Air pollution and its impact on Economy

Globally, 476,000 infants died in their first month of life in 2019 from health effects associated with air pollution exposure. 

Household air pollution (from burning solid fuels for cooking) accounted for about 64 per cent of all neo-natal deaths attributable to air pollution; the rest were attributable to ambient particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5). 

Infant deaths in India were followed by those in Nigeria (67,900), Pakistan (56,500) and Ethiopia (22,900). 

India also saw a 61 per cent increase in overall deaths attributable to PM2.5, according to the report.  

Meanwhile, it had the highest annual average PM2.5 exposure in the world in 2019. In fact, India, along with some of the other countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh, has continued to experience an increase in PM2.5 exposures since 2010. 

It is also among the top 10 countries with highest ozone (O3) exposure in 2019. Qatar recorded the highest O3 exposure, followed by Nepal and India. 

The report also highlighted one positive development: In the past decade, India managed to reduce the number of people exposed to household air pollution to 61 per cent from 73 per cent.

T he economic loss attributable to air pollution as a percentage of state gross domestic product (GDP) was the highest in Uttar Pradesh (2.15 per cent), Bihar (1.95 per cent), Madhya Pradesh (1.70 per cent), Rajasthan (1.70 per cent), and Chhattisgarh (1.55 per cent). These states have a relatively low per-capita GDP.

It was 1.52 per cent in Punjab and 1.50 per cent in Uttarakhand. These states have a relatively high per-capita GDP.

The economic loss due to lost output from premature deaths and morbidity attributable to air pollution was the highest in Uttar Pradesh at $5130.3 million. 

The economic impact of air pollution has been estimated based on the cost of lost output due to premature deaths and morbidity attributable to outdoor and indoor air pollution. 

The economic loss due to air pollution as a percentage of state GDP was highest in northern states of India, because people in these states are exposed to very high concentrations of ambient PM2.5 and a high proportion of their population uses solid fuels.

This implies that the state GDP can grow by investments in air pollution control strategies, stated the study citing the United States, where every dollar invested in the control of ambient air pollution since 1970 is estimated to have yielded an economic benefit of $30.

Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, with the highest economic loss as a percentage of their GDP, had the lowest per-capita GDP among the states of India, indicating that poor states are the most vulnerable to adverse economic impacts of air pollution.

This is worrying since deaths attributed to polluted air have increased by nearly 26 per cent in Uttar Pradesh.  Bihar showed an increase over 23 per cent. 

According to the study, the “data on mortality attributed to air pollution” was an under estimate, for they account for deaths due to PM 2.5 and ozone pollution only.  In reality, the risk to health and our economy was much more, the study said. 

Of the total 12 pollutants that are monitored under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and include sulphur dioxide  (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), PM10, PM2.5, ozone, lead, arsenic, nickel, carbon monoxide, ammonia, benzene, and BaP (particulate phase), only SO2, NO2 and respirable suspended particulate matter / PM10 are monitored regularly.

The results resonate with findings of Global State of Air 2020 done by the Health Effects Institute, according to which, toxic air killed more than 116,000 infants within a month of birth in 2019.

Similar concerns on the health impacts of air pollution in India were also raised by Yale University in the Global Environment Performance Index in June 2020.

Way ahead

The ICMR study suggested the central and state governments to allocate sufficient long-term funding to prevent the adverse health impacts of air pollution, which would also contribute to improving health as envisioned in the sustainable development goals.

This is a multi-sectoral and multi-pollutant crisis that demands “multisectoral and multi-pollutant approach” for interventions in rural and in urban areas, said Vivek Chattopadhyay, senior programme manager, air pollution programme, CSE.

The Union government has in the past refused to accept the linkage between air pollution and health, and this report serves as an eye-opener once again and demonstrates the need for a political will and action, he said.

According to him, the country needs a robust, regional framework for air pollution control in India beyond the rigid political boundaries. 

“We need policies for a well-coordinated, state action plan as well as city and rural action plan. The Air Commission set up recently by the Union government focuses on Delhi-NCR. Its scope should be expanded to cover Indo-Gangetic region,” he said.

Chattopadhyay added: “Air pollution knows no boundaries. The airshed approach must be considered within the regional framework for controlling air pollution in north India, Indo-Gangetic states, coastal states and the southern states.”