The Sound and the Fiery — Green Crackers and Pollution Control
|
The Sound and the Fiery — Green Crackers and Pollution Control
Why in News?
The editorial argues that green crackers have not adequately controlled air and noise pollution, despite restrictions imposed by the Supreme Court. Weak enforcement, misuse of certification and increased use of supposedly cleaner crackers limit their effectiveness. The debate highlights the challenge of balancing public health, environmental protection, religious and cultural practices, and livelihoods.
Background: Supreme Court and Green Crackers
- 2016 : Suspension of licences - The Supreme Court suspended licences for the sale of fireworks in the Delhi-NCR region following severe pollution episodes.
- 2017 : Restrictions reconsidered - The Court relaxed restrictions partly to account for licence holders'' livelihoods, but reinstated restrictions for Deepavali.
- 2018 : Green crackers permitted- In Arjun Gopal v. Union of India, the Court allowed specified reduced-emission crackers, prohibited joined firecrackers or laris, and prescribed a two-hour usage window.
- 2025 : Pollution spike persists - According to the editorial, Delhi''s post-Deepavali PM2.5 average reached 488 µg/m³, while hourly concentrations peaked at 675 µg/m³.
What are green crackers?
Green crackers are fireworks developed to reduce certain emissions compared with conventional firecrackers. The editorial identifies CSIR–National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (CSIR-NEERI) as an institution involved in promoting them.
- Claimed benefit: The newer generation reportedly promises a 45–60% reduction in PM10 emissions.
- Limitation: Such reductions may not translate into equivalent improvements under real-world conditions.
- Rebound effect: If people burst substantially more crackers because they are considered cleaner, the overall reduction in pollution may disappear.
- Important distinction: Reduced particulate emissions do not automatically mean reduced noise pollution.
Major issues highlighted by the editorial
Limited effectiveness in controlling pollution
- Green crackers may reduce emissions per cracker, but aggregate pollution depends on the total number used.
- Construction dust, vehicles, stubble burning and stagnant winter air also contribute to Delhi-NCR pollution.
- Fireworks can cause additional short-term pollution spikes during already polluted periods.
Noise pollution remains a concern
- Reduced particulate emissions do not necessarily reduce sound levels.
- Loud fireworks can disturb residents, children, older people and animals.
- Air-quality-focused certification alone cannot address the entire environmental impact.
Weak enforcement and certification
- The editorial reports that QR codes were misused or sold to unauthorised manufacturers.
- Police reportedly struggled to distinguish green crackers from conventional ones in 2018 and 2019.
- The reported absence of a testing facility for the explosives regulator in Delhi illustrates enforcement constraints.
Significance: Why does this issue matter?
- Public health: Fine particulate matter, especially PM2.5, can penetrate deep into the respiratory system and worsen cardiovascular and respiratory risks.
- Environmental governance: The issue tests whether environmental standards can be implemented effectively on the ground.
- Rule of law: Certification fraud and weak monitoring undermine the credibility of regulatory measures.
- Livelihoods: Firecracker manufacturers, traders and workers may be affected by restrictions; transition policies should account for their economic interests.
- Judicial balancing: Courts must weigh public health, environmental protection, cultural practices and economic interests while ensuring that legal restrictions remain enforceable.
Challenges in controlling firecracker pollutio
|
Challenge
|
Description
|
|
Informal manufacturing
|
Unregistered production makes it difficult to trace products and ensure compliance with environmental standards.
|
|
Certification fraud
|
Conventional crackers may be falsely marketed as green crackers, undermining regulatory credibility.
|
|
Weak testing capacity
|
Inadequate testing facilities limit authorities’ ability to independently verify emission claims.
|
|
Consumer behaviour
|
Increased consumption can offset the emission reductions achieved per cracker.
|
|
Multiple pollution sources
|
Firecracker restrictions alone cannot eliminate winter smog caused by other pollution sources.
|
|
Air–noise trade-off
|
Reduced particulate emissions do not necessarily mean lower noise pollution; both require separate standards and enforcement.
|
Way Forward
- Strengthen certification and traceability: Use verifiable QR codes, digital manufacturer registries, batch-level tracking and surprise inspections.
- Improve independent testing: Build adequate laboratory capacity and conduct periodic checks to verify actual emission and noise performance.
- Formalise manufacturing: Support compliant manufacturers in entering the formal sector, with clear standards, worker-safety measures and proportionate penalties for violations.
- Enforce air and noise standards together: Assess particulate emissions and sound levels separately instead of treating green certification as proof of overall environmental safety.
- Reduce demand through awareness: Promote community celebrations, lower-emission alternatives and voluntary limits on firecracker use.
- Adopt a regional clean-air strategy: Combine fireworks regulation with measures addressing transport emissions, construction dust, industrial pollution, crop-residue burning and weather-related pollution accumulation.
|
Posted on 15-10-2026 • By Admin