This refers to Sunita Narain’s column “The environmental cost of diesel subsidy” (Down to earth, November 14). The fact is that once extracted by refineries, all diesel is meant to be used — whether by cars or by trucks or buses. Though a diesel car is certainly a bigger polluter than a petrol car, trucks or buses are even bigger polluters. Moreover, as against a diesel car that burns about 10 to 20 litres per 100 km, a truck or a bus burns 40 to 50 litres per 100 km. So obviously, commercial vehicles are bigger polluters of environment. Nowhere in the article has the author cited statistics that show that oil companies have increased the production of diesel in response to growing demand by diesel-car owners, which means that the normal production level of diesel is enough to accommodate consumption by diesel cars. Besides, the author completely ignores other equally important causes of pollution — the predominance of ramshackle vehicles (mostly commercial vehicles), adulteration of fuel and fuel products, improper traffic management system and poor road conditions.
The economic benefit that a buyer may want to draw by using subsidised diesel is offset by the higher initial investment in buying a diesel car and the stiff maintenance cost (I speak from first-hand experience since I happen to own an Indigo-Marina). According to the research report of the rating agency CARE, the economic advantage of a diesel car accrues only when the car runs at least 30 km a day because of the higher EMI on diesel vehicles. It’s strange that instead of recommending incentives for CNG or LPG cars that would be much more effective in reducing pollution, the author is suggesting a negative remedy of even higher prices (200-300 per cent of the current cost) for diesel cars.
Ajay Tyagi, Mumbai
Readers should write to:
The Editor, Business Standard,
Nehru House,
4, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi 110 002,
Fax: (011) 23720201;
letters@bsmail.in
All letters should have a postal address and telephone number