Green crackers, hazy reality: Allowing these may have only marginal impact

Green crackers and restricted timings may do little to ease pollution in the National Capital Region

The Supreme Court has negotiated the thin line between popular sentiment and public health and environmental concerns by extending conditional permission for bursting green crackers within a restricted time window on November 7 and 8. At a time when the air-quality index swings between “severe” and “hazardous”, this well-meaning order is unlikely to clear the air around or after Diwali. For one, enforcing these restrictions demands a level of monitoring that is well beyond the capabilities or the inclination of the state police forces or the political administration. Two years ago, the apex court sharply rebuked the Delhi Police for its inability to enforce the cracker ban. It is also doubtful whether the restrictions limiting firecracker sales to products certified by government bodies can be monitored, let alone implemented. Media reports have already tracked hectic clandestine sales of non-green fireworks, which a certain kind of consumer demands because they literally offer more bang for the buck than the green variants do — and are available in elusive popup shops in small lanes. Fake QR codes have also proliferated.    

But the genuine health and environmental safety of green crackers themselves remains doubtful. The Supreme Court has stipulated that only crackers certified by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research-National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (CSIR-Neeri) or the Petroleum and Safety Organisation (Peso) and identified with specific QR codes can be sold. Though both CSIR-Neeri and Peso are guaranteed to follow strict standards, the problem lies in the definition of “green cracker”, which may be somewhat misleading. They are said to reduce particulate matter (PM) 2.5 and 10 by some 30 per cent and emit 10 per cent less harmful gases such as sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. They also exclude toxic chemicals such as barium nitrate, lithium and cadmium found in traditional crackers. But they still emit smoke and PM, and are only marginally less harmful than traditional crackers. The apex court has, perhaps, overlooked the sheer volume of crackers that are burnt over the course of Dussehra and Diwali. Last year, a survey showed that the number of families bursting fire crackers rose 40 per cent over the previous year and half of them intended to burn traditional firecrackers alongside green ones. Even assuming that all consumers in the National Capital Region (NCR) are stricken by conscience and choose to burn only green firecrackers within the specified timings, the emission of PM10 and PM2.5 will still be high enough to create the characteristic post-Diwali haze compounded by unabated seasonal farm fires and low wind speeds. 

It is possible that the Supreme Court has chosen a realistic path, given the cussedness of citizens who decline to cut back firecracker burning in the broader public interest. Since the popular discourse often centres on the right to freely practise religion, the court has stated that this right is not absolute. The court has balanced this right by invoking Article 21, the right to life and personal liberty, which the judges have interpreted as the right to a healthy, safe, and pollution-free environment. Outright bans have been spectacularly unsuccessful, so this via-media approach may assuage public and politico-religious sentiment. Even assuming the court’s diktat is followed, the burning of green crackers, which are, in fact, not so green, is unlikely to offer the NCR’s citizens a happy, pollution-free Diwali.