Despite being banned by the supreme court, farmers are still burning the crop stubbles. And nobody wants to enforce the rule because it’s a political suicide. Another instance of failed democracy where you need to appease to a vocal minority even if it means smog and deaths for the rest.
1. Lack of political willpower. It is still not considered to be a very high priority thing by those in power, and even the people who live in the region.
2. Again, due to politicians, bureaucracy, and their corruption. Example -
> In two years, Delhi (state govt^) spent Rs 68 lakh on stubble decomposer, Rs 23 crore to advertise it [0]
> ‘No other option’ — as its fields turn black & skies smoky, why Punjab won’t stop burning stubble [1]
Delhi is a separate state* from Haryana, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh (states where stubble burning is very common). Haryana, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh's politicans won't piss off the farmer bloc to help Delhi. It's the equivalent of the political battles all the western states are fighting over the Colorado River.
* yes it's technically a Union Territory but it's functionally a state
But many cities from these states also face high pollution.
Noida, Ghaziabad (UP), Gurugram (Haryana) are a few examples which are highly populated. Noida is slowly growing as UP's manufactoring hub, already being its IT hub. Gurugram is another IT hub.
A lot of this problem is also because of the apathy of the working class who reside in these cities.
How many votes can Gurgaon's urban population bring? Not as much as Kisan Sabhas in Sohna, Pataudi, Farrukhnagar, and Manesar. How many votes can urban NOIDA or Ghaziabad voters bring to UP Legislative elections? Almost nothing compared to farmers outside of either. Activism is strong in India - the kind of person who lives in a Housing Society in Noida, Gurgaon, or Ghaziabad doesn't know or care to partake in Gheraos, Bandhs, or Dharns to push their point through.
These are IT and manufacturing hubs and the respective State governments and the Centre gives them special attention because they want industries and jobs.
Maybe if the elites start taking their lives more seriously and threaten to move away from these cities we might start seeing some action.
> the kind of person who lives in a Housing Society in Noida, Gurgaon, or Ghaziabad doesn't know or care to partake in Gheraos, Bandhs, or Dharns to push their point through.
That's what I wanted to say with my earlier comment.
Yep, but Gurgaon's urban voters don't impact Haryana Vidhan Sabha elections. If I wanna become CM of Haryana, do I want to make 1 MLA's constituent's happy or 3 MLA's constituent's happy. All farmers know burning stubble is bad, but no government (Punjab, Haryana, UP) is providing the money to get rotavators. The only way this solution is solved is by including the majority in the conversation. And if they aren't, well that's Indian politics as you know.
It's interesting to see how long some ideas take to gain a foothold. I remember reading about zero-till farming in the late 1980s and how it improved yields, decreased erosion and saved on fuel. Fast forward to present day and one of the farming youtubers I watched just started no-till about 2 years ago. Last night I the same youtuber posted a video about ripping out fence lines because it causes issues with their harvest and is a source of weeds in the field, and I was surprised because farmers in the uk are now understanding that those same fence lines are an important source of biodiversity for the health of their soil and crops.
New processes in general take a while to propogate.
* working in a study is different from working on every field in the country, and some things are harder to put into practice than other
* some people have the mindset of, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, which is pretty easy to justify given how precarious and time-consuming of a lifestyle farming already is
* in particular, for changes that need capital investment, the precariousness of the field means that it can take time to secure the money to spend on major improvements
There are a large number of insect eggs and adults in the straw. Without burning the straw, the insects will spend the winter comfortably. Then, a large area of insect infestation occurs in the second year. It is necessary to increase the spread of pesticides, causing more environmental pollution and cost problems
How to best handle it actually depends on the region. Burying the biomass works great where the necessary microorganisms needed to break it down live in the soil. But that isn't everywhere, for instance where the ground is sodden. Like a peat bog.
In parts of the US they still very much burn the plant stubble in the fall. It creates a large amount of smog that irritates the eyes and give off an acrid smell.
This is a weird situation where the interference of the Supreme court feels inappropriate.
For one, the Supreme court has no job interfering in what should be bills and governance related problems. With the Supreme court making it their job, the govts get to raise their hands and shirk responsibility.
Stubble burning sounds like one of the dumbest ideas ever. Just leave it there and plant through it with your no till drill.
Leaving the residue on the field means your soil is protected against erosion and from exposure to the sun. The carbon in the residue isn't relevant but after three years the residue has decayed enough for the trapped nitrogen and phosphorus in the plant to become available to the soil.
In the North (Haryana, Punjab, western UP) you have 3-4 harvesting seasons with maybe a week between each other. Leaving stubble means you lose out on a harvesting season. If you want to maximize subsidies and your profit, it makes sense to quickly burn stubble and start afresh.
Farm fires are partially a result of legislation to prevent ground water levels from going too low [1]. Fairly multifaceted issue, not just electoral appeasement
