Centre for Science and Environment masthead Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Instagram Donate

Cse In News

Cse In News

आईपीसीसी ने चेतावनी दी है कि जलवायु संकट और खराब योजना से शहर डूबेंगे

बेंगलुरू के पूर्वी उपनगरों में अभूतपूर्व बाढ़ के कारण – कई आईटी कंपनियों और अपकमिंग आवासीय कॉलोनियों के लिए एक केंद्र – हाल के वर्षों में खराब योजना के साथ संयुक्त जलवायु संकट के भार के तहत शहर कैसे उखड़ जाएंगे, इसका एक उत्कृष्ट प्रतिनिधित्व है। जलवायु परिवर्तन पर अंतर सरकारी पैनल (आईपीसीसी) की छठी मूल्यांकन रिपोर्ट में बेंगलुरू बाढ़ जैसी स्थितियों का विस्तार से वर्णन किया गया है। जलवायु परिवर्तन 2022: प्रभाव, अनुकूलन और संवेदनशीलता मार्च में जारी किया गया। आईपीसीसी ने विश्वास के साथ कहा, “शहरी विस्तार और भूमि उपयोग और भूमि कवर परिवर्तन से शहरी बाढ़ जोखिम बढ़ जाता है जो मिट्टी की सीलिंग के माध्यम से अभेद्य सतह क्षेत्रों को बढ़ाता है, जिसके परिणामस्वरूप सीवर ओवरफ्लो के साथ बाढ़ के पानी की निकासी प्रभावित होती है।” सामाजिक जटिलता, बाढ़ नियंत्रण पर शहरी विकास नीति और मेगा शहरों सहित दीर्घकालिक आर्थिक विकास। आईपीसीसी ने आगे कहा कि एशियाई शहर शहरीकरण प्रक्रियाओं के कारण भविष्य में बाढ़ के जोखिम से अत्यधिक प्रभावित हैं। 2000 और 2030 के बीच, इंडोनेशिया में तेजी से शहरीकरण से नदी और तटीय बाढ़ के लिए बाढ़ का जोखिम 76-120% तक बढ़ जाएगा, जबकि समुद्र के स्तर में वृद्धि से जोखिम में 19-37% की वृद्धि होगी। शहरी क्षेत्रों में बाढ़ शहरी क्षेत्रों के अतिक्रमण और तटबंधों और बाढ़ की दीवारों जैसे बुनियादी ढांचे की कमी दोनों के कारण तेज हो गई है। ढाका पूर्व के बड़े क्षेत्रों और चीन में होहोट के लिए यह मामला है, जलवायु संकट से प्रेरित जोखिम की तुलना में अभेद्य सतहों में वृद्धि वार्षिक बाढ़ जोखिम में 2-4 गुना अधिक योगदान देती है। योजना की कमी बेंगलुरु जैसे शहरों को बेहद असुरक्षित बनाती है। अनौपचारिकता एक तरीका है जिसके द्वारा शहरीकरण भौतिक संरचनाओं और लोगों को जलवायु से संबंधित जोखिमों के जोखिम और संवेदनशीलता को बढ़ाता है, आईपीसीसी ने मेक्सिको में गुआडालाजारा, युगांडा में कंपाला और तंजानिया में दार एस सलाम सहित शहरों का उदाहरण देते हुए कहा, जो पानी और गर्मी का सामना कर रहे हैं। -संबंधित जोखिम, आईपीसीसी ने कहा। IPCC ने झंडी दिखाकर कहा कि जलवायु संकट के प्रभावों से अत्यधिक प्रभावित शहरी क्षेत्रों में रहने वाले लोगों की संख्या में काफी वृद्धि हुई है। 2050 तक अतिरिक्त 2.5 बिलियन लोगों के शहरी क्षेत्रों में रहने का अनुमान है, इस वृद्धि का 90% तक एशिया और अफ्रीका में केंद्रित है, विशेष रूप से भारत, चीन और नाइजीरिया में, जहां इस शहरी विकास का 35% होने का अनुमान है। पिछले आठ महीनों में, भारत के कुछ हिस्सों और पड़ोसी पाकिस्तान ने सबसे अधिक जलवायु प्रभावों का सामना किया है, जिसे आईपीसीसी ने अपनी मार्च की रिपोर्ट में चिह्नित किया था। भारत और पाकिस्तान में मार्च-अप्रैल वसंत हीटवेव स्पेल मानव-जनित जलवायु संकट के कारण होने की संभावना लगभग 30 गुना अधिक थी, प्रमुख जलवायु वैज्ञानिकों की एक अंतरराष्ट्रीय टीम द्वारा तेजी से एट्रिब्यूशन विश्लेषण, जो विश्व मौसम एट्रिब्यूशन नेटवर्क का हिस्सा हैं, मई में कहा। उनके तेजी से विश्लेषण के परिणामों से पता चला है कि भारत और पाकिस्तान में असामान्य रूप से लंबी और जल्दी शुरू होने वाली हीटवेव स्पेल बहुत दुर्लभ है, 100 वर्षों में केवल एक बार होने की संभावना है। लेकिन “मानव-जनित जलवायु परिवर्तन” ने इसके होने की संभावना लगभग 30 गुना अधिक कर दी है। हीटवेव ने उत्तरी पाकिस्तान में एक अत्यधिक ग्लेशियल लेक आउटबर्स्ट फ्लड (जीएलओएफ) और भारत में जंगल की आग, विशेष रूप से उत्तराखंड और हिमाचल प्रदेश के पहाड़ी राज्यों में आग लगा दी; अत्यधिक गर्मी ने भारत की गेहूं की फसल की पैदावार को भी कम कर दिया, जिससे सरकार ने गेहूं के निर्यात को रोक दिया; विश्लेषण में कहा गया है कि कोयले की कमी के कारण बिजली गुल हो गई जिससे प्रभावित लोगों तक कूलिंग की पहुंच सीमित हो गई। इसके बाद मानसून के कारण जून में असम और मेघालय में बाढ़ आई, जुलाई और अगस्त में उत्तराखंड और हिमाचल प्रदेश में भूस्खलन और भूस्खलन की कई घटनाएं हुईं और ओडिशा, मध्य प्रदेश और छत्तीसगढ़ के कुछ हिस्सों में बाढ़ और अत्यधिक बारिश हुई। अगस्त के अंत में, विनाशकारी बाढ़ ने बुनियादी ढांचे को नष्ट कर दिया और सिंध और बलूचिस्तान क्षेत्र में सैकड़ों हजारों लोगों को विस्थापित कर दिया। पाकिस्तान में पहले से ही बाढ़ के कारण कम से कम 1,000 लोग मारे जा चुके हैं, जिन्हें पहले से ही जीवन में एक बार वर्णित किया जा रहा है; लाखों विस्थापित हुए हैं। सिंधु, काबुल और स्वात सहित अधिकांश नदियों के साथ, उत्तर से दक्षिण तक, देश के विशाल क्षेत्रों में अचानक बाढ़ आ गई। बाढ़ के लिए ट्रिगर एक अच्छी तरह से चिह्नित कम दबाव वाले क्षेत्र से उत्पन्न होने वाली अत्यधिक बारिश थी, जो 19 अगस्त को बंगाल की खाड़ी के ऊपर बनी थी और मध्य भारत से पाकिस्तान तक जाती थी। मार्च में आईपीसीसी ने दक्षिण एशिया में अत्यधिक गर्मी, शहरी बाढ़, शहरी पानी की कमी, और परिवहन, ऊर्जा और आवास जैसे प्रमुख बुनियादी ढांचे के जोखिम को भी हरी झंडी दिखाई। बैंगलोर की बाढ़ नासमझ शहरीकरण और जलवायु संकट का परिणाम है। “5 सितंबर को, बैंगलोर के कुछ हिस्सों में लगभग 14 सेमी बारिश हुई। यह पहली बार नहीं है जब शहर में इतनी भारी बारिश हुई हो। इस क्षेत्र में एक चक्रवाती परिसंचरण था और आंतरिक प्रायद्वीपीय भारत पर मानसून सक्रिय था। जब देश भर में कमजोर मानसून की स्थिति होती है, तो दक्षिण भारत और पूर्वोत्तर भारत के आंतरिक भागों में भारी और सक्रिय वर्षा होती है। प्रायद्वीपीय भारत में जून से अधिक बारिश हो रही थी, उनके पास 30% का अधिशेष है। तो, मिट्टी नम थी और पानी से संतृप्त थी। बेंगलुरू जैसे अत्यधिक आबादी वाले क्षेत्र में, जिसमें बड़ी संख्या में झीलें और जल निकाय भी हैं, झीलें ओवरफ्लो हो जाएंगी। आईएमडी के महानिदेशक एम महापात्रा ने समझाया, “उन्हें कोई नहीं रोक सकता क्योंकि अपवाह अधिक है।” उन्होंने कहा कि आईएमडी ने अपने शहर के पूर्वानुमान में पहले ही शहर में बहुत भारी बारिश की भविष्यवाणी की थी। आईएमडी के आंकड़ों से पता चलता है कि बैंगलोर शहर के स्टेशन में 5 सितंबर को 13.16 सेमी बारिश दर्ज की गई थी, लेकिन अतीत में, शहर के अन्य हिस्सों में 12 सितंबर, 1988 की तरह अधिक बारिश दर्ज की गई थी, 17.76 सेमी बारिश हुई थी; 7 सितंबर, 1953 को 16.92 सेमी बारिश हुई थी। “ज्यादातर शहरों का विकास जलवायु संकट के प्रभावों के बोधगम्य होने से पहले किया गया था। उदाहरण के लिए बैंगलोर ने 50-60 साल पहले विकास करना शुरू किया था लेकिन पिछले 30 वर्षों में जलवायु संकट एक प्रमुख मुद्दा बन गया। किसी को यह अंदाजा नहीं था कि जलवायु परिवर्तन का शहर पर क्या प्रभाव पड़ेगा। अब हमें भारतीय शहरों के लिए एक अनुकूलन रणनीति की जरूरत है। कल चेन्नई या हैदराबाद में ऐसा हो सकता है। जब बेंगलुरू में आईटी उद्योग का उदय हुआ, तो जनसंख्या कई गुना बढ़ गई, जिससे आवास और कार्यालय की जगह की मांग बढ़ गई। जल निकायों पर निर्माण करके जल प्रवाह को बाधित करना गंभीर बाढ़ को ट्रिगर करने के लिए बाध्य है। ऐसा वातावरण में जलवाष्प के बढ़ने के कारण भी होता है, कभी-कभी जब वर्षा होती है तो अभूतपूर्व वर्षा होती है। हम हर मानसून में देश के अलग-अलग हिस्सों में ऐसा होते देख रहे हैं। यूरोपीय शहरों में भी बाढ़ बढ़ गई है लेकिन भारत में उतनी बार महसूस नहीं किया जा रहा है, जो हर मानसून में बाढ़ दर्ज कर रहा है। जलवायु वैज्ञानिक और पृथ्वी विज्ञान मंत्रालय के पूर्व सचिव एम राजीवन ने कहा, “एकमात्र उत्तर हमारे बुनियादी ढांचे को बदलती जलवायु के अनुकूल बना रहा है।” विशेषज्ञों ने कहा कि भारतीय शहरों को अब पूर्व-औद्योगिक स्तरों पर 1.5 डिग्री सेल्सियस ग्लोबल वार्मिंग के लिए तैयार करने की जरूरत है, जो कि आईपीसीसी के अनुमानों के अनुसार अगले 20 से 30 वर्षों में होने की उम्मीद है। “बेंगलुरू की कहानी के दो पहलू हैं – पहला, जिस तरह से शहर का विस्तार बिना किसी योजना और विकास के लिए आवश्यक बुनियादी ढांचे के समर्थन के बिना हुआ है। इस प्रक्रिया में, कई झीलें और तालाब, जिनका बेंगलुरू जैसे शहर के लिए एक विशाल नेटवर्क था, को व्यवस्थित रूप से नष्ट कर दिया गया है। झीलों का जाल जो आपस में जुड़ा हुआ था, जमीन हथियाने के चक्कर में बिखर गया, जिससे प्रत्येक झील स्वतंत्र हो गई। उनकी क्षमता कम हो गई थी, और इसलिए इस बरसात के मौसम में, अधिकांश झीलें उफान पर थीं। दूसरा पक्ष जलवायु परिवर्तन है, “अंजल प्रकाश, शोध निदेशक और सहायक प्रोफेसर, भारती इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ पब्लिक पॉलिसी, इंडियन स्कूल ऑफ बिजनेस और मार्च 2022 आईपीसीसी रिपोर्ट के सह-लेखक। “हाल ही में आईपीसीसी की रिपोर्ट ने पहले ही भविष्यवाणी कर दी थी कि जलवायु से प्रेरित चरम मौसम की घटनाएं 1.5 डिग्री गर्म दुनिया में एक महत्वपूर्ण बदलाव होगी। हम जो देखते हैं वह यह है कि ये घटनाएं न केवल अधिक स्पष्ट हैं बल्कि आवृत्ति और गंभीरता में भी वृद्धि हुई हैं। बेंगलुरु या किसी अन्य भारतीय शहर में केवल 24 घंटों में हुई 130 मिमी वर्षा को रोकने के लिए आवश्यक बुनियादी ढांचा नहीं है। एकमात्र तरीका जिसके द्वारा हम खुद को तैयार कर सकते हैं, यह पहचानना है कि जलवायु-प्रेरित परिवर्तन शहरों को प्रभावित कर रहे हैं। दूसरा, हम एक शहर-स्तरीय अनुकूलन योजना की दिशा में काम करना चाहिए और एक जलवायु लेंस के माध्यम से सभी बुनियादी ढांचा विकास योजनाओं को स्कैन करना चाहिए। तीसरा, एक विशेष उद्देश्य वाहन स्थापित किया जाना चाहिए जिसमें लघु, मध्यम और दीर्घकालिक योजनाएं हों, यह देखने के लिए कि 2023 में एक ही दृश्य दोहराया नहीं गया है, ” उसने जोड़ा। बेंगलुरु के कई विशेषज्ञ पहले ही सैटेलाइट मैप और स्थानीय एजेंसियों से जानकारी हासिल कर चुके हैं। मालिनी रंगनाथन, शहरी भूगोलवेत्ता और अमेरिकन यूनिवर्सिटी में स्कूल ऑफ इंटरनेशनल सर्विस में एसोसिएट प्रोफेसर ने ट्वीट्स की एक श्रृंखला में बताया कि कैसे विभिन्न एजेंसियों द्वारा भूमि हथियाने से झीलें और आर्द्रभूमि भर गई। “बेंगलुरु का भूमि बाजार लाभदायक और जोखिम भरा है। आर्द्रभूमि, झीलें, और तूफानी नालियों वाली भूमि (“राजा कालुवेस“), जाना जाता है खरब-बी [non-cultivable] कर्नाटक भूमि राजस्व अधिनियम 1964 में भूमि तकनीकी रूप से राज्य के स्वामित्व में है। “उदाहरण के लिए, कर्नाटक औद्योगिक क्षेत्र विकास बोर्ड और बेंगलुरु विकास प्राधिकरण जैसे राज्य के खिलाड़ियों ने संवेदनशील बेलंदूर-आगरा आर्द्रभूमि पर उच्च अंत अचल संपत्ति को सक्षम किया है। भूमि हथियाने के कार्योत्तर वैधीकरण के अनगिनत उदाहरण हैं।” एमडी मधुसूदन, पारिस्थितिकीविद् ने उपग्रह चित्रों के साथ ट्वीट किया: “20 वर्षों में, मेगा निर्माण ने बेलंदूर आर्द्रभूमि के कुछ हिस्सों को निगल लिया है, एक विशेष रूप से प्रबल उदाहरण के साथ – एक हाई-प्रोफाइल टेक पार्क, संभवतः – वेटलैंड के मुख्य जल निकासी चैनलों के ठीक सामने आ रहा है। “ अनुमिता रॉयचौधरी, कार्यकारी निदेशक, विज्ञान और पर्यावरण केंद्र, जो स्थायी आवासों पर ध्यान केंद्रित करते हैं, ने कहा कि समय आ गया है कि बातचीत को जलवायु संकट के शमन से भारतीय शहरों में जलवायु प्रभावों के अनुकूलन के लिए स्थानांतरित किया जाए। “भारतीय शहरों में विकास इन शहरों की पारिस्थितिक सीमाओं की अवहेलना कर रहा है, प्राकृतिक जल निकासी और जलग्रहण के खिलाफ जा रहा है।” “विकास के नाम पर प्राकृतिक पर्यावरण को हड़पने वाले शहर गर्मी की लहरों, तूफानों और बाढ़ जैसे चरम मौसम की घटनाओं के सबसे बुरे प्रभावों का सामना करने के लिए बाध्य हैं जो ग्लोबल वार्मिंग के कारण लगातार और गंभीर होते जा रहे हैं। योजनाकारों को अब इसके महत्व को पहचानने की जरूरत है क्लाइमेट एक्शन नेटवर्क इंटरनेशनल के ग्लोबल पॉलिटिकल स्ट्रैटेजी के प्रमुख हरजीत सिंह ने कहा, शहरी और पेरी-शहरी क्षेत्रों में हरे भरे स्थान, आर्द्रभूमि और जल निकाय जो इस तरह के मौसम की घटनाओं के प्रभाव को कम करते हैं और जलवायु आपदाओं के लिए प्राकृतिक लचीलापन बनाते हैं।

'पुरानी बाइक साथ रखना चाहते हैं तो इसे घर में ही रखें', साकेत कोर्ट ने भावुक अपील पर चेतावनी के साथ राहत दी

दिल्ली में पुराने वाहनों को बैन किया जा चुका है. एनजीटी के आदेश के तहत 2014 से 10 साल पुराने किसी भी डीजल वाहन और 15 साल से अधिक  पेट्रोल वाहन के दिल्ली में चलने से रोक लगा दी है. 2018 में सरकार ने ऐसे किसी भी वाहन को जब्त करने और फिर उसे स्क्रैप में भेजने दिशानिर्देश जारी कर दिए थे. दिल्ली की साकेत कोर्ट ने शहर के एक निवासी को उसकी 15 साल पुरानी बाइक रखने के मामले में रोचक टिप्पणी की. कोर्ट ने कहा कि वह अपनी इस पुरानी बाइक को तब तक अपने साथ रख सकता है, जब तक कि वह इसे अपने घर से बाहर नहीं निकालता.  याचिकाकर्ता सत प्रकाश की बाइक को 2021 में मूलचंद फ्लाईओवर के पास जब्त कर लिया गया था, जिसके बाद वाहन से इमोशनल अटैचमेंट का हवाला देते हुए बाइक वापस लेने के लिए साकेत अदालत में एक याचिका दायर की थी. एनजीटी के आदेश के तहत 2014 से 10 साल पुराने किसी भी डीजल वाहन और 15 साल से अधिक  पेट्रोल वाहन के दिल्ली में चलने से रोक लगा दी है. 2018 में सरकार ने ऐसे किसी भी वाहन को जब्त करने और फिर उसे स्क्रैप में भेजने दिशानिर्देश जारी कर दिए थे. दिसंबर 2021 में मजिस्ट्रेट कोर्ट ने बाइक मालिक को चालान का भुगतान करने और सरकार द्वारा वाहन को स्क्रैप में भेजने का आदेश दिया था. हालांकि गुरुवार को सत्र अदालत ने बाइक मालिक के इमोशनल अटैचमेंट वाले तर्क को स्वीकार कर लिया है. दिल्ली परिवहन विभाग और सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरनमेंट द्वारा पिछले साल जारी रिपोर्ट के अनुसार, पुराने डीजल और पेट्रोल वाहनों के खिलाफ एक अभियान के तहत नवंबर और दिसंबर 2021 के बीच अधिकारियों द्वारा कुल 1754 वाहनों को जब्त किया गया था.

Is India’s National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) working?

New CSE analysis says NCAP and non-NCAP cities are showing similar trends in PM2.5 levels There is barely any difference in overall PM2.5 (particulate matter 2.5) trends between cities under the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) and those outside its ambit, shows a new analysis by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), released on the eve of the UN International Day of Clean Air for Blue Sky Wednesday. The analysis says that both groups of cities reflect similar mixed trends in air quality in different climatic zones, and this means they require substantial reduction in particulate pollution levels to be able to meet the national ambient air quality standards. The NCAP has set a national level target of 20-30% reduction in PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations by 2024 from the 2017 base year. But a latest performance assessment of NCAP cities by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) for disbursement of performance-linked funds has considered only PM10 data that is largely coarse dust particles. As the monitoring of PM2.5 – the tinier particles that are much more harmful – is limited, a uniform assessment of cities based on PM2.5 reduction has not been considered for performance assessment.

NCAP, non-NCAP cities showing similar trends in PM2.5 levels, CSE analysis | India News

BATHINDA: There is barely any distinction in general particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5) trends between cities below the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) and people exterior its ambit, states a brand new analysis by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), launched on Tuesday on the eve of the UN International Day of Clean Air for Blue Sky. It says that each teams of cities replicate similar blended trends in air high quality in totally different climatic zones, showing they require substantial discount in particulate air pollution ranges to have the ability to meet the nationwide ambient air high quality requirements. There are 16 NCAP cities and 15 non-NCAP cities that registered a big enhance in their annual PM2.5 ranges – with close to equivalent numbers. Same goes for cities (20 NCAP and 21 non-NCAP) that registered a big enchancment in their annual PM2.5 ranges. Hard and prolonged lockdowns in 2020 because of the pandemic had vital air high quality impacts in all of the monitored cities. But there’s a negligible distinction between the impression on NCAP and non-NCAP cities. Both teams of cities recorded almost 12 per cent discount in their mixture 2020 PM2.5 degree in comparison with the earlier yr. Pollution bounced again with close to similar depth in each the teams in 2021. NCAP cities registered an mixture 8 per cent enhance in their annual PM2.5 ranges in 2021 from the low of 2020. Similarly, non-NCAP cities registered a 7 per cent enhance. It makes case for each NCAP and non-NCAP cities needing substantial reductions to fulfill the nationwide ambient air high quality requirements. The NCAP has set a nationwide degree goal of 20-30 per cent discount in PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations by 2024 from the 2017 base yr. But a contemporary efficiency evaluation of NCAP cities by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) for disbursement of efficiency-linked funds has thought-about solely PM10 knowledge that’s largely coarse mud particles. As the monitoring of PM2.5- the tinier particles which can be rather more dangerous – is proscribed, a uniform evaluation of cities primarily based on PM2.5 discount has not been thought-about for efficiency evaluation. CSE carried out a nationwide analysis of PM2.5 ranges in cities for which knowledge is on the market to know the pattern in each NCAP and non-NCAP cities, and the extent of discount wanted in each the teams of cities to fulfill the nationwide clear air requirements. This has additionally uncovered the standing of air high quality monitoring in phrases of handbook and actual time monitoring, extent of PM10 and PM2.5 monitoring in cities, and challenges of knowledge high quality to assemble and confirm a long term air high quality pattern. The NCAP covers 132 cities — 82 of these have been funded by the Programme, whereas 50 cities have acquired funds from the fifteenth Finance Commission; Rs 6,425 crore has been launched until 2021-22 and Rs 2,299 crore has been earmarked for 2022-23. Cities are required to quantify enchancment beginning 2020-21 – this requires 15 per cent and extra discount in the annual common PM10 focus and a concurrent enhance in good air days to greater than 200. Anything lower than that shall be thought-about low and scale back the funding. “While it is encouraging that funding of clean air action is linked to performance and the cities’ ability to demonstrate improvement in air quality, dependence on only manual monitoring of PM10 evidently creates a bias in spending as it shifts focus more towards dust control and detracts attention from composite action on industry, vehicles, waste and solid fuel burning,” says Anumita Roychowdhury, government director, analysis and advocacy at CSE. Punjab, Rajasthan and Maharashtra cities from NCAP dominate the record of cities which have registered a big enhance in PM2.5 ranges between 2019 and 2021. There are 46 cities that aren’t lined below NCAP, however have ample actual time knowledge for each 2019 and 2021. In this group, 15 cities have registered a big worsening of annual PM2.5 ranges between 2019 and 2021. Ankleshwar in Gujarat with 34 p.c enhance in annual PM2.5 worth is the worst performer in the pool, adopted by Satna (Madhya Pradesh), Vatva (Gujarat), Bahadurgarh (Haryana), and Bathinda (Punjab); all of which have registered an over 20 p.c enhance. Cities of Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat dominate record of non-NCAP cities which have registered vital enhance in air air pollution ranges between 2019 and 2020. However, Palwal in southern Haryana with a 60 per cent enchancment in its annual PM2.5 degree is the very best performer amongst non-NCAP cities.

Delhi: How national clean air plan has failed to make a dent

What is the News? An analysis by the Center for Science and Environment(CSE) has found that there is barely any difference in trends in particulate matter pollution (PM2.5) between the group of cities under the National Clean Air Programme(NCAP) and those outside its ambit. What is the National Clean Air Programme(NCAP)? Launched in: 2019 by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change(MoEFCC). Aim: To bring a 20%-30% reduction in pollution levels from PM2.5 and PM10 particles by 2024, using 2017 pollution levels as a base year. Cities covered: The program covers 132 of India’s most polluted or so-called non-attainment cities. This is defined as a city whose air quality did not meet the national ambient air quality standards from 2011 to 2015. Funding: Under the programme, cities are required to quantify improvement starting 2020-21, which requires a 15% and more reduction in the annual average PM10 concentration and a concurrent increase in “good air” days to at least 200. Anything fewer will be considered ‘low’ and the funding consequently reduced. Note: For disbursing funds, the Central Pollution Control Board(CPCB) only considers levels of PM10, the relatively larger, coarser particles. However, PM2.5, the smaller, more dangerous particles, aren’t monitored as robustly in all cities mostly due to the lack of equipment. What is the analysis of CSE on the NCAP programme? National Clean Air Programme Source: TOI Performance of NCAP cities on PM2.5 levels (2019-21): Only 43 NCAP cities have adequate PM 2.5 data for the period 2019-2021.Out of this, only 14 of 43 (NCAP) cities registered a 10% or more reduction in their PM2.5 levels. – On the other hand, out of 46 non-NCAP cities with adequate data, 21 recorded significant improvement in their annual PM2.5 value with 5% or more decline between 2019 and 2021. Only about half of NCAP cities have real-time monitoring: In 2019, only 51 out 132 NCAP cities had real-time monitoring stations. The number grew to 63 in 2021; six more NCAP cities have

New CSE analysis says NCAP and non-NCAP cities are showing similar trends in PM2.5 levels

A new analysis by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), released here today on the eve of the UN International Day of Clean Air for Blue Sky, says there is barely any difference in overall PM2.5 (particulate matter 2.5) trends between cities under the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) and those outside its ambit. The analysis says that both groups of cities reflect similar mixed trends in air quality in different climatic zones, and this means they require substantial reduction in particulate pollution levels to be able to meet the national ambient air quality standards. The NCAP has set a national level target of 20-30 per cent reduction in PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations by 2024 from the 2017 base year. But a latest performance assessment of NCAP cities by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) for disbursement of performance-linked funds has considered only PM10 data that is largely coarse dust particles. As the monitoring of PM2.5 — the tinier particles that are much more harmful — is limited, a uniform assessment of cities based on PM2.5 reduction has not been considered for performance assessment. CSE has carried out a national analysis of PM2.5 levels in cities for which data is available to understand the trend in both NCAP and non-NCAP cities, and the level of reduction needed in both the groups of cities to meet the national clean air standards. This has also exposed the status of air quality monitoring in terms of manual and real time monitoring, extent of PM10 and PM2.5 monitoring in cities, and challenges of data quality to construct and verify a longer term air quality trend. “While it is encouraging that funding of clean air action is linked to performance and the cities’ ability to demonstrate improvement in air quality, dependence on only manual monitoring of PM10 evidently creates a bias in spending as it shifts focus more towards dust control and detracts attention from composite action on industry, vehicles, waste and solid fuel burning,” says Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director, research and advocacy at CSE. “The expanding monitoring network of PM2.5 and key gases needs to be leveraged quickly to prioritise multi-pollutant action for more effective reduction of risk across all regions,” she adds. The NCAP covers 132 cities — 82 of these have been funded by the Programme, while 50 cities have received funds from the 15th Finance Commission; Rs 6,425 crore has been released till 2021-22 and Rs 2,299 crore has been earmarked for 2022-23. Cities are required to quantify improvement starting 2020-21 – this requires 15 per cent and more reduction in the annual average PM10 concentration and a concurrent increase in good air days to more than 200. Anything less than that will be considered low and reduce the funding.

CSE report on Blue Sky Day: PM 2.5… Pollution remains the same even after participating in the clean program

CSE Report: There is no significant difference in PM 2.5 pollution level of cities included in National Clean Air Program (NCAP) and excluded from it. This has been disclosed by the Center for Science and Environment (CSE) by releasing a new report on Blue Sky Day. Under the NCAP, a target has been set to reduce the level of PM 2.5 by 20 percent and the level of PM 10 by 30 percent in the country by 2024 as compared to 2017. PM 2.5 are pollutants that are smaller than 2.5 micrometers in size. They cause serious harm by entering our body with the breath. Encap : 132 cities, fund is also available By 2020-21, the government also gives funds to reduce the pollution of PM 10 by more than 15% and clean air for 200 days. According to the report, out of 132 such cities, only 63 cities are under surveillance. 10% reduction in PM 2.5 in only 14 cities Less than 5% drop in pollution in Delhi and Ghaziabad. In Khanna, Jaipur and Udaipur there was an increase of up to 20%. Cities with highest pollution growth in Punjab, Rajasthan and Maharashtra. Biggest improvement in Varanasi, Chennai. Non-encap: Monitoring in only 10% There are 4,041 cities in the country. Of these, only 400 have PM10 monitoring systems under the National Air Quality Monitoring Program and Continuous Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Station. PM 2.5 levels rose sharply in 15 cities. Ankleshwar in Gujarat has the highest growth of 34%. More than 20% growth in Satna, Bahadurgarh, Bathinda. Pollution increased in cities of Haryana, MP and Gujarat. Haryana’s Palwal also showed maximum improvement of 60%.

Ghaziabad is North India's most polluted city, Noida, Delhi next on list

Among the 56 cities in North India, Faridabad is the most polluted one, says a study by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). Delhi, Noida and Faridabad are next on the list, according to the report which was done with data on PM2.5 levels in 2021. Ghaziabad's annual average PM2.5 level in 2021 was 116 µg/m3 (microgram/cubic metre). Delhi, the second most polluted North Indian city, recorded 109 µg/m3. Pollution levels in Faridabad were 106 µg/m3 in Faridabad and 101 µg/m3 in Noida. Under the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP), Delhi, Ghaziabad and Noida receive funding to clean up air pollution by 20 to 30 per cent by 2024, stated a report by The New Indian Express. According to Avikal Somvanshi, a senior programme manager at the CSE Urban Lab, "All cities in the NCR that are being monitored, including Gurgaon, Rohtak and Bulandshahr, are not getting funding under NCAP, and these cities have PM2.5 levels that are high and don't meet the standards." He further said, "Compared to the rest of the country, NCR cities have shown improvement in the last three years, which is despite most of these cities not getting any funding." According to the data published in the report, the annual PM2.5 level in Delhi decreased by only one per cent between 2019 and 2021. It dropped to 97 µg/m3 in 2020 because of the Covid-19 mandated lockdown and shot back up to 109 µg/m3 in 2021. "Delhi-NCR also saw a marginal increase in the average peak 24-hour pollution. The peak pollution rose significantly from the baseline among the cities in the south (24 per cent) and central Indian cities (7 per cent), despite the overall fall in the winter average," said the study.

NCAP, non-NCAP cities showing similar trends in PM2.5 levels, CSE analysis

BATHINDA: There is barely any difference in overall particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5) trends between cities under the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) and those outside its ambit, states a new analysis by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), released on Tuesday on the eve of the UN International Day of Clean Air for Blue Sky. It says that both groups of cities reflect similar mixed trends in air quality in different climatic zones, showing they require substantial reduction in particulate pollution levels to be able to meet the national ambient air quality standards. There are 16 NCAP cities and 15 non-NCAP cities that registered a significant increase in their annual PM2.5 levels – with near identical numbers. Same goes for cities (20 NCAP and 21 non-NCAP) that registered a significant improvement in their annual PM2.5 levels. Hard and extended lockdowns in 2020 due to the pandemic had significant air quality impacts in all the monitored cities. But there is a negligible difference between the impact on NCAP and non-NCAP cities. Both groups of cities recorded nearly 12 per cent reduction in their aggregate 2020 PM2.5 level compared to the previous year. Pollution bounced back with near similar intensity in both the groups in 2021. NCAP cities registered an aggregate 8 per cent increase in their annual PM2.5 levels in 2021 from the low of 2020. Similarly, non-NCAP cities registered a 7 per cent increase. It makes case for both NCAP and non-NCAP cities needing substantial reductions to meet the national ambient air quality standards. The NCAP has set a national level target of 20-30 per cent reduction in PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations by 2024 from the 2017 base year. But a latest performance assessment of NCAP cities by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) for disbursement of performance-linked funds has considered only PM10 data that is largely coarse dust particles. As the monitoring of PM2.5- the tinier particles that are much more harmful – is limited, a uniform assessment of cities based on PM2.5 reduction has not been considered for performance assessment. CSE carried out a national analysis of PM2.5 levels in cities for which data is available to understand the trend in both NCAP and non-NCAP cities, and the level of reduction needed in both the groups of cities to meet the national clean air standards. This has also exposed the status of air quality monitoring in terms of manual and real time monitoring, extent of PM10 and PM2.5 monitoring in cities, and challenges of data quality to construct and verify a longer term air quality trend. The NCAP covers 132 cities — 82 of these have been funded by the Programme, while 50 cities have received funds from the 15th Finance Commission; Rs 6,425 crore has been released till 2021-22 and Rs 2,299 crore has been earmarked for 2022-23. Cities are required to quantify improvement starting 2020-21 – this requires 15 per cent and more reduction in the annual average PM10 concentration and a concurrent increase in good air days to more than 200. Anything less than that will be considered low and reduce the funding. “While it is encouraging that funding of clean air action is linked to performance and the cities’ ability to demonstrate improvement in air quality, dependence on only manual monitoring of PM10 evidently creates a bias in spending as it shifts focus more towards dust control and detracts attention from composite action on industry, vehicles, waste and solid fuel burning,” says Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director, research and advocacy at CSE. Punjab, Rajasthan and Maharashtra cities from NCAP dominate the list of cities which have registered a significant increase in PM2.5 levels between 2019 and 2021. There are 46 cities that are not covered under NCAP, but have adequate real time data for both 2019 and 2021. In this group, 15 cities have registered a significant worsening of annual PM2.5 levels between 2019 and 2021. Ankleshwar in Gujarat with 34 percent increase in annual PM2.5 value is the worst performer in the pool, followed by Satna (Madhya Pradesh), Vatva (Gujarat), Bahadurgarh (Haryana), and Bathinda (Punjab); all of which have registered an over 20 percent increase. Cities of Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat dominate list of non-NCAP cities that have registered significant increase in air pollution levels between 2019 and 2020. However, Palwal in southern Haryana with a 60 per cent improvement in its annual PM2.5 level is the best performer among non-NCAP cities.

NCAP, non-NCAP cities showing similar trends in PM2.5 levels, CSE analysis | India News

BATHINDA: There is barely any difference in overall particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5) trends between cities under the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) and those outside its ambit, states a new analysis by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), released on Tuesday on the eve of the UN International Day of Clean Air for Blue Sky. It says that both groups of cities reflect similar mixed trends in air quality in different climatic zones, showing they require substantial reduction in particulate pollution levels to be able to meet the national ambient air quality standards. There are 16 NCAP cities and 15 non-NCAP cities that registered a significant increase in their annual PM2.5 levels – with near identical numbers. Same goes for cities (20 NCAP and 21 non-NCAP) that registered a significant improvement in their annual PM2.5 levels. Hard and extended lockdowns in 2020 due to the pandemic had significant air quality impacts in all the monitored cities. But there is a negligible difference between the impact on NCAP and non-NCAP cities. Both groups of cities recorded nearly 12 per cent reduction in their aggregate 2020 PM2.5 level compared to the previous year. Pollution bounced back with near similar intensity in both the groups in 2021. NCAP cities registered an aggregate 8 per cent increase in their annual PM2.5 levels in 2021 from the low of 2020. Similarly, non-NCAP cities registered a 7 per cent increase. It makes case for both NCAP and non-NCAP cities needing substantial reductions to meet the national ambient air quality standards. The NCAP has set a national level target of 20-30 per cent reduction in PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations by 2024 from the 2017 base year. But a latest performance assessment of NCAP cities by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) for disbursement of performance-linked funds has considered only PM10 data that is largely coarse dust particles. As the monitoring of PM2.5- the tinier particles that are much more harmful – is limited, a uniform assessment of cities based on PM2.5 reduction has not been considered for performance assessment. CSE carried out a national analysis of PM2.5 levels in cities for which data is available to understand the trend in both NCAP and non-NCAP cities, and the level of reduction needed in both the groups of cities to meet the national clean air standards. This has also exposed the status of air quality monitoring in terms of manual and real time monitoring, extent of PM10 and PM2.5 monitoring in cities, and challenges of data quality to construct and verify a longer term air quality trend. The NCAP covers 132 cities — 82 of these have been funded by the Programme, while 50 cities have received funds from the 15th Finance Commission; Rs 6,425 crore has been released till 2021-22 and Rs 2,299 crore has been earmarked for 2022-23. Cities are required to quantify improvement starting 2020-21 – this requires 15 per cent and more reduction in the annual average PM10 concentration and a concurrent increase in good air days to more than 200. Anything less than that will be considered low and reduce the funding. “While it is encouraging that funding of clean air action is linked to performance and the cities’ ability to demonstrate improvement in air quality, dependence on only manual monitoring of PM10 evidently creates a bias in spending as it shifts focus more towards dust control and detracts attention from composite action on industry, vehicles, waste and solid fuel burning,” says Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director, research and advocacy at CSE. Punjab, Rajasthan and Maharashtra cities from NCAP dominate the list of cities which have registered a significant increase in PM2.5 levels between 2019 and 2021. There are 46 cities that are not covered under NCAP, but have adequate real time data for both 2019 and 2021. In this group, 15 cities have registered a significant worsening of annual PM2.5 levels between 2019 and 2021. Ankleshwar in Gujarat with 34 percent increase in annual PM2.5 value is the worst performer in the pool, followed by Satna (Madhya Pradesh), Vatva (Gujarat), Bahadurgarh (Haryana), and Bathinda (Punjab); all of which have registered an over 20 percent increase. Cities of Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat dominate list of non-NCAP cities that have registered significant increase in air pollution levels between 2019 and 2020. However, Palwal in southern Haryana with a 60 per cent improvement in its annual PM2.5 level is the best performer among non-NCAP cities.

NCAP, non-NCAP cities displaying related developments in PM2.5 ranges, CSE evaluation | India Information – Instances of India

BATHINDA: There’s barely any distinction in total particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5) developments between cities underneath the Nationwide Clear Air Programme (NCAP) and people exterior its ambit, states a brand new evaluation by Centre for Science and Setting (CSE), launched on Tuesday on the eve of the UN Worldwide Day of Clear Air for Blue Sky. It says that each teams of cities mirror related blended developments in air high quality in numerous climatic zones, displaying they require substantial discount in particulate air pollution ranges to have the ability to meet the nationwide ambient air high quality requirements. There are 16 NCAP cities and 15 non-NCAP cities that registered a major enhance of their annual PM2.5 ranges – with close to equivalent numbers. Identical goes for cities (20 NCAP and 21 non-NCAP) that registered a major enchancment of their annual PM2.5 ranges. Exhausting and prolonged lockdowns in 2020 because of the pandemic had vital air high quality impacts in all of the monitored cities. However there’s a negligible distinction between the affect on NCAP and non-NCAP cities. Each teams of cities recorded almost 12 per cent discount of their combination 2020 PM2.5 stage in comparison with the earlier yr. Air pollution bounced again with close to related depth in each the teams in 2021. NCAP cities registered an combination 8 per cent enhance of their annual PM2.5 ranges in 2021 from the low of 2020. Equally, non-NCAP cities registered a 7 per cent enhance. It makes case for each NCAP and non-NCAP cities needing substantial reductions to satisfy the nationwide ambient air high quality requirements. The NCAP has set a nationwide stage goal of 20-30 per cent discount in PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations by 2024 from the 2017 base yr. However a modern efficiency evaluation of NCAP cities by the Central Air pollution Management Board (CPCB) for disbursement of performance-linked funds has thought of solely PM10 information that’s largely coarse mud particles. Because the monitoring of PM2.5- the tinier particles which can be rather more dangerous – is restricted, a uniform evaluation of cities based mostly on PM2.5 discount has not been thought of for efficiency evaluation. CSE carried out a nationwide evaluation of PM2.5 ranges in cities for which information is obtainable to know the pattern in each NCAP and non-NCAP cities, and the extent of discount wanted in each the teams of cities to satisfy the nationwide clear air requirements. This has additionally uncovered the standing of air high quality monitoring by way of handbook and actual time monitoring, extent of PM10 and PM2.5 monitoring in cities, and challenges of knowledge high quality to assemble and confirm a long run air high quality pattern. The NCAP covers 132 cities — 82 of those have been funded by the Programme, whereas 50 cities have acquired funds from the fifteenth Finance Fee; Rs 6,425 crore has been launched until 2021-22 and Rs 2,299 crore has been earmarked for 2022-23. Cities are required to quantify enchancment beginning 2020-21 – this requires 15 per cent and extra discount within the annual common PM10 focus and a concurrent enhance in good air days to greater than 200. Something lower than that will likely be thought of low and cut back the funding. “Whereas it’s encouraging that funding of fresh air motion is linked to efficiency and the cities’ skill to reveal enchancment in air high quality, dependence on solely handbook monitoring of PM10 evidently creates a bias in spending because it shifts focus extra in the direction of mud management and detracts consideration from composite motion on trade, automobiles, waste and strong gas burning,” says Anumita Roychowdhury, govt director, analysis and advocacy at CSE. Punjab, Rajasthan and Maharashtra cities from NCAP dominate the listing of cities which have registered a major enhance in PM2.5 ranges between 2019 and 2021. There are 46 cities that aren’t coated underneath NCAP, however have satisfactory actual time information for each 2019 and 2021. On this group, 15 cities have registered a major worsening of annual PM2.5 ranges between 2019 and 2021. Ankleshwar in Gujarat with 34 % enhance in annual PM2.5 worth is the worst performer within the pool, adopted by Satna (Madhya Pradesh), Vatva (Gujarat), Bahadurgarh (Haryana), and Bathinda (Punjab); all of which have registered an over 20 % enhance. Cities of Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat dominate listing of non-NCAP cities which have registered vital enhance in air air pollution ranges between 2019 and 2020. Nonetheless, Palwal in southern Haryana with a 60 per cent enchancment in its annual PM2.5 stage is the most effective performer amongst non-NCAP cities.

NCAP, non-NCAP cities showing similar trends in PM2.5 levels, CSE analysis | India News

There is barely any difference in overall particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5) trends between cities under the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) and those outside its ambit, states a new analysis by Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), released on Tuesday on the eve of the UN International Day of Clean Air for Blue Sky. It says that both groups of cities reflect similar mixed trends in air quality in different climatic zones, showing they require substantial reduction in particulate pollution levels to be able to meet the national ambient air quality standards. There are 16 NCAP cities and 15 non-NCAP cities that registered a significant increase in their annual PM2.5 levels – with near identical numbers. Same goes for cities (20 NCAP and 21 non-NCAP) that registered a significant improvement in their annual PM2.5 levels. Hard and extended lockdowns in 2020 due to the pandemic had significant air quality impacts in all the monitored cities. But there is a negligible difference between the impact on NCAP and non-NCAP cities. Both groups of cities recorded nearly 12 per cent reduction in their aggregate 2020 PM2.5 level compared to the previous year. Pollution bounced back with near similar intensity in both the groups in 2021. NCAP cities registered an aggregate 8 per cent increase in their annual PM2.5 levels in 2021 from the low of 2020. Similarly, non-NCAP cities registered a 7 per cent increase. It makes case for both NCAP and non-NCAP cities needing substantial reductions to meet the national ambient air quality standards. The NCAP has set a national level target of 20-30 per cent reduction in PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations by 2024 from the 2017 base year. But a latest performance assessment of NCAP cities by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) for disbursement of performance-linked funds has considered only PM10 data that is largely coarse dust particles. As the monitoring of PM2.5- the tinier particles that are much more harmful – is limited, a uniform assessment of cities based on PM2.5 reduction has not been considered for performance assessment. CSE carried out a national analysis of PM2.5 levels in cities for which data is available to understand the trend in both NCAP and non-NCAP cities, and the level of reduction needed in both the groups of cities to meet the national clean air standards. This has also exposed the status of air quality monitoring in terms of manual and real time monitoring, extent of PM10 and PM2.5 monitoring in cities, and challenges of data quality to construct and verify a longer term air quality trend. The NCAP covers 132 cities — 82 of these have been funded by the Programme, while 50 cities have received funds from the 15th Finance Commission; Rs 6,425 crore has been released till 2021-22 and Rs 2,299 crore has been earmarked for 2022-23. Cities are required to quantify improvement starting 2020-21 – this requires 15 per cent and more reduction in the annual average PM10 concentration and a concurrent increase in good air days to more than 200. Anything less than that will be considered low and reduce the funding. “While it is encouraging that funding of clean air action is linked to performance and the cities’ ability to demonstrate improvement in air quality, dependence on only manual monitoring of PM10 evidently creates a bias in spending as it shifts focus more towards dust control and detracts attention from composite action on industry, vehicles, waste and solid fuel burning,” says Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director, research and advocacy at CSE. Punjab, Rajasthan and Maharashtra cities from NCAP dominate the list of cities which have registered a significant increase in PM2.5 levels between 2019 and 2021. There are 46 cities that are not covered under NCAP, but have adequate real time data for both 2019 and 2021. In this group, 15 cities have registered a significant worsening of annual PM2.5 levels between 2019 and 2021. Ankleshwar in Gujarat with 34 percent increase in annual PM2.5 value is the worst performer in the pool, followed by Satna (Madhya Pradesh), Vatva (Gujarat), Bahadurgarh (Haryana), and Bathinda (Punjab); all of which have registered an over 20 percent increase. Cities of Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat dominate list of non-NCAP cities that have registered significant increase in air pollution levels between 2019 and 2020. However, Palwal in southern Haryana with a 60 per cent improvement in its annual PM2.5 level is the best performer among non-NCAP cities.

CSE report on Blue Sky Day: PM 2.5… Pollution remains the same even after participating in the clean program

CSE Report: There is no significant difference in PM 2.5 pollution level of cities included in National Clean Air Program (NCAP) and excluded from it. This has been disclosed by the Center for Science and Environment (CSE) by releasing a new report on Blue Sky Day. Under the NCAP, a target has been set to reduce the level of PM 2.5 by 20 percent and the level of PM 10 by 30 percent in the country by 2024 as compared to 2017. PM 2.5 are pollutants that are smaller than 2.5 micrometers in size. They cause serious harm by entering our body with the breath. Encap : 132 cities, fund is also available By 2020-21, the government also gives funds to reduce the pollution of PM 10 by more than 15% and clean air for 200 days. According to the report, out of 132 such cities, only 63 cities are under surveillance. 10% reduction in PM 2.5 in only 14 cities Less than 5% drop in pollution in Delhi and Ghaziabad. In Khanna, Jaipur and Udaipur there was an increase of up to 20%. Cities with highest pollution growth in Punjab, Rajasthan and Maharashtra. Biggest improvement in Varanasi, Chennai. Non-encap: Monitoring in only 10% There are 4,041 cities in the country. Of these, only 400 have PM10 monitoring systems under the National Air Quality Monitoring Program and Continuous Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Station. PM 2.5 levels rose sharply in 15 cities. Ankleshwar in Gujarat has the highest growth of 34%. More than 20% growth in Satna, Bahadurgarh, Bathinda. Pollution increased in cities of Haryana, MP and Gujarat. Haryana’s Palwal also showed maximum improvement of 60%.

NCAP, non-NCAP cities show similar trends in PM2.5 levels, CSE analysis | India News

Bathanda: There is hardly any difference in total particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5) trends between the sub-cities. National Clean Air Program (NCAP) and those outside its scope, explains a new analysis from the Center for Science and Environment (CSE), released on Tuesday to mark the UN International Day of Clean Air for Blue Skies. It said that both groups of cities reflected similar mixed trends in air quality across different climatic zones, indicating that they had to meet the national ambient air quality standards for particulate pollution levels. I need a substantial reduction. There are 16 NCAP cities and 15 non-NCAP cities that have registered significant increases in their annual PM2.5 levels – with almost identical numbers. The same holds true for cities (20 NCAP and 21 non-NCAP) that have recorded significant improvement in their annual PM2.5 levels. The severe and extended lockdown in 2020 due to the pandemic had significant impacts on air quality in all monitored cities. But there is negligible difference between the impact on NCAP and non-NCAP cities. Both groups of cities recorded a decrease of about 12 percent in their overall 2020 PM2.5 levels compared to last year. Pollution returned in 2021 with nearly equal intensity in both groups. NCAP cities recorded an overall increase of 8 percent in their annual PM2.5 levels in 2021 from the lowest levels in 2020. Similarly, non-NCAP cities recorded a 7 percent increase. . This makes the case for both NCAP and non-NCAP cities requiring substantial reductions to meet national ambient air standards. NCAP has set a national level target of 20-30% reduction in PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations from the base year of 2017 to 2024. But the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)’s latest NCAP assessment of cities’ performance has considered only PM10 data, which is mostly coarse dust particles, for disbursing performance-linked funds. Because monitoring of PM2.5 – the smallest particles that are highly harmful – is limited, uniform assessment of cities based on PM2.5 reduction has not been considered for performance assessment. CSE conducted a national analysis of PM2.5 levels in cities for which data is available to understand trends in both NCAP and non-NCAP cities, and reductions in both groups of cities to meet national clean air standards. level is required. . It also addressed air quality monitoring in terms of manual and real-time monitoring, the extent of PM10 and PM2.5 monitoring in cities, and data quality challenges for constructing and validating long-term air quality trends. What is exposed? NCAP covers 132 cities — 82 of them have been funded through the program, while 50 cities have received funds from the 15th Finance Commission. 6,425 crore has been released till 2021-22 and Rs 2,299 crore has been allocated for 2022-23. Cities need to quantify improvements starting in 2020-21 – requiring a 15 percent or more reduction in annual average PM10 concentrations and an increase of more than 200 days of good air. Anything less will be considered low and funding will be reduced. . “While it is encouraging that Clean Air Action funding is linked to performance and the ability of cities to demonstrate improvements in air quality, relying solely on manual monitoring of PM10 obviously creates a cost bias because It focuses more on dust control and reduction. Focusing on comprehensive action on industry, vehicles, waste and solid fuel burning,” he says. Anumita Rai ChowdhuryExecutive Director, Research and Advocacy at CSE. NCAP’s Punjab, Rajasthan and Maharashtra cities dominate the list of cities that have recorded a significant increase in PM2.5 levels between 2019 and 2021. There are 46 cities that are not covered by NCAP, but have adequate real-time data for both 2019 and 2021. In this group, 15 cities recorded a significant deterioration in annual PM2.5 levels between 2019 and 2021. Ankleshwar in Gujarat is the worst performer in the pool with percentage increase in annual PM2.5 value at 34, followed by Satna (Madhya Pradesh), Vatva (Gujarat), Bahadurgarh (Haryana), and Bathinda (Punjab); All of them have increased by more than 20 percent. Cities in Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat topped the list of non-NCAP cities that recorded a significant increase in air pollution levels between 2019 and 2020. However, Palwal in South Haryana has improved its annual PM 2.5 levels by 60%. Best performer in non-NCAP cities.