IAS/UPSC Coaching Institute  

14 Jul 2025 : Smoke and sulphur

 Editorial 2: ​Smoke and sulphur

Context

Environmental standards must be uniform across India.

 

Introduction

India’s Environment Ministry has rolled back its 2015 mandate that required coal power plants to install Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) systems. This affects air pollution control, especially for sulphur dioxide (SO₂), a harmful gas. The decision, based on cost concerns and scientific advice, raises concerns about public health, policy consistency, and transparency in environmental decisions.

 

Policy Rollback: FGD Installation Exemptions

  • The Environment Ministry has exempted most coal-fired power plants from installing Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) systems.
  • This reverses the 2015 mandate that required all such plants to adopt FGDs by 2017.
  • India has around 180 coal power plants (with about 600 units), but only 8% have installed FGDs.
  • Most of these compliant plants belong to the public-sector NTPC.

 

Why FGDs Matter: Health and Pollution Concerns

  • FGD systems are designed to cut sulphur dioxide (SO₂) emissions, a harmful gas.
  • SO₂ is monitored by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) due to its potential to harm human health.
  • SO₂ can also form sulphates in the air, which contribute to particulate matter (PM) pollution.

 

Weak Implementation: Reasons for Delay

  • Reasons cited for the poor implementation of FGD norms:
    • Limited number of vendors
    • High installation costs
    • Potential rise in electricity bills
    • COVID-19 disruptions
  • Despite missing the 2024 deadline, the Environment Ministry has formally rolled back the requirement.

 

Scientific Justifications for Exemption

  • Expert appraisal committee findings:
    • Indian coal is naturally low in sulphur.
    • Cities with and without FGD units show similar SO₂ levels, both below permissible limits.
    • Concerns about sulphates are considered overstated.
    • Sulphates may have a cooling effect that offsets greenhouse warming — so reducing them might worsen climate change.
    • This view is supported by the Power Ministry.

 

IPCC Perspective: Nuanced View

  • The IPCC does recognize sulphates' temporary cooling effects.
  • However, this is not seen as a benefit — just a side-effect, not a reason to retain SO₂ emissions.
  • Relying on sulphates for cooling is scientifically controversial and not recommended.

 

Uneven Rules: Location-Based Exceptions

  • A minority (about 20%) of plants must install FGDs by 2028:
    • Plants within 10 km of the NCR
    • In cities with over 1 million population
    • Located in pollution hotspots
  • This creates inconsistent environmental standards across the country.

 

Call for Transparency: Public Debate Needed

  • Changing pollution policy without a public, scientific debate weakens accountability.
  • Revising norms should be science-led, but also transparent and consultative.
  • Without open discussion, this move risks undermining public health and environmental trust.

 

Conclusion

Though the move may reduce costs and delays, it weakens pollution standards without wide public discussion. By applying different rules based on location and citing uncertain benefits of sulphates, the government risks undermining scientific credibility and climate goals. Strong, science-based policies and uniform regulations are vital to protect public health and maintain trust in environmental governance.