The current situation mirrors the Beijing model in many ways and has been very aptly described. It highlights systemic gaps in urban planning and environmental governance and leaves us with several critical issues that demand serious reflection rather than cosmetic solutions.
Key areas that require immediate policy benchmarking and public debate include:
- Population vs. Tree Ratio in NCR
What is the actual ratio of population growth to tree cover in the NCR, and how far does it deviate from globally acceptable environmental benchmarks? - Water Fountains vs. Geographic Area of NCR
Are water fountains and misting systems being deployed strategically, or are they merely symbolic measures when compared with the vast area of the NCR? - Construction Activity vs. Population Density
Is the scale of construction proportionate to population density and infrastructure capacity, or is unregulated construction further intensifying environmental stress? - Use of Wood and Coal in Tandoors, Furnaces, and Cremation Grounds
The burning of wood and coal in tandoors, industrial furnaces, and cremation grounds must be brought under measurable benchmarks, with clear emission standards and monitoring mechanisms. - ETP Capacity vs. Municipal Waste Generation
There is an urgent need to assess whether the existing Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) capacity is aligned with the actual volume of town and industrial waste generated, measured in tonnes. - Reduction of Diesel and Petrol Vehicles
The number of diesel and petrol vehicles must be reduced to an acceptable ratio. Instead of approving additional petrol pumps within city limits, policy focus should shift aggressively toward expanding EV charging infrastructure.
Electric Vehicle Subsidy: A Policy Execution Failure
The government’s announcement of subsidies on electric vehicles appears well-intentioned but poorly executed on the ground. In our case, three electric vehicles were purchased over the last two years, yet the subsidy was denied each time on different grounds:
- Subsidy was not allowed because the vehicle was purchased in the company’s name.
- Subsidy was denied when purchased in an individual’s name, citing that it was not a commercial vehicle.
- Subsequently, subsidy was rejected on the ground that the allocated budget had already been exhausted due to higher-than-expected purchases.
Such contradictory and shifting criteria undermine policy credibility and discourage genuine adoption of electric mobility.
