Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) said today that talk about low sulphur diesel is an effort to sabotage Supreme Court orders on compressed natural gas (CNG). “This is a clear effort to create confusion and to delay implementation of the order”, says CSE director Sunita Narain. “What is appalling is the half- baked research and misinformation being thrown around by the so-called reputed research organisation, Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI) to support their claim”, she added. In the Supreme Court, a leading diesel automobile company presents data claiming that an Australian study had “conclusively” shown that low sulphur diesel is a better option. Within days the same data is presented with great fanfare by TERI, released by no less than the Lt. Governor of Delhi. But these collaborators conveniently “forget” to inform the court of a second report.  This one by the Government of Australia itself, done in 2000, which debunks the earlier study and states that CNG and LPG are the best option for combating air pollution as well as global warming. What is worse is that TERI is using measurements from one study done on one bus of the London transport in 1997 to challenge the court decision. “We wonder why has it taken them so long to release this old and disproved study”, says Anumita Roychowdhury, coordinator of CSE’s clean air campaign. “Is it a mere coincidence that this action is being taken just two days after the court decision?” she questioned. This is a time when the Delhi government and private commercial vehicle operators are gearing up to take serious action to implement this critical decision of the court.  “This is nothing but a deliberate but ham-handed effort to subvert and sabotage the critical Supreme Court order which will go a long way to protect public health” explained Narain.

New Delhi March 30, 2001: Just as the Delhi government and the bus operators in the capital become serious about implementing the Supreme Court order on CNG, lobbies are at work once again to scuttle the move. The Court ruled on March 26 that only those commercial vehicle operators who would place orders for CNG would be allowed to ply their diesel vehicles beginning April 1 till September 30, 2001. After that only CNG vehicles would be allowed on the capital’s roads. The court’s firmness has lead to serious action and there is a flurry to place orders for CNG.  But efforts to seriously introduce CNG have obviously angered the pro-diesel lobby and CNG detractors are working overtime. The Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI) has opened up the diesel vs CNG debate once again to create confusion and delay implementation.

The disinformation campaign began a week ago as indications emerged that the Supreme Court was serious about its order to protect public health. A leading bus company’s advocate flashed before the court a study from Australia which he claimed showed that low sulphur diesel was a much better option than CNG. The affidavit, which was never filed, was based on a study, done in 1998, by an Expert Reference Group set up in western Australia with representation from the automobile industry and transit buses companies. This four page “study” concluded on the basis of a literature survey -- not actual experiments -- that ultra low sulphur diesel (0.005 per cent sulphur) with a continuous regenerating particulate trap (CRT) is the best from an environmental point of view. And that even diesel with sulphur content of 0.05% (Delhi’s quality) is better than CNG when it comes to particulate emissions.

On March 29 just two days after the court order, Vijai Kapoor, Lt Governor of Delhi releases the TERI study, Delhi’s Transport and the Environment: shaken but not stirred. TERI cites the same Australian study, proudly stressing that this expert group had “concluded on all three grounds -- environmental, operational and economic -- low-sulphur diesel was the fuel of choice.” 

The selective use of information by these agencies is astounding. While using this “study” to discredit the Supreme Court’s decision these groups have conveniently failed to inform the court that another study done in March 2000, this time from the Australian government itself has trashed the 1998 study.  

The “Life-cycle Emissions Analysis of Alternative Fuels for Heavy Vehicles” study done by the Australian government’s Council for Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) clearly states “We used risk weighted scoring system, based on estimates of human health risk to rank the fuels. On a life-cycle basis, the gaseous fuels (LPG and CNG) give the lowest contribution to air pollution on this criterion.” Diesel is at the bottom of the list. The report has even questioned the method employed in the earlier study and says that the only data available for estimating emissions of vehicles using low sulphur diesel is based on only one London transport bus.  

The 1998 Australian study and TERI rest their entire opposition on the results of one set of measurements conducted on a London bus in 1996/1997 by the Millbrook Testing Company for the London Transport Buses, published in 1998. This study claim s to have found that Euro II diesel engine running on ultra low sulphur diesel (0.005 per cent sulphur) and fitted with Constantly Regenerating Traps (CRT) -- to control particulate emissions -- achieves emission results better than CNG buses. Since its publication the study has come under serious scrutiny by other agencies that have found it flawed in terms of methods used. No other study done in the world supports the finding of this one very limited study. In fact the emission data from CNG buses on tests conducted in numerous studies across the world contradict this study. Various experts commenting on the London bus study says that it compares apples with oranges and has not made the condition of the bus that was tested available.  

The International Association for Natural Gas Vehicles (IANGV) has already criticised this report on the ground that the difference in particulate matter emissions “most probably originates from excessive oil consumption of the CNG bus used by London Transport Buses” No detailed information on the condition of the test vehicles is available.”
The question to ask is why TERI is raking up controversy based on one outdated study to bring diesel back and ignoring a range of studies that have been done since 1998 to prove that CNG is far cleaner than the diesel technology?

It now seems the world over, the detractors of CNG only have one set of measurements done in 1997 to argue in favour of diesel. For instance, the New York bus agency that is also cited by TERI also uses data from this same one London bus.

The only other evidence these groups pull out of their bag is a “study” done by a Harvard Centre for Risk Analysis, which contends that CNG vehicles emit more ultra fine particles (nanoparticles) than diesel vehicles. In 2000 this “Harvard” study had mysteriously made its way to the tables of all top decision-makers in the Delhi government. The Lt Governor had gone on record to the media arguing that CNG was a problem because of “nanoparticles”.  TERI researchers use this study to support their claim as well.

The “Harvard” study when examined was found to be a 4 page pamphlet, which was a literature survey with no references to the information cited, funded by the world’s largest truck manufacturer, Navistar International. Michael Walsh, a highly respected air pollution expert and former official of the US Environment Protection Agency (EPA) says of the study, “any undergraduate who turned such a report in to his professor would surely get a very poor grade.” 

TERI and its supporters discount the fact that if diesel technology is getting better, so is CNG technology and at any given point of time and at a comparable level, CNG engine is cleaner than the diesel engine. In fact, California which is far ahead in its emission regulations and is more set on phasing in alternative fuel to meet future emissions norms, in its recent proposal on cleaner transit buses demolishes all criticism on CNG buses point by point. It states categorically that “As diesel engines get cleaner so can natural gas engines. To meet future standards it is expected that manufacturers will utilise more sophisticated fuel management. Similar improvements in CNG engine will continue to make them lower emitting than the best available diesel technology.”

But this effort at spreading disinformation is not unique to TERI or Indian industry. In August 2000, the US government’s Department of Energy (DOE) was forced to issue a document called ‘Natural Gas Buses: Separating Myth from Fact’ to counter what it called was industry folklore about CNG that was misleading buyers from converting to gas. The document responds point by point to each industry spread rumour and argues that CNG remains the best option for city air pollution.
 The lobbies at work completely ignore the fact that while particles come from all kind of combustion sources it is the toxicity of the particulate emissions that help to prioritise the emissions.  Across the world scientific studies have established that particulate from diesel exhaust are extremely toxic as these are tiny and are coated with extremely toxic chemical called Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) and are known to be the most potent carcinogens. Compared to diesel vehicles CNG vehicles emit negligible amount of particles. Moreover, even the little particles that we get from CNG vehicles are not as toxic as that of diesel as CNG is mostly methane gas.  

If the cancer-index for fuels -- potential of emissions from different fuels to cause cancer -- is taken into consideration then CNG is still the most significant strategy available to us to secure public health. A study conducted by the IANGV shows that Euro IV diesel vehicles using ultra low sulphur diesel fitted with a CRT would be five times more carcinogenic than CNG vehicles. It is to be noted that Euro IV technology is still under development and will be introduced in Europe in only 2005. TERI is recommending a Euro II bus which is already out of date in Europe and is widely considered across the world as a polluting technology as far as particulate emissions is concerned. 

In fact, moving to CNG will not only help us to get emission results even better than Euro IV norms (which will be introduced in India in 2008) for diesel vehicles it will also reduce cancer risk significantly straightaway. Why should we wait for eight more years for Euro IV technology if by moving to CNG today we can get results better than Euro IV?  

Today, everybody is talking about the immense hardship that commuters are going to face, particularly the school children, when diesel buses will go off the road. But it is more important to keep in mind that the school children are more vulnerable to the cancer causing effects of diesel and will benefit most from the CNG strategy. A study that has been published by the US based Natural Resource Defence Council in January 2001 offers frightening conclusions. The study assessed the cancer risk to children from sustained exposures to diesel exhaust while travelling in school buses for 1-2 hours every day during school year of 180-200 days over a period of 10 years (a normal school going child’s routine).  The study concludes that a child riding a diesel school bus is being exposed to as much as 46 times the cancer risk considered significant by the US Environment Protection Agency.  

TERI rather sweepingly estimates that CNG buses will be  far more expensive option than its solution. Forget that its solution -- Euro II bus (outdated in Europe but being now manufactured by Indian companies) running on ultra-low sulphur diesel (0.005%) with a new aftertreatment device called CRT -- has not been tried by any agency. Let us consider costs. Firstly, producing low sulphur diesel will be prohibitively expensive, secondly, the cost of Euro II bus will be higher (interesting TERI uses in its estimates the cost of a Euro I diesel bus) and then add to all this the cost of the CRT. The estimated cost of a CRT is as high as US$ 5,000 to US$ 8,000. Besides the capital costs is the higher operating costs of cleaner diesel fuel. Over and above this, will be costs of replacing the CRT on a regular basis. The lifetime of these devices is fixed in advance but as this device will be used on an outdated engine of Euro II how long will it work is an open question.  

“None of these facts have been considered by TERI in its rush to subvert action being taken in response to the Supreme Court decision, said Sunita Narain, director CSE. This is a deliberate effort to sabotage Supreme Court orders on compressed natural gas (CNG)”, she added.


For further information or references to the studies cited above
Contact: Anumita Roychowdhury, coordinator, CSE's clean air campaign.
Tel: +91 (011)-29955124, 29955125, 29956394, 29956401, 29956399
or email: anumita@cseindia.org.