Air: Pollution, Climate Change and India’s Choice Between Policy and Pretense

Pollution is a problem, this is an undisputed fact and many countries are taking steps to reduce pollution and improve the quality of life in places across the globe. When discussing pollution, often times the two main countries that come to mind are China and India. In his book Air: Pollution, Climate Change and India’s Choice Between Policy and Pretense (which will be referred to as Air in this review), Dean Spears addresses the ongoing problem of pollution and how it has been, is, and will continue to affect the people of India, unless changes are made now. Spears does not claim to be an expert on environmental science, however, in his book he addresses the effects of pollution (specifically, the harmful particulates) on the population and poses policy recommendations, to bring environmentalism and economics together.

Spears discusses multiple concepts throughout the book, including, but not limited to: sustainable development, income inequality, intergenerational externalities, externalities, gender barriers, health policy and development, and international migration.

Summary

The introduction of the book discusses important factors behind the writing of the book, as well as highlights facets of India’s air pollution. Spears mentions some of the economic aspects that in some way almost encourage pollution, that is India’s economies rely on the burning of cheap coal. Spears also explains the distribution of pollution in India (over the year) through graphical analysis, as well as describing the studies and methodologies behind some of the data collected and used in the book.

Spears illustrates how the government builds walls as an illusion to protecting those inside the walls from pollution (or, at least, that is an aspect of the walls). The beginning of the chapter discusses the problems of measuring and monitoring children’s growth in developing countries, where there is no centralized collection of data or the data collected is not useful. Though, Spears was happy to note that him and his team were lucky that the data collected included indicators such as children’s height, which can be used to measure child growth and development against the genetic average.

Spears also observes that there may (or may not) be exposure to different levels of pollution based on socioeconomic status. This idea originates from a study done in New Jersey in the United States, looking at the effects of implementing electronic tolls on levels of pollution in the surrounding residential areas (which are low income) and how those changes affected the health of individuals inside those areas. That study found that there was a positive effect, electronic tolls resulted in less pollution which thus resulted in healthier newborns in the area. Spears notes that this is difficult to apply to India, again due to the lack of data. However, it would not be much of a stretch to assume that those of lower income would be exposed to more particulates due to living arrangements. This comes from the study done by Sangita on the effects of air filters in the household, upper-middle class, demonstrated that filters reduce the level of particulates, but do not get rid of them and can be concluded that lower income households would be worse off.

Air details how often times, the emphasis is put on cities and the ways that pollution affects the population living within urban boundaries. This, as Spears mentions, incorrectly focuses efforts of data collection and policy reform as the rural areas are home to a majority of India’s population and a majority of its pollution. A major contributor in rural areas is crop-burning, which, while illegal, is still on-going due to the costs associated with not burning the left overs from harvest. This is one of the more noticeably economic problems mentioned, where harvest with combines leaves behind material which needs to be removed and it costs more than the farmers are willing to pay to hire laborers to remove the material and thus simply burn it. As Spears points out, the rather obvious solution is to ban this practice to provide jobs and reduce pollution (and to prevent farmers from pushing costs onto everyone else). However, as it was found from the survey, the ban did little to deter the farmers from stopping the practice.

To estimate the impact of this crop-burning on the children who live near the crop fires, Spears looked to Brazil, which has far more data collected and observed (of the relevant variables: children’s health (at birth) and air pollution (level of particulates in the air)) and to a previously conducted study by two health economists. The area of Brazil observed, São Paulo, was similar in demography and climate to Kanpur, Lucknow and Patna and also experienced crop burning. In the study, one of the main difficulties was finding a way to differentiate between a control group (no pollution from fires) and the group of interest (pollution from fires) due to unobserved effects. However, it was noted that groups could be near the fires and thus experience the same economic benefits, but the control group could be upwind of the fires and the group of interest downwind, and thus experience the pollution. The study found that the children born downwind were smaller and less healthy than those born upwind.

The use of open-air stoves is due in large part to the belief that the open-air stoves are better for cooking and therefore better for the children. Thus, using the new stoves is ignored, despite how harmful the smoke is on the lungs of adults and children (children especially). Spears describes how there is a expectation of gender roles in the kitchen, where women do all the cooking, and are likely to avoid modern alternatives.

Analysis: Concepts

Spears makes the point that since the current developed nations have had the most benefit from previous pollution and the currently developing nations do not see much if any benefit, while paying the most for it, the developed nations should be responsible for the past pollution. While this is conclusion is largely undisputable, I think there is a case against the idea of climate reparations, where developed and wealthy nations pay for previous pollution and its effects. Even if these nations take steps to mitigate their own pollution, which has built up over the past century, it is only recently that we have come to understand the true scope of the effects of previous pollution.

Data is one of the most important things an economist, or a researcher from any field can have. With data you can observe the effects of an economic or political policy, a medical treatment, or a multitude of other possibilities. However, data is difficult – and expensive – to collect. Population data like a census is a massive undertaking and therefore only occurs every so often, but a user survey may only take a few minutes and is easily dispensable. Data is incredibly important for observing changes as the result of the implementation of a policy or program, such as with Duflo’s bed net experiment in Africa.

In Air, the data that needs collecting is data on pollution levels and the health of individuals, specifically children. India collects little data on pollution, and only in specific, urban areas. This was solved by extending across disciplines to an engineering professor and gathering satellite - or remote sensing – data on pollution. The challenge remained collecting (or finding) data on children’s health, another area where the Indian government is not as stalwart as it could be. Here, though, there was some luck as one reliable measurement of growth and development was measured: height

The two main concepts in the book, as Spears mentions (also, conveniently, in the title of the book) are air pollution and climate change. Air pollution is, as Spears points out, is one of the best – or easiest to explain – examples of a negative externality. Externalities occur when a third, uninvolved party is effected by the economic transaction of two parties, a negative externality is therefore a negative effect.

Crop-burning has been an agricultural practice for many years, however, the negative effects may counter any positive, economic benefit that arises from the practice. Though it does reduce cost, as the farmers do not have to hire people to clear the fields, the particulates from the fire negatively affect mothers and their unborn children. The children that are born are smaller and, like other pollution, will have health problems throughout their life. This could also prevent their development and result in poor performance in the school room, thus resulting in them leaving school and repeating the cycle (the other problems with schooling, such as the disparity – which is slowly shrinking – between the number of girls and boys in school). Though crop-burning is illegal, there are not many – if any – repercussions, though there is plenty of evidence for the government to determine where and when it is happening. This lack of consequence, means that there is no incentive for the farmers to change their behavior.

Even though there is no real incentive for farmers to change, that does not mean there are no alternatives to the crop-burning or hiring of workers. There is the alternative of the Happy Seeder, a machine that mulches the materials and stalks left over from the harvest, and plants the next crop simultaneously. However, few farmers know of it and even fewer use them. The reason for so few farmers using them, is that there is no real benefit to the purchase of the Happy Seeder and the burning of crops. Like the combine, the Happy Seeder could be a long term investment where the benefits only appear in the long run (no cost for burning or hiring labor, better health for the population in the surrounding area) and outweigh the short-run costs. Here, a recommendation I could propose if the cost of the Happy Seeder is a deterrent, is jointly purchasing a machine by multiple farmers.

This solution for a problem in a developing country that is not implemented (or trusted), is similar to the cookstove alternative to the Indian chulha. Khandelwal et al. (2017) explore the idea that even though the “improved cookstoves” (ICs) that have been created and designed for women in developing countries are cleaner, more efficient and do not emit as much smoke as a chulha, the stoves are not used by the women they are built for. There are multiple reasons for the lack of acceptance, according to Khandelwal et al. (2017), among them are culture, gender-roles associated with cooking and food preparation, and the persistence of those working in development (such as NGOs) to implement the ICs. Though the reasons for the continual use of the chulha and the lack of implementation of the Happy Seeder are different, they present the same problem of a modern solution to what could be viewed as an outside problem.

Analysis: Recommendations

Spears makes the caveat that his recommendations on how the problems in India should be addressed are mostly open-ended questions, with no specific answers. Spears’ first recommendation is to create a state that can regulate air pollution. This addresses the market failure aspect of air pollution: the free market will not fix the problem, so the government must. As Spears discussed, the main problems that India faces is the lack of consistent and wide monitoring of pollution, as well as more data on health. As evidenced by the continued use of chulha, crop-burning, and open defecation in the streets, it would take strict (and enforced) government action to make changes that the market has yet to implement. Though, with the poor upkeep of government buildings and lack of enforcement of current policies (keeping hospitals clean, defunct bathrooms, and continued crop-burning to name a few), this may be difficult unless the government starts to enforce the policies it already has and the people of India change their daily behaviors instead of putting the blame and onus on others.

The second policy recommendation is co-benefits for sustainable development: increasing productivity in the next generation while reducing harmful greenhouse gases emissions. This addresses the idea that while wealthy countries have created pollution and should in part pay for the effects of that pollution, this does not remove the responsibility of developing nations to reduce their own harmful pollution. Cities in India which are still developing and have not yet implemented full systems such as subways or other forms of public transit, or where most families do not have cars, have the opportunity to build infrastructure that is green and sustainable. Though, this development should also be spread to rural areas, in order to avoid urban bias.

Spears’ third recommendation is that citizens (and civil organizations) should also measure air pollution. Though Spears’ first recommendation was for the government to increase its level of monitoring, in the absences of this, data at an individual level would allow for pollution to be monitored at a low cost. This would not replace public monitoring, but would be similar to how Google Maps tracks personal phones to map traffic. India has a lot of civil society organizations that conduct research and collect and publish data, this would be another project to implement without much complexity. This individual accountability could also encourage change as people realize at a more personal level the consequences of pollution, outside of billboards and articles, and scientists telling them about it.

The fourth and final recommendation is to move away from coal plants and to not build new ones. Though the solar power mentioned in the Introduction failed to produce the same amount of power as the coal plant and the coal is cheaper, its negative effects are numerous and obvious to those who live nearby. These effects aren’t all health related, they also effect local businesses by damaging goods and deterring people from purchasing them. This is also a political burden, which Spears describes in the book, as a lot of policies are. People vote for officials that do not keep their promises or who diminish the consequences of coal and other pollutants promising that people will keep their jobs and not have them taken away (by closing the plans), thus perpetuating the problem.

Conclusion

Air is an engaging book that blends complex economic concepts and models with easy to understand (but not “dumbed down”) explanations. Spears covers many different aspects of life in India and how the people’s lives are impacted, as well as how the economy is driven by and also drives continued pollution. The book offers an insight into the problems that arise from pollution and climate change with the examination of multiple studies, both Spears own and others, with supporting data and results. Spears is both critical of the current path that the Indian government, and population has taken, while remaining optimistic about the ability to change and adapt in the future (as it is needed).

References