Most of the Delhi City people are used vehicle and industries are more and depawali crackers are used at the time. All are joined to one cycle affected with all peoples in the air atmospheric conditions.

All people are not  equally responsible for the emission of pollutants. So the main hurdle  is how to ascertain that which person is responsible for more emission of pollutants or which person is responsible for less emission of pollutants or even which person is absolutely not responsible for emission of pollutants. 

Protecting the environment and the planet should not be a question of ”high” or ”low” price. It is our duty to do so. The EU fighting together with a few other countries is not a solution though. The international community should realise this and cooperate in saving the planet.

Very nice initiative/question about the environment Prabhat. Every person should think like this. I appreciate your idea. Yes, if Govt. charges vehicle users as fine basing on their usage certainly we can reduce a bit of air pollution. Why don't you write/suggest to Anil Madhav Dave (Minister of State (Independent Charge) Environment, Forest & Climate Change).

"Cleaning the environment reduces pollution, protects unique ecosystems, prevents the extinction of endangered species and conserves resources, such as water, land and air. A clean environment ensures the protection of biodiversity and ecosystems upon which human life and all other life on Earth depends"-Reference .com 

Any action  done in the name of religion or tradition destroying the humanity and environment shall be discouraged

Yes they are the sole responsibility what they have causes to environment

I welcome the remarks by @ Barbara Sawicka on the issue of water pollution and conservation. Actually water is not only essential to life, but issues related to water is interrelated to the issues of other resources also. A large number of Indian rivers bring floods which are due to erosion of soil and loss of vegetation on the mountains, along with other several reasons. In rainy seasons, the rivers are flooded, but in summer - there are problems of drought. If water is conserved properly, the problem of drought can be lessened. Quality of water is also an issue. Water at some places are contaminated due to pollutants, sometimes due to availability of heavy metals naturally also.

The resources of water should be managed wisely, at the same time, quality of water should also be maintained.

The sewage should be properly clarified before flowing it in rivers.

@ Murugan K.: Thank you for your comments.

@ Mustaq Ahmad: I appreciate your views and I think that social and religious customs should be modified with advancement of time to preserve their importance.

Remarks by @ Arvind Singh are good. We can impose taxes on the basis of kilometers run by vehicles and the efficiency of its engines. Industrial air and water wastes can also be measured.

It is not possible to measure all type of polluting materials efficiently, however it can be started. With time, efficient systems can be evolved.

Thank you for your contribution.

I appreciate the opinion shared by @ Sathish Dhandapani which shows his sensitivity towards the issues of environmental protection. 

Thanks for the invitation and this very interesting question. Yes, I believe that people should pay for the pollution imparted by them, according to their economic possibility. But, not before the creation of a reliable program which would clearly show the impact of the pollution on society, the ways for dealing with this problem, the reasons for paying and the goals which should be achieved.

Regards

@ Jetty Ramadevi:

Thank you for your answer and reference cited.

I appreciate this citation:

"A clean environment ensures the protection of biodiversity and ecosystems upon which human life and all other life on Earth depends"

which clarify the needs of a clean environment as all life system depends upon it.

You have  asked me to write/suggest me Minister of (State) Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India. It is new to me. If discussions have fruitful results, I will write to him at sure. As discussions should be productive and effective also.

Dear Prabhat,

In Europe there is a said: "Who contaminates pays." The irresponsibility has got a limit.

Hello dear Prabhat Ranjan,

This is a good idea but maybe it could be done the other way round such as some insurance firms are now doing regarding health. In the system regarding health everybody pays the same, but if you do not smoke you pay less, if you go to a gym once a week you pay less, if you do not drink you pay less. This gives a positive message regarding what is involved in being healthy. Maybe a similar scheme could be devised regarding pollution. It would get everyone involved.  Obviously the very poor in India might not be able to pay - but most people involved in polluting would be able to do so.

Warm regards and good luck with your scheme  - tina 

Without a doubt.....we are not here to clean their crap!!!!!!

Hello dear Pierlorenzo Brignoli,

Maybe a way around companies do who not pay is what I suggested in my previous post - maybe all companies should pay a high price which can be lowered as they put into practice ways of reducing pollution. So instead of thinking of ingenious ways not to pay, they will then come up with ingenious ways to reduce pollution. 

With a smile - tina 

As Arvind Singh said, people are not equally responsible for the emission of pollutants, so it is injustly to tax people for the pollutions.

A better way will be, to tax pollutants for pollution.

Today we calculate the price for a product out of the raw materials, energy, personnel costs, trade, taxes..., but what we mostly not calculate in our prices is the "ecological footprint" or the "carbon footprint". The costs of an article must include the costs for disposal and pollution of air and water

Then the use of depawali crackers and a lot of other things will change.

We destroy big areas of our environment and our health with things and products which were not made responsible for that directly. On the other hand we need big amounts of money to restore it. The amount to restore it is of course much higher than the amount to preserve it.

Yeah it is very important to discuss on TV or any electronic media but whether we really accountable for such changes..No..our behaviour towards such incidence is very minimal, we needs all items in our daily life and we're not even ready to leave, we need cheaper things (like car and other things). Our construction sites are open material are here and there, we even not throwing our garbage  in proper place (here comes corruption), we are spending money for all those things. Farmer  near by delhi is burning their agriculture waste, they are really worried about..no.and they don't want to even listen because it is a easy way without spending single money..We know but we himself buy a crackers for our children even more than neighbour. 

And other part of social responsibility of government as well as industrialist to put a world class measures to cut down the smokes and other wastes.   

it is more personal rather putting any scientific data. 

Yes, of course, People should pay. "But I do not want to pay because my amount of pollution is so small! :( "

A man like the new president of USA should be brought to court! Amerkca first. Sorry, I wish the smog bell over LA and California and especially over the Trump Tower in NY becomes so dens, like over Peking sometimes.

Excuse my emotional eruption.

Peter

The burning of these traditional fuels contributes both to indoor and outdoor air pollution and cause respiratory illness and lung damage as well as increased concentrations of carbon dioxide. Many of pollution’s impacts on human health and the environment can be quantified and calculated, but many pollution impacts are difficult to monetize or even quantify. Certain values placed on the natural world, such as beauty or religious values are extremely difficult to include in systems of monetary accounting, as these types of values are neither bought nor sold. The total cost to society  can be weighed against the cost of implementing regulatory standards that aim at reducing pollution levels, to assess the benefit to society of environmental regulation.

I think that it is not a question of whether or not to do it, but on how to do it. The evidence is enormous on the amount of damage we have imparted on the planet and ourselves. Today's pollution is a result of the products that we use and we can:

1) put a complex system to try to quantify individual footprints and charge accordingly

2) put taxes and other penalties on producers

I think that the second alternative is better than the first (or a combination with heavy reliance on the second).

Even if there are skeptics out there, the price of being wrong is too high to pay. Our effort to move people willingly has for the most part failed  and we need measures of compliance.

Dear 

As I see , we may protect our environment so we may do all things to get it. The pay it is one thing but before it we may advice all people and let them seen the risks of pollution. regards

Saeed 

Yes. Environmental harm fees/taxes should be strictly imposed so that industries/companies would make an effort to reduce the wastes they produce. They become more accountable to the their contribution to alarming rate of environmental pollution. The money/tax collected should be used for rehabilitation and conservation projects as to mitigate the effects of climate change

In the US the carbon tax is a joke. It allows companies that flood the atmosphere with hydrocarbon emissions to offset their environmental pollution by buying tax credits from companies that do not use all of their credits. Simply put, companies that do not produce much hydrocarbon emission pollution sell their unused tax credits to polluters, thereby making it seem like there is a reduction of pollution when in fact there is none.

I agree with explanation given by Rudolf Ritt

The social responsibility of government , and the manufacturer to put a world class measures to cut down the smokes and other wastes.

KS Al-Niaeem

I agree with Arvind Singh. In addition, the governments of industrial countries and the large companies should pay for pollution according to their share in the problem. Pollution prevention taxes should also be directed toward environmental protection, research on improving production systems, energy saving, enhance community health and improve education and media handling of this subject.

Regards

SM Najim

Yes, Prabhat as you mentioned the discussions should be fruitful. I too agree. As per my knowledge now-a-days Cabinet Ministers are active and responding to complaints. Best eg. Railway Minister Suesh Prabhu n Sushma Swaraj. They saved many people by responding complaints on Twitter. Or post your idea on Modi's Facebook or Twitter along with Anil Mahadev. You get some response. Especially Delhi's environment profile is going very bad, too much of pollution. Certainly you get response for your idea, no doubt. Try your Luck. Best Wishes !!!

The polluters should pay according to an agreed (from experts) scale of the seriousness of the damage done to lungs, throat, etc.

After all, the polluters themselves have children who will suffer the same in the open air (outside their air-purified homes). Do they want their children eliminated by cancer before they think seriously about pollution?

Yes, of course

In Denmark environmental regulation is based on the "polluter pays" principle, but our interpretation is that the polluter should pay for the treatment related to their specific pollution rather than money to environmental programs. Thus industries have to pay for the installation and operation of treatment of their wastewater and removing dioxin and acids from flue gasses. Thus there is an advantage for an industry in reducing pollution amounts and concentration.   

The question is: Should people pay for pollutions imparted by them?

Well actually the question sould might answered briefly. The answers here are usually long and do not answer the question or very veiled. What does it really mean the environment to claimed? In which man lives, he also of environment. The more people live at the same time, the more takes advantage of environment. Currently, there are over 7 billion people on Earth. If these only eat, drink, live and possibly heat and generate houshold waste, environmental protection would have to be operated!

But we do not just live that way but produce a gigantic amount of products, produce a gigantic amount of energy, and need a huge amount of raw materials. We should try to balance this gigantic amount of environmental pollution, and people should also pay for it a part of their surplus value.

In Germany that happens also, we pay a whole range of taxes and duties for environmental protection - taxes on fuel, power generation, waste disposal, etc. The industry also has a lot of taxes to pay.

The problem is, not all people on this earth have a surplus value and the using of the environment is also differently in the regions.

In principle, the polluter pays principle should apply. Because, that we as gently as possible should dealed with our environment for the subsequent generations, is probably to everyone clear. But the implementation is then not so easy.

Have a good time

Michael Lersow

Asking people to pay  for the pollution they cause is walking on a political eggshell, the administrators of the city will be branded 'anti-people'. Also, what exactly will the money be used for? The only reasonable way out of this is an attitude change.

How would the pollution generated by each individual be quantified? Even if a scale for quantification and/or cost per pollution decided, would the intent of the State be to deterr people from generating more pollutants or profitting from pollution generated, in essence not enforcing mechanisms that reduce enviromental pollution for instance.

Thanks for sharing. YES, there should be some toll levied on such activities producing litters in a community. of course, it should be somehow formulized correctly for better performance. 

Dear Prabhat and friends, a positive comment here hopefully to give you some food for thoughts and something to think about it.....

a) The world of the traditional market

Under the traditional market(TM), the pricing mechanims left out the environmental margin or green margin(EM) that would have been used to deal with the environmental issues created by the market, but Adam Smith assumed it to be zero as it made environmental issues exogenoust issues....so the pricing mechanism of the traditionaL market(TM) is simply the for profit margin(P) , the traditional price(TMP) reflecting only economic costs  of production(ECM) at  a profit:(i):

TMP = P = ECM + i 

So here there is no incentive for producers and consumers to care about the environmental cost they create....leading to lower production and consumption prices as they do not have to account for the environmental cost of production and consumption.....emiters will emit as long as they can profift from it espcially if they can  have others to clean up instead of moving to lower carbon content production methods or technologies....traditional market ssend over production and over consumption signals to producers and consumers as polluting is free....a nice windfall...this is the world of Adam Smith which ended with the 2012 paradigm shift to green markets, green growth, green economies....

b) the world of green markets

Under green markets(GM), the pricing mechanims internalizes an environmental margin or green margin(EM) to be used to deal with the environmental issues created by market as now environmental issues are endogenous issues....so the pricing mechanims of green markets(GM) is now the for profit price(P) plus the environmental margin(EM), the green market price(GP) reflecting the economic cost of production(ECM) and the environmental cost of production(EM) at a profit(i):

GM = TMP + EM = P + EM = ECM + EM + i

So here there is a strong incentive for producers and consumers to care about the environmental cost they create...leading to higher production prcies as they now account for the environmental cost of production and consumption...emiters will now have an incentive to pollute less as by polluting less they have a lower environemtal margin and therefore can produced at lower prices to meet the demand of green consumers demanding low carbon based products....Green markets send environmentally friendly production and consumption signals to producers and consumers as polluting is no longer free....This is the world of green markets....

c) The world of dwarf green markets

As you may know all countries signature of the 2015 Paris agreement are now implementing dwarf green markets like carbon pricing or cap and trade or voluntariy compliance or environmental externality management frameworks...all of them non-green market tools being used to deal with green market issues....for example, the proper and scientific way to support and implement the climate change action is green markets...a science based market supporting a science based climate change action....but instead they are using non green market based tools to deal with green market problems...a scientific inconsistency....Dwarf green market send non-green market signals to producers and consumers distorting the market even more as they are treating an environmental distortion  embedded in Adam Smith's model as an environmental externality led market failure.....instead of correcting the distortion by using green market prices and internalizing the environmental cost once and for all.....

d) Under green markets we would not need to worry about your question as the pricing mechanism would make beneficial for both producers and consumers to pollute less and less...Under dwarf green markets or those who may want to continue living in the past under the traditional market....then you question is more relevant....

Hope you and friends find these comments interesting.....

Have a nice day

You may find the following papers interesting....

Is Environmental Externality Management a Correction of Adam Smith’s Model to Make It Environmentally Friendly and Shift it Towards Green Markets or Is It a Distortion on Top of Another Distortion?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309463581_Is_Environmental_Externality_Management_a_Correction_of_Adam_Smith%27s_Model_to_Make_It_Environmentally_Friendly_and_Shift_it_Towards_Green_Markets_or_Is_It_a_Distortion_on_Top_of_Another_Distortion

Perfect Green Markets vrs Dwarf Green Markets: Did We Start Trying to Solve the Environmental Crisis in 2012 With the Wrong Green Foot? If Yes, How Can This Situation Be Corrected?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305067067_Perfect_Green_Markets_vrs_Dwarf_Green_Markets_Did_We_Start_Trying_to_Solve_the_Environmental_Crisis_in_2012_With_the_Wrong_Green_Foot_If_Yes_How_Can_This_Situation_Be_Corrected

Beyond Traditional Market Thinking: What is the Structure of the Perfect Green market?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302025169_Beyond_Traditional_Market_Thinking_What_is_the_Structure_of_the_Perfect_Green_market

Article Is Environmental Externality Management a Correction of Adam...

Article Perfect Green Markets vrs Dwarf Green Markets: Did We Start ...

Article Beyond Traditional Market Thinking: What is the Structure of...

Clean air is essential to good health and a basic human need. European Union law has recognized this need and given legal protection to it through directives and court judgments.

A series of European Union directives have imposed progressively more stringent limits on levels of harmful air pollution in ambient (outdoor) air.

These limits are known as “limit values”, and the European Court of Justice has long held that limit values have particular legal consequences: where limit values are breached, concerned individuals and groups have the right to go before national courts to demand that action is taken. In this sense European Union citizens have a legal right to clean air. However, for most people in the European Union this right exists only on the pages of legal textbooks. Air pollution has a major impact on human health.

The government in conjuction with the EPA should embark on massive awareness campaign to inform and sensitize the people about the consequences of their actions. You cannot begin to sanction them on age long traditions such as celebrating a religious festival. I am of the opinion that if they understand the health implications on the present and future generations, they will begin to modify their behaviour. Thereafter, sanctions can then be imposed.

Hi,

I think that those who cause the pollution should pay for purifying the air.These bodies are causing health problems for the population and it is their duty to improve the situation.

I thank all the contributors to this question. @Aristidis Matsoukis has suggested to plan before the implementation of such laws. @ Aparna Murthy and @ Pierlorenzo Brignoli have replied that such laws are available in Canada and Europe. @ James A Green wrote about the fraud by companies emitting CO2 in USA. @ Pierolorenzo Brignoli responded that people making large pollution are influential which turns laws ineffective. @Arturo Geigel has remarked to put taxes and charges for polluting the environment. All this shows their sentiments and sensitivity towards the issues of clean environment and justice with non/less polluters.

I like comments by @ Kiran Grover that pollution damages natural beauty on the earth. Yesterday when i was returning back to my home, I passed by a small river which was turned black due to contamination of water and soil. I have grown in a village nearby a river. I have seen the beauty of rivers. I have heard the sounds of its flow in nights. I think, not only beauty is damaged, but a large number of creatures living in the rivers are affected. People living nearby rivers are affected. The harm done to the environment seems non-revertible.

I like the suggestions by @ Rudolf Ritt, that

"the costs of an article must include the costs for disposal and pollution of air and water"

which seems feasible as it is hard to keep records of every and each person as compared to manufacturers. Indirectly people buying articles like crackers, will have to pay.

@ Tina Linhard has suggested to levy high environment taxes, but providing relief to less-polluters.

The environment must us be worth to conservate it, each single person and each single nation, the whole world. And "worth" means money. What do you think will be more effective, to conduct the development of our environment over the money, over the comprehension of the people, or over prohibitions?

Dear Prabhat, hope you read my comment:

"the costs of an article must include the costs for disposal and pollution of air and water", this is a type of green pricing....P = ECM + EM + i

the economic and environmental cost are reflected in the pricing mechanism...

Have a nice day.

I agree with the opinion of Angelo Mark Walag.  Environmental harm fees/taxes should be strictly imposed so that industries/companies would make an effort to reduce the wastes they produce.

@ Lucio Munoz: Yes Sir, I have read your comments which suggests right that 'Green  Price' be in effect at the place of Market Price. The consumers buying and using the articles should have to pay. I think that governments should be strict on such prices and all such companies and industries be in its circle. If only some companies add such prices by their own will, their effective price will be more. Governments plans of execution is necessary.

As some of our colleagues in this discussion, have already described that influential industrialists are breaking the rules (@ James A Green).

I see that there are rules for green pricing/ green productions in some countries, but they are not so effective, as should be expected. Where in some countries, there are no such rules.

Therefore, there is a need to 1. suggest governments (where such rules are not available) to bring such laws and rules, 2. suggest governments (where such rules are available) to strict the administration to make people/companies to follow it.

This all is for a better tomorrow.

I thank all the contributors to this discussion including @ Florian Glodeanu and @ Kiruthikamani Govardhanaraj. I support the view by@  Kiruthikamani Govardhanaraj:

"But some Factories find it more conducive to pay the fine rather than take expensive corrective measures."

@ Florian Glodeanu states the same that all people do not wish to go with legality.

I respect the views and information shared by @ Michael Lersaw that we try to balance our needs also and pay surplus on our use of polluting materials.

Dear all

Discharge Permit Warrant, in international custom every country has its Discharge Permit System that will permit industrial discharges in total quantity which can be controlled.

That means someone can discharge legally, so the pay is not need.

Why？？？？？

Good day Prabhat and friends good discussion:

Just to call to your attention that under green market pricing this would not happened:

"But some Factories find it more conducive to pay the fine rather than take expensive corrective measures."

This only happened in the traditional market and in those dwarf green markets like environmental externailty management and in this case these factories are acting as rational decision makers are expected to act....paying the fine allows them to make more money and therefore under those conditions dealing with the environmental externality by paying a fine as a good business decision....No business incentive to change behaviour

Under green market prices the higher the externality they create the higher their prices so now a ration decision maker will have an incentive to produce at lower environmental externality leves to be able to sell at lower prices to meet the demand of green consumers demanding less and less carbon/externality content goods and services.....strrong business incentive to change behaviour.....implementation could have been done at the 2015 paris agreement level and UN Rio plus 20 level.....using voluntary and/or regulatory mechanism and positive and negative incentives....low carbon/pllution producers would find an incentive to go less to minimum carbon voluntariy.....heavycarbon/pollution producers would need to be regulated to go low to minimum carbon...detailed ideas are in my paper....

Have a nice day

Dear Brenda, good day.  A comment here to give you some food for thoughts the "polluter pays principle".......

That is the point, under the traditional market or environmental externality management frameworks like carbon pricing you need "polluter pays" principles for both producers and consumers to push them to be environmentally friendly and minimize the environmental externality windfall they are enjoying...by making pulluting not fully free...

Under green markets you do not need polluter pay principles or green taxes as the environmental externality cost is reflected in the pricing mechanism of green markets.. which makes producing a the lowest pollution/carbon level attractive to green producers so they can meet the green demand for lower and lower carbon/pollution content goods and services.....Polluter pays principle is not a green market tool, it is a dwarf green market tool....

Have a nice day

Certainly they should.

@ Chun Liu and @ Aparna Murthy: It is assumed that the nature will recycle the waste. But it is limited to biotic wastes. It is not for plastics and heavy metals. It is duty of industries that their disposal would be safe to the environment. I appreciate your views.

Thank you @ Brenda Jacono and Lucio Munoz for their comments.

We have in Lithuania "Polluter pay" approach. This approach applies for wide area of pollutions.

Yes, I beleive there should be a tax associated with the emission of contaminants, and a tax that should be a deterrent (for example the tax on CO2 is clearly too low to move towards a decarbonized society). And we can continue with so many other things (transport: more stringent requirements on maritime fuels and private transport) requirements that should enforced more seriously than they are.

India has tried to make environmental rules against polluters and suggestions were sought by Ministry of Environment, but it was unpleasant that it was found copied from US laws, as found by Jay Mazoomdar and published in 'Indian Express' on July 8th, 2016.

I think that a government and a nation should search its own problems. If we are not searching our own weaknesses, how our problems will be solved.

http://www.ecologise.in/2016/07/08/environment-ministrys-rules-for-polluters-in-india-copied-word-for-word-from-the-us/

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/environment-ministrys-rules-for-polluters-in-india-copied-word-for-word-from-the-us-2900485/

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/080716/more-than-70-of-indian-environment-ministrys-rules-for-polluters-copied-from-us.html

Existing Collective fine system should also take the above into consideration for the resources used and discharged.

http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/water%20pollution%20in%20india.pdf

Dear Prabhat,

Lots of ways are available for the government to direct "green" behavior. For example, in the automobile sector car taxation may be staggered according to the car's emissions. The government may support buying of environmental friendly cars by businesses through accelerated depreciation available under tax law. Finally, it may even restrict registration of vehicles which are not in line with environmental standards. I think, that a similar system could be implemented for heating and other energy systems in use by the general public.

Paul

Have anybody noticed, in India during winter, people often burn wastes/ dry leaves etc to clean their surroundings and knowingly/unknowingly contribute to air pollution?

Dear Prabhat and Dear all

Should people pay for pollutions imparted by them?

I think it is not a problem about money.

First discharging pollution impacted environment violates environmental law.it must be punished by law.

Second if a river or lake is polluted, the problem can’t be deal with for more than 10-20 years.

We have number of sources which contaminate the atmosphere such as gases released from various industries, dump municipal waste, defective drainage system, increasing number of vehicles and many many vehicles release very high particulate materials and toxic gases and many more.... With compare to all these , as pointed out, the release of gases on our religious function Dipawali ( one day in a year only)  is negligible. However mass aware ness is must.

@ Virendra Kumar Saxena: The problem is not only source of pollutants, but effect of pollution also. I think that people making more pollution, should be charged accordingly. If a person travels by a bicycle, the society should honour him/her.

50 years before, the problem of pollution was not discussed. But human is playing very large role in ecosystem now; and there is no/less arrangements of recycling of resources and pollution.

Even ground water in India is being polluted. What a common man in India will do? As all people in India are not capable of buying water purifiers and medicines for the diseases which are caused by such pollution.

environmental pollution control board are functioning in India and taking care. Government of India / pollution control Board / media/ may be approached for any suggestions.  It is better to contact directly instead of choosing Research gate.

Good day Virendra, such boards would not exist or would have a totally different roles if we are in green markets as green markets are at total environnental fix....

 Now if the goal is to continue living in a patched traditional market from now and on and for ever then such boards as well as green taxes and polluter pay principles and environmental externality frameworks are a must...

Did we shift to green markets in 2012 ratified in 2015 and signed 2016 to patched Adam Smith's model or to fix it?....that is a key question related to this discussion....

The experts at the environmental board of India should advice their policy makers on the important need to enact Laws/any appropriate Legislation that would compel polluters of the environment to be paying  polluter  chargers(pay as you pollute) so that the money generated would be used in planting of  trees to sequester all the air pollutant in their environment.

The Laws to be enacted should also make it mandatory the creation of Buffer zones between Industrial and Residential layouts so that all the pollutant generated from industrial layout would be sequester by the different plantations in the buffer zone so as to have healthy environment (that its air, water and soil are not polluted).

Individual households should also be encourage to be using alternative sources of energy  in  their domestic activities that  are environmentally friendly.The government of India can help subsidize the rate of alternative sources of energy.   

Some has said that  "people are the potential victims of their environment. 

To reduce the risk of being a victim we need two things:

1. Measures to protect the environment. People should avoid, to the best, adding damaging agents to the environment. If they do so, they need to share the cost of removal of such damaging agents.

2. We need to protect ourselves from harmful contents in the environment

Dear Prabhat Ranjan

Good reflections. I also feel companies should pay in advance for the clean up of space - these are common to us all - but only a few are using it and leaving loads of debris in space which will be almost impossible to clean (like Governments and high tech companies). If they have to pay to cover insurance for cleaning it when their accessories are obsolete, they will think of another better more environment technology from the start. Look at plastics, if the price of cleaning the sea and the landfills had been included from the start, maybe we would have invented biodegradable plastics from the word go.

KInd regards Tina