Pollution control measures key in big development projects: Experts
The court also directed the Union environment ministry to consider issuing general directions on installation of smog towers while granting approval in cities with high pollution.
Smog towers and smog guns are likely to be integral features of air pollution mitigation efforts for all major development projects in future, especially in cities with high air pollution.
The Supreme Court (SC), in its judgment on the Central Vista redevelopment project, directed on Tuesday that “the project proponent may set up smog tower(s) of adequate capacity, as being integral part of the new Parliament building project; and additionally, use smog guns at the construction site throughout the construction phase is in progress on the site”.
The court also directed the Union environment ministry to consider issuing general directions on installation of smog towers for all upcoming major development projects while granting approval in cities with high pollution levels.
“Unless there is a solid plan in controlling traffic emissions, short-term strategies for future projects will not help. Also, scientifically, there is no evidence that smog guns and smog towers work. In all, for future development projects, a holistic air pollution control strategy is needed…,” said Sagnik Dey, professor, Centre for Atmospheric Sciences at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT)-Delhi.
Smog towers are structures designed to work as large-scale air purifiers while smog guns are like giant vacuum cleaners of the ambient air. They are usually fitted with multiple layers of air filters, which clean the air in the area as it passes through them. The smog tower sucks the polluted air, which is purified by the multiple layers before recirculating into the atmosphere. Many scientists think smog towers are ineffective because its nearly impossible to filter polluted air outdoors. Emissions are being generated continuously and from many sources.
A senior official of the environment ministry, who did not want to be named, said: “We will integrate the directions of SC in all future projects.”
One of the main contentions of a section of environmental and legal experts in the case of Central Vista has been that its cumulative long-term ecological impacts haven’t been studied and components have been isolated for ease of getting clearances. For example, the Parliament Building was appraised by the environment appraisal committee as a separate project while other components of the Central Vista are being appraised now.
On Tuesday, a three-judge bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar, by a 2:1 majority, held that the grant of the environmental clearance and the notification for change in land use for the project was valid. Justice Sanjiv Khanna dissented with the majority view.
Experts stressed that the environment ministry should also consider the cumulative impacts of large buildings and redevelopment projects.
“The question of whether the Central Vista redevelopment project is an integrated one or not for the purposes of the environment clearance was discussed extensively in court. Clearly, the bench could not come to an agreement on whether the environmental clearance to the Parliament is legal or not. As Justice Khanna’s dissenting view shows, he is not persuaded by the government’s claim that the Parliament should be viewed as a stand-alone project when it is in fact only one component of the tender for Central Vista redevelopment. This certainly still leaves a question mark about the integrated nature of this project. But what is just as important is that this issue of the integrated nature of large building and construction projects has now gained a lot of legal importance with this dissenting judgment on this matter,” said Manju Menon, senior fellow, the Centre for Policy Research.
