| ENVIRONMENTAL
RATING OFPASSENGER CARS AND MULTI-UTILITY VEHICLES |
| Model |
Ranking |
| TOP
TEN |
| Daewoo
Matiz |
1 |
| Maruti
800 Euro II |
2 |
| Hyundai
Santro |
3 |
| Mercedes-Benz
E240 |
4 |
| Maruti
Zen Euro II |
5 |
| Hyundai
Accent |
6 |
| Honda
1.5 VTEC |
7 |
| Fiat
Siena |
8 |
| Honda
1.3 EXi |
9 |
| Fiat
Uno |
10 |
| BOTTOM
FIVE |
| Mitsubishi
Lancer Diesel |
27 |
| Telco
207 (Diesel) Euro II |
28 |
| Toyota
Qualis Euro I |
29 |
| Ambassador
Diesel |
30 |
| Mahindra
Armada Grand |
31 |
|
The
automobile industry is growing enormously - both in pollution and size.
The Green Rating Project (GRP), an environmental rating of the Indian
automobile industry by the New Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment
(CSE), found that the industry today consists only of the not-so-good,
the bad and the ugly manufacturers.
GRP was a great challenge in view of the technologies, processes and vehicles
as well as the human side such as companies and managers. The exhaustive
environmental audit covered the lifecycle impact of industrial production,
use of vehicles as well as the scrapping of vehicles.
GRP had 90 percent participation by industry, not rating the ones who
didnt partiticipate thereby raising doubts on the independence
of this report.
Interestingly, The Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) which
does not usually share its database of pollution test results with any
one - not even the government - made its entire data available to the
CSE. This was a real coup.
In the
overall rating, the industry and its firms fare badly. The best nine companies
leading the ranks table get just 34-44 percent marks, with none coming
close to the top five leaf ' rating.
The findings
include:
- Engine
designs and technology are a decade old and responsible for emissions,
not poor fuel quality.
- Petrol
vehicles today fare better than diesel, CNG better than petrol.
- Joint
ventures are no better than Indian companies.
- Companies
just meet the emission norms. None substantially go beyond the norms
(there is one exception), nor are there any government incentives for
improvement.
In its view
the major reasons for poor air quality are:
- Poor mass
transport infrastructure
- Shift
from railways to roads and to personal vehicles
- Poor transport
planning
- Poor vehicle
technology
- Reliance
on conventional fuel
- Lack of
government support for alternatives.
Yet
the first three bulleted points do not find a place in its recommendations.
And the last three seem influenced by CSEs own beliefs, biases and
prejudices (notably against diesel). These seem to have unfortunately
taken precedence over the information and findings it has presented.
Both the CSE and GRP have missed the bus in fulfilling their objectives
in many areas. GRP considered it important to diagnose the reasons
for the illness and recommend possible solutions, instead of mere
pronouncements on the disease. But it has just done the reverse!
For example, GRP has missed the excellent correlation between its ranking
and increased engine cc - higher the cc the lower the rank. It says the
best diesel car, which is the Mercedes-Benz E220 CDI ranks as low as 15,
but leaves out the fact that the petrol-engined Mercedes E240 gets fourth
rank despite possessing a 2400cc engine.
Similarly it does not notice that the Hyundai Accent, Honda City and even
the E220 perform better than the cc-rank trend line. On the other hand,
second rank holder Maruti 800 Euro II also has a Maruti 800 Euro I that
ranked 19th!
Regulatory emission standards have brought all vehicles within the permissible
emission levels. GRP has made an excellent recommendation that incentives
be given so that more companies and vehicles may do better than the norms
like Honda City. But it has missed the evident point that if norms are
fixed at Euro IV levels for December 2002, all the manufacturers will
have to comply.
GRP thinks that if consumers insist on the cleanest possible cars, auto
companies will comply for fear of losing the markets. It forgets that
greener cars cost more. Consumers would certainly pay a higher
price for a more fuel efficient vehicle, but would not buy a greener vehicle
if it is more expensive.
GRP is also silent about reformulated fuels. During the long transition
to alternate fuels and engines, emissions would substantially come down
if reformulated fuels are used.
Since CSE aims at promoting transparent public debate on its findings,
it can add to the transparency if it would also disclose the terms of
reference of the UNDP and MOE support for the GRP.
S G Shah
|