The National Capital Territory’s pollution crisis is undeniable. Measures aimed at reducing tailpipe emissions, whether by restricting vehicle age or improving fuel quality, are understandably attractive. India’s transition from Bharat Stage (BS) IV to BS VI engine standards, for example, has already
yielded improvements in vehicular emissions. Similarly, ethanol blending in fuel is projected to reduce carbon intensity over time. But these gains risk being overshadowed by systemic blind spots. We are celebrating tailpipe reductions while ignoring what lies upstream and downstream: the carbon-intensive process of manufacturing new vehicles, the lack of real consumer incentives to retire ELVs, and uncertain trade-offs from fuel blending strategies that may, paradoxically, not reduce intended emissions under certain conditions.
Tailpipe Gains, Lifecycle Losses#
Delhi’s ban on diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 is rooted in the idea that age equals pollution. While older vehicles often lack modern emission controls, this fails to account for vehicles that have been well-maintained, run sparingly, or use cleaner fuels. More importantly, it fails to factor in the embedded emissions of manufacturing new vehicles.
This is the elephant in the room. Depending upon import of materials, energy sources in grid, and global supply chains involved, studies show manufacturing a mid-sized internal combustion engine (ICE) car emits 5-7 tonnes of CO₂, while an electric vehicle (EV) depending upon battery size can emit ~8.8 tonnes of CO₂, even before they touch the road. Other ICE vehicles of varied sizes emit anywhere between 6 to 35 tonnes of CO₂ at the stage of manufacturing.In the Indian context, where the majority of vehicles are small ICEs and the grid is still fossil heavy, these embedded emissions can form over 20–40% of total lifecycle emissions.
Scrapping a functional vehicle prematurely can result in a net increase in total emissions over a 5–10-year period, depending on usage. Given that India’s vehicle penetration is still rising, and scrappage incentives remain weak, ill- designed policies may simply force consumers to take on unsustainable debt or participate in informal, unregulated resale markets, leading to pollution displacement rather than reduction. Any credible climate strategy must align scrappage policy with circular economy principles, real- world emissions testing, and embedded carbon accounting, or risk increasing emissions while appearing to reduce them.
The Consumer Disjunct: No Carrot, Just Stick#
A second, equally worrying gap lies in the scrappage incentive ecosystem. The Voluntary Vehicle Scrappage Policy was supposed to create an incentivised pathway for citizens to retire ELVs. Unfortunately, the policy currently offers a tapestry of low value offers, limited scrapping infrastructure, and cumbersome paperwork.
The problem isn’t just at the policy level, it’s psychological. For many middle- and lower- income households, a car is not just a mobility asset but a significant investment. Scrapping it without meaningful support, be it in the form of discounts, tax rebates, or public transport alternatives, may look like penalisation. If we want citizens to change behaviour, nudges must outweigh punishments. Without that, scrappage becomes another technocratic solution imposed without social legitimacy.
Fuel Blending’s Mileage Mirage#
Even where fuel policy seems climate- aligned, such as India’s aggressive push toward ethanol blending, unintended consequences abound. Ethanol may be cleaner, but it is also less energy-dense than petrol. When blended at 20%, as now mandated, studies and field tests suggest mileage losses of 6-10%, especially in engines not optimised and retrofitted for ethanol or calibrated for ethanol blending. This signifies that for an average consumer, more litres must be burned to travel the same distance, essentially requiring more fuel and potentially adding more expenses and emissions.
A Clean Tailpipe with a Dirty Trail#
These issues aren’t isolated but interlinked. Together, they expose the limitations of our current vehicular emissions-reduction strategy that primarily focuses on what comes out of the tailpipe. True decarbonisation in transport must look at the entire vehicle lifecycle: manufacturing, use, maintenance, fuel consumption, and end- of-life disposal.
This calls for a fundamental course correction. Instead of blanket age-based bans, India must shift toward emissions-based compliance – both carbon and particulate – leveraging real-time pollution data, remote sensing technologies, and automated vehicle fitness testing to target actual – high emitters and act accordingly. Equally important is the need to factor in life cycle carbon emissions when assessing the environmental merit of replacing older vehicles and/or promoting a type of vehicle, with recognising that manufacturing new cars carries its own substantial climate cost. To make the transition just and effective, robust, equitable incentives for scrappage must be introduced with meaningful consumer nudges. Finally, fuel-blending strategies should be revisited to assess their net environmental and economic impact, ensuring that any reductions in carbon intensity are not offset by higher fuel consumption or reduced mileage.
Delhi Government’s legal challenge on ELV opens a vital window of reflection. It’s an opportunity to move
toward a full-stack mobility strategy, which respects complexity, incentivises citizens, and thinks beyond the tailpipe. If India wants to lead the way on sustainable urban transport, it must first stop scrapping good intentions with bad design.
Note: Views expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position or policy of the Clear Cut Magazine.
Clear Cut Climate Desk
New Delhi, UPDATED: Dec 22, 2025 05:40 IST
Written By: DR. DEBAJIT PALIT, MEHELI ROY CHOUDHURY
