On February 3, 2000, a report in the Delhi edition of Hindustan Times quoted TERI’s Ranjan Bose as saying that moving to CNG will add to global warming because methane is 20 times stronger a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

The media went suddenly abuzz with reports in February 2000 merely one month away from the Supreme court deadline to move all buses more than eight year old to CNG, carrying ‘expert’ views that moving buses to CNG will aggravate global warming and diesel vehicles must be allowed to continue. Earlier, automobile companies had been trying to justify their move towards dieselisation by arguing that it is one of the solutions to the global warming problem. Consultancy groups joined them to create confusion in the minds of the policy makers over the merit of the Supreme Court ruling on moving the entire bus fleet in Delhi to CNG. Their contention was that CNG will lead to higher methane emissions and cause global warming, thus diverting attention from the already very high lethal effects of severe particulate pollution in Delhi.


Fact

A recent report from CSIRO, Australia, very clearly brings out that CNG emissions contribute less to global warming than diesel (see graph 9: The impact on global warming). What has escaped the global warming pundits is the common knowledge that air quality regulators worldwide have to address the dual objectives of controlling air pollution and global warming. In the West, where global warming has emerged as a more serious and an immediate issue, the local pollution control authorities still give precedence to the problem of urban smog in pollution hot spots, primarily to protect health of local citizens. Policy action must be in accordance to the immediacy of the problem, and in the case of New Delhi, it is particulate pollution in the ambient air that poses immediate danger.

Methane is indeed a greenhouse gas, though carbon dioxide is responsible for about half of the enhancement of the global greenhouse effect. But in view of Delhi’s air quality profile, the benefits of moving to CNG outweigh the potential ills such as higher methane emissions. Delhi is reeling under particulate pollution load and according to WHO, particulate are responsible for maximum health damage and have no safe levels. Studies confirm that respirable particles kill even at low concentration and with minimal increase and their levels in Delhi reach as high as eight times the standards. Therefore, the priority in Delhi is to move out of fuels that emit more particles such as diesel as fast as possible. Let us get the facts right.


Immediate benefits of moving to CNG:

Problem of toxic particulate emissions will be virtually eliminated.Total hydrocarbon emissions will be high but most of it is methane. The non-methane hydrocarbon components that are cancer-causing and come mostly from diesel and petrol vehicles, constitute a small fraction of the total hydrocarbon emissions from CNG vehicles.

The nitrogen oxide emissions though high compared to other emissions from CNG vehicles will still be much lower compared to diesel vehicles.
Sulphur dioxide emissions that also lead to formation of deadly sulphate particles will be virtually eliminated.  Carbon monoxide levels will be considerably lower.

Delhi faces the challenge of lowering the particulate matter load in its ambient air by 90 per cent in order to make it safe to live. Any further increase in diesel vehicles will make this task impossible. Perhaps the most resounding answer to the global warming vs urban smog debate has come from the US. Faced with a similar dilemma the California environmental regulators made it clear that reducing emissions of greenhouse gases is not their priority; it is the responsibility of the USEPA in Washington, dc. While reporting the debate in November 27, 1998 the New York Times quoted California Air Resources Board official stating that their “clear, unmistakable authority to enact regulations is to reduce urban smog. Global warming is an international issue and the USEPA ought to be the agency taking the lead.”

Similarly, the Natural Resources Defense Council (nrdc), a New York based non-governmental organisation that runs the Dump Dirty Diesel Campaign across the us has not hesitated in campaigning successfully against phasing out of diesel and phasing in of cng, even though the organisation works on the issue of global warming. Even the European countries that have earlier encouraged diesel to combat global warming are rethinking diesel. A study by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency shows that while diesel cars use 20-25 per cent less fuel per kilometre, they emit 15 per cent more carbon dioxide per litre than petrol cars. As a result, the overall reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is ‘negligible’.

Perhaps the most resounding answer to the global warming vs urban smog debate has come from the California environmental regulators who emphasised their “clear, unmistakable authority to enact regulations is to reduce urban smog. Global warming is an international issue and the USEPA ought to be the agency taking the lead.

Rererences

1.    Nils Olof Nylund et al 2000, Exhaust emissions from natural gas vehicles: Issues related to exhaust emissions and environmental impacts, a report prepared for the IANGV technical committee.

2.    Anon 1998, Euro II and beyond: Fuels for Transperth bus fleet, Report on the findings of the Expert Reference Group, Perth, Australia.

3.    Tom Beer et al 2000, Lifecycle emissions analysis of alternative fuels for heavy vehicles, CSIRO atmospheric research report to the Australian Greenhouse Office, March, mimeo.

4.    Anon 2001, Emissions results from clean diesel demonstration programme with CRTTM particulate filter at New York City Transit, Interim report of a joint study by New York State DEC, MTA NYCT, Johnson Matthey, Equilon, Corning, Environment Canada and RAD Energy, mimeo.

5.    Anon 2001, Report on clean fuels in response to the Hon’ble Supreme Court order dated March 26, 2001 & April 27,2001, Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority, July, mimeo.

6.    Anon 2000, Regulatory impact analysis: Heavy-duty engine and vehicle standards and highway diesel fuel sulphur control requirements, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, USA, December.

7.    Anon 2000, Regulatory impact analysis: Heavy-duty engine and vehicle standards and highway diesel fuel sulphur control requirements, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, USA, December.

8.    Anon 2000, Glossary of terms, United States Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov.otaq/retrofit/glossary.htm

9.    Anon 2000, Regulatory impact analysis: Heavy-duty engine and vehicle standards and highway diesel fuel sulphur control requirements, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, USA, December.

10.    Anon 2000, Diesel emission control — sulphur effects (DECSE) programme, phase I interim data report number 4, sponsored by the United States Department of Energy, Engine Manufacturers Association and Manufacturers of Emission Control Association, mimeo.

11.    H A Kong 2000, Hong Kong diesel emissions control, paper presented at Better Air Quality, Motor Vehicle Control and Technology Workshop, Bangkok, mimeo.

12.    Anon 2001, Summary of potential retrofitment technologies, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, USA, mimeo.

13.    Jim Blubaugh 2001, USEPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, personal communication.

14.    Anon 2001, Summary of potential retrofitment technologies, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, USA, mimeo.

15.    Engelhard 2001, Engelhard diesel emission reduction technologies, paper presented at Better Air Quality, Motor Vehicle Control and Technology Workshop, Bangkok, mimeo.

16.    Anon 2000, Risk reduction plan to reduce particulate matter emissions from diesel fuelled engines and vehicles, California Air Resources Board, October 13.

17.    Anon 2000, Regulatory impact analysis: Heavy-duty engine and vehicle standards and highway diesel fuel sulphur control requirements, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, USA, December.

18.    Anon 2000, Regulatory impact analysis: Heavy-duty engine and vehicle standards and highway diesel fuel sulphur control requirements, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, USA, December.

19.    Glenn Keller 2000, Clean Diesel Technology: Linkage to Fuels and After-treatment, Symposium Summary: The Future of Diesel - Scientific Issues, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 2000.

20.    Edmund Toy et al 2000, Fuelling heavy-duty trucks: Diesel or natural gas?, Risk in Perspective, Harvard Centre for Risk Analysis, Volume 8, Issue 1, January.

21.    Anon 2000, Natural gas buses: Separating myth from fact, United States Department of Energy, April, mimeo.

22.    Christopher Weaver et al 2000, Comparison of in-use emissions from diesel and natural gas trucks and buses, Society of Automobile Engineers.

23.    Anon 2001, Summary Report, Department of Environment and Transport for the Regions/Society for Motor Manufacturers and Traders/CONCAWE, mimeo.

24.    Anon 2001, Summary Report, Department of Environment and Transport for the Regions/Society for Motor Manufacturers and Traders/CONCAWE, mimeo.

25.    Kerstin Grägg 2000, Emission tests of city buses fuelled by CNG for Santiago, Chile, A report for Vastra Gotaland – Santiago Cooperation, MTC AB, Sweden, October.

26.    Anon 2001, Submission of Tata Energy Research Institute to the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority of the National Capital Region, mimeo.

27.    D V Bates et al 2000, Diesel particulate matter and associated environmental concerns, health risks and tradeoffs, Vancouver, Canada, March.

28.    Peter Ahlvik et al 1999, PoT-India: Possible abatement of air pollution from urban traffic in India, Ecotraffic R & D AB, Stockholm, Sweden, mimeo.

29.    Peter Ahlvik et al 2000, Relative Impact on Environment and Health from the introduction of low emission city buses in Sweden, paper presented at SAE International Spring Fuels and Lubricants Meeting and Exposition, Paris, June, mimeo.

30.    Anon 2001, Summary Report, Department of Environment and Transport for the Regions/Society for Motor Manufacturers and Traders/CONCAWE, mimeo.

31.    Anon 2001, Summary Report, Department of Environment and Transport for the Regions/Society for Motor Manufacturers and Traders/CONCAWE, mimeo.

32.    Nils-Olof Nylund et al 2000, Exhaust Emissions from Natural Gas Vehicles, A report prepared for the International Association of Natural Gas Vehicles Technical Committee, March.

33.    Fred Pearce 1997, Devil in the diesel, New Scientist, IPC Magazines Ltd, London, October 25.

34.    A R Gulati 2001, Director, Transport Engineering, Bureau of India Standards, New Delhi, personal communication.

35.    Anon 2001, Is CNG really safe? The Times of India, Benett Coleman and Company Ltd, New Delhi, April

36.    Anon 2000, Natural gas buses: Separating myth from fact, United States Department of Energy, April, mimeo.

37.    Frank Dursbeck et al 2001, Status of implementation of CNG as a fuel for urban buses in Delhi: Findings — Conclusions — Recommendations, Report done for Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi, May 23.

38.    Anon 2001, Status of CNG infrastructure: Existing and augmentation plan, submission of Indraprastha Gas Limited to the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority of the National Capital Region, April 4, mimeo.

39.    Anon 2001, Status of CNG infrastructure: Existing and augmentation plan, submission of Indraprastha Gas Limited to the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority of the National Capital Region, April 4, mimeo.

40.    Anon 2001, Status of CNG infrastructure: Existing and augmentation plan, submission of Indraprastha Gas Limited to the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority of the National Capital Region, April 4, mimeo.

41.    Anon 2001, CNG demand assessment unrealistic says Naik, Business Standard, New Delhi, April 4.

42.    Anon 2001, Presentation on CNG activities of IGL, submission of Indraprastha Gas Limited to the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority of the National Capital Region, July 14, mimeo.

43.    Anon 2001, Supply of CNG and its sustainability and clean liquid fuels, submission of the Union ministry of petroleum and natural gas, Government of India, to the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority of the National Capital Region, April 20, mimeo.

44.    Anon 2001, Supply of CNG and its sustainability and clean liquid fuels, submission of the Union ministry of petroleum and natural gas, Government of India, to the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority of the National Capital Region, April 20, mimeo.

45.    Anon 2001, Supply of CNG and its sustainability and clean liquid fuels, submission of the Union ministry of petroleum and natural gas, Government of India, to the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority of the National Capital Region, April 20, mimeo.

46.    Anon 2001, Supply of CNG and its sustainability and clean liquid fuels, submission of the Union ministry of petroleum and natural gas, Government of India, to the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority of the National Capital Region, April 20, mimeo.

47.    Anon 2001, Status of CNG infrastructure: Existing and augmentation plan, submission of Indraprastha Gas Limited to the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority of the National Capital Region, April 4, mimeo.

48.    Anon 2001, Supply of CNG and its sustainability and clean liquid fuels, submission of the Union ministry of petroleum and natural gas, Government of India, to the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority of the National Capital Region, April 20, mimeo.

49.    N K Verma 2001, Indraprastha Gas Limited, New Delhi, personal communication.

50.    Rajiv Sharma 2001, Managing director, Indraprastha Gas Limited, New Delhi, personal communication.

51.    Sai Prasad 2001, Managing director, Mahanagar Gas Limited, Mumbai, personal communication.

52.    Anon 2001, Status of CNG infrastructure: Existing and augmentation plan, submission of Indraprastha Gas Limited to the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority of the National Capital Region, April 4, mimeo.

53.    Anon 2001, Presentation on CNG activities of IGL, submission of Indraprastha Gas Limited to the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority of the National Capital Region, July 14, mimeo.

54.    Anon 2001, Presentation on CNG activities of IGL, submission of Indraprastha Gas Limited to the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority of the National Capital Region, July 14, mimeo.

55.    Sai Prasad 2001, Managing director, Mahanagar Gas Limited, Mumbai, personal communication.

56.    N K Verma 2001, Indraprastha Gas Limited, New Delhi, personal communication.

57.    Rajiv Sharma 2001, Managing director, Indraprastha Gas Limited, New Delhi, personal communication.

58.    N K Verma 2001, Indraprastha Gas Limited, New Delhi, personal communication.

59.    N K Verma 2001, Indraprastha Gas Limited, New Delhi, personal communication.

60.    N K Verma 2001, Indraprastha Gas Limited, New Delhi, personal communication.

61.    Anon 2001, Presentation on CNG activities of IGL, submission of Indraprastha Gas Limited to the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority of the National Capital Region, July 14, mimeo.

62.    P Shankar 2001, Secretary, Union ministry of petroleum and natural gas, Government of India, New Delhi, personal communication.

63.    Rajiv Sharma 2001, Managing director, Indraprastha Gas Limited, New Delhi, personal communication.

64.    Anon 2001, Note on the observations made during the visit at Mumbai and Delhi in regard to practice followed for filling gas in various categories of vehicle, Report submitted to the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority of the National Capital Region, February 19, mimeo.

65.    Anon 2001, Note on the observations made during the visit at Mumbai and Delhi in regard to practice followed for filling gas in various categories of vehicle, Report submitted to the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority of the National Capital Region, February 19, mimeo.

66.    Anon 2001, Note on the observations made during the visit at Mumbai and Delhi in regard to practice followed for filling gas in various categories of vehicle, Report submitted to the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority of the National Capital Region, February 19, mimeo.

67.    Frank Dursbeck et al 2001, Status of implementation of CNG as a fuel for urban buses in Delhi: Findings – Conclusions – Recommendations, Report done for Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi, May 23.

68.    Anon 2001, Supply of CNG and its sustainability and clean liquid fuels, submission of the Union ministry of petroleum and natural gas, Government of India, to the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority of the National Capital Region, April 20, mimeo.

69.    Anon 1999, Delhi 1999: A factsheet, National Capital Region Planning Board, Union ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, New Delhi.

70.    Rajiv Sharma 2001, Managing director, Indraprastha Gas Limited, New Delhi, personal communication.

71.    Frank Dursbeck et al 2001, Status of implementation of CNG as a fuel for urban buses in Delhi: Findings – Conclusions – Recommendations, Report done for Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi, May 23.

72.    Frank Dursbeck et al 2001, Status of implementation of CNG as a fuel for urban buses in Delhi: Findings – Conclusions – Recommendations, Report done for Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi, May 23.

73.    James Tobin and James Thompson 2001, Natural gas storage in the United States in 2001: A current assessment and near-term outlook, Energy Information Administration, United States Department of Energy, mimeo.

74.    James Tobin and James Thompson 2001, Natural gas storage in the United States in 2001: A current assessment and near-term outlook, Energy Information Administration, United States Department of Energy, USA, mimeo.

75.    Anon 1999, Evaluation of compressed natural gas fuelling systems, California Energy Commission, California, USA, October.

76.    Anon 1999, Evaluation of compressed natural gas fuelling systems, California Energy Commission, California, USA, October.

77.    Frank Dursbeck et al 2001, Status of implementation of CNG as a fuel for urban buses in Delhi: Findings – Conclusions – Recommendations, Report done for Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi, May 23.

78.    Anon 1998, Storage, www.naturalgas.org

79.    Anon 2001, Website of National Energy Technology Laboratory, USA, www.netl.doe.org

80.    Anon 2000, Delhi city gas distribution system, First annual report, Indraprastha Gas Limited, New Delhi.

81.    Shubhajit Roy 2001, The great CNG rip-off, The Times of India, Benett Coleman and Company Limited, New Delhi, April 15.

82.    Bruce E Finley and Tracy A Daly 1999, A Three year comparison of natural gas and diesel transit buses, International Truck and Bus Meeting and Exposition, Detroit, Michigan, USA, Society of Automotive Engineers, November 15-17.

83.    Gina M Solomon et al 2001, No breathing in the aisles: Diesel exhaust inside school buses, Natural Resources Defence Council, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, January.
84.    Chetan Chauhan 2001, CNG conversion: Company charging more from operators than DTC, Hindustan Times, The Hindustan Times Private Limited, New Delhi, April 8.

85.    Ganesh Buddhiraja 2001, President, Delhi Auto Sangh, New Delhi, personal communication.

86.    Anon 1999, Delhi 1999: A factsheet, National Capital Region Planning Board, Union ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, New Delhi.

87.    Anon 1999, Delhi 1999: A factsheet, National Capital Region Planning Board, Union ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, New Delhi.