An economist from Jawaharlal Nehru University has put forward a strong case for introducing differentiated emission taxes in India, with a special focus on the severely polluted Indo-Gangetic Plain. Professor Sangeeta Bansal argued that the unique geography of the region traps pollution, necessitating concentrated policy action.
The Valley Effect: Why Pollution Stagnates in North India
Speaking at the 7th annual Economic Conference at Ahmedabad University, Professor Bansal explained the topographical challenge. The Indo-Gangetic plains are essentially sunken land, flanked by the Himalayas to the north and the ranges of the Deccan Plateau to the south. This creates a 'Valley effect' where polluted air fails to dissipate efficiently, leading to dangerously high concentrations of harmful particles, especially from October to January.
"This particular region gets sunken because of that the pollution that is generated here doesn't get dissipated," Bansal stated during her presentation titled 'Breathing (Not So Clean Air): Causal Evidence for Policy Design'. She highlighted that this explains the stark difference in air quality between northern and southern parts of India during the winter months.
Policy Prescription: Heterogeneous Taxes to Incentivize Change
Professor Bansal's core recommendation is the introduction of heterogeneous emission taxes, a policy tool India currently lacks. Her model proposes higher taxes in regions more vulnerable to pollution damage, particularly the Indo-Gangetic plain.
The strategy is twofold: to push existing industries to adopt cleaner technologies and to guide new industrial plants away from the most sensitive zones. "Make it more costly to operate in highly pollution-vulnerable areas so that firms are encouraged to relocate to less sensitive regions," she advised.
She elaborated that the tax structure should be designed to influence corporate decisions on plant location from the outset. The goal is to create an incentive framework where companies naturally avoid setting up in areas where pollution would cause the greatest harm to public health.
Expected Benefits and a Call for Integrated Health Policy
Acknowledging that air quality cannot meet WHO standards overnight, Bansal emphasized that even modest reductions in PM2.5 levels would yield substantial benefits. The health and welfare gains, she noted, would be largest in high-pollution regions like the Indo-Gangetic plain.
She identified key pollution sources including vehicles, coal-fired power plants, industrial emissions, dust, and household biofuel use. While reducing emissions from these sources involves cost, her research estimates the expected health benefits are significantly larger.
Concluding her argument, Professor Bansal made a crucial interdisciplinary point. "Air pollution, we shouldn't just think of it in terms of environmental goals. We need to include it in the health policy," she asserted. She advocated for integrating air pollution targets directly into the nation's public health strategy, moving beyond a purely environmental regulatory approach.
