channel.
That is almost certainly money down the drain. For cloud seeding to work, scientists say it requires at least 50% moisture in the atmosphere and the presence of clouds, which is uncommon in winter apart from the occasional shower.
What the episode reveals is a lack of willingness to embrace the more effective, but tougher, decisions to cut air pollution or to use public funds more strategically.
Air pollution is a bipartisan issue and MPs from the BJP, Congress and other parties have sat together at various fora, agreeing on the need for action. Yet governments, regardless of party, often resort to questionable experiments. Some of these are half-baked, like the traffic ban on odd-even registration numbers; this exempted two-wheelers which are roughly twice the number of four-wheelers.
Other steps are completely unscientific too, like the smog towers put up at several locations at a cost of crores. Before the smog tower in central Delhi was built for Rs 20 crore, an IIT-Delhi scientist estimated it would take a million of these to clean the capital’s air at a cost of “about a couple of trillion dollars”.
The political backing of pollution-causing, oxymoronically dubbed “green” firecrackers—this was Delhi’s most polluted Diwali in recent years—is an extreme example of pro-pollution policy. Another showy example of air pollution control is the truck-borne smog guns or water sprinklers. These will be increased, Delhi’s new government promised soon after taking office. These trucks aim to subdue road dust—a worthy goal—but authorities seem to be overemphasising here.
Road dust contributed 1.4% to Delhi pollution according to the latest data at the time of writing this; stubble burning was just 0.3%. Vehicles, however, accounted for as much as 20% to Delhi’s air pollution.
Why not use funds to nudge behaviour? It is worth experimenting with pollution-linked discounts for public transit, namely the Delhi Metro and buses.
As the PM2.5 pollution levels rise, fares could be reduced to incentivise commuters to ditch vehicles. If PM2.5 exceeds, say, 100 micrograms/cubic metre, cut fares by 25%; at 150 micrograms, by 50%; at 175 micrograms, by 75%; and when levels are over 200, it could even be free. As there are only a few days of severe pollution, this is doable, especially as Delhi has a very good metro network and an expanding fleet of e-buses.
Political will is essential to reduce pollution at source. An outstanding example is the Ujjwala scheme to subsidise cooking gas cylinders for over 100 million low-income households, a move estimated to save about 1,50,000 lives in a year.
Last July, the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM), the powerful agency set up to reduce air pollution in the Delhi airshed region, took a stand and began removing old polluting vehicles from the roads. But, the political leadership relented after protests took place, especially on social media.
Chetan Bhattacharji
Climate journalist and communications consultant
(Views are personal)
