Arguments FOR EVs (Can EVs help solve India’s pollution problems?

)
Air Pollution Reduction
 Zero tailpipe emissions: EVs produce no exhaust. In polluted cities like Delhi and
Mumbai – where road transport is one of the largest sources of particulate and NOx
pollution – replacing ICE vehicles with electric drivetrains can dramatically cut local
smog. Studies show vehicles contribute ~27% of India’s total air pollution (linked to
~1.2 million deaths/year); EV adoption would remove that tailpipe share, significantly
improving urban air quality.
 Mass uptake impact: Even partial EV uptake yields major gains. For example,
electrifying all ride-hailing cars (Uber/Ola) in Delhi (≈23,000 vehicles) would eliminate
about 180 tonnes of NOx and 0.14 tonnes of PM2.5 annually, noticeably reducing
health-hazardous emissions in India’s capital. This demonstrates that scaling EV
fleets can yield measurable air quality benefits, even on India’s coal-heavy grid
(notwithstanding its ~74% coal generation).
 Biofuel and open burning synergy: By shifting urban vehicles to electric, EVs allow
policy focus on other sources. With cleaner city air from EVs, governments and
citizens can tackle crop-burning and biomass cookstoves more aggressively. In
effect, EVs solve one major sector (transport), enabling resources to fix remaining
sources. This multipronged approach can collectively cut India’s very high PM2.5
levels; EVs bear the brunt of road pollutants. (No direct source).
 High efficiency & lower energy use: EVs are far more energy-efficient than ICEs.
An EV converts ~60% of grid electricity into wheel power, versus only ~17–21%
efficiency for petrol cars. This means less energy is burned per km. In practice,
running EVs is much cheaper: in Delhi a petrol scooter costs ~₹2/km in fuel vs only
~₹0.52/km for an electric scooter, so consumers and fleets save energy and
emissions. Lower energy demand helps overall pollution even if some power is fossil-
based.

 CO₂ and oil import reduction: EVs cut greenhouse gases and fuel imports. India is
the world’s 3rd-largest oil importer; electrifying transport can sharply reduce
petroleum usage. Less gasoline/diesel demand means fewer refinery emissions and
a smaller carbon footprint nationally. Environmentality analysts note EVs reduce
carbon emissions as well as local pollutants. Over time (especially as renewables
grow) EVs will significantly lower India’s CO₂ from transport.
 Co-benefit for public health: By cleaning air and reducing noise, EVs improve
overall health. Chronic pollution causes asthma, heart disease etc. Health gains from
EV-led cleaner air translate into productivity and lower healthcare burdens. For
example, quieter streets (see below) reduce stress and hypertension. Although hard
to quantify here, these co-benefits amplify the value of EVs beyond tailpipe emission
cuts.
Noise Pollution Reduction
 Quieter urban environments: EVs lack engine noise and gear whine. In India, five
cities (Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Bangalore, Kolkata) rank among the world’s
noisiest; EVs can ease this by eliminating a major source of traffic noise. Indian
urban planners are already leveraging this – redesigning public spaces with more
greenery since electric vehicles make ambient noise levels much lower. Reduced
 engine roar and vibrations lead to calmer streetscapes, encouraging outdoor cafes
and pedestrian zones (since noise no longer drowns out conversation).
 Human health & wildlife: Less traffic noise has clear benefits. Studies cited by the
Economic Times note that high noise levels promote stress, hypertension and heart
issues. Quieter EVs therefore directly improve public health. They also protect urban
wildlife: city birds and animals rely on sound for communication, and research shows
that excessive traffic noise disrupts their behavior. By cutting mechanical noise, EVs
help preserve biodiversity and create healthier city ecosystems.
 Safety considerations: While EVs are quieter, manufacturers now fit them with
warning sounds at low speeds. This actually increases pedestrian safety (horns and
sirens stand out more). In short, EVs eliminate harmful engine noise without
compromising safety, making cities both safer and more tranquil.
Water Pollution Reduction
 No oil/fuel runoff: Conventional vehicles constantly drip or spill oil and fuel onto
roads, which runoff into waterways. One review notes that land-based petroleum
pollution (drips, spills, leaking fuel additives) contributes “more than five times the
Exxon Valdez spill” worth of oil into oceans annually. EVs have no liquid fuel, so they
eliminate these chronic leaks. In practical terms, electrification prevents residual
oil/antifreeze from washing into rivers and lakes, reducing toxic contamination.
 Reduced chemical wastes: EVs also avoid spills of engine coolants and lubricants.
For example, old petrol/diesel engines leak coolants and engine oil at garages and
roadsides; EV drivetrains require far fewer fluids. By displacing ICE vehicles, EVs cut
these sources of waterborne hydrocarbons and heavy metals (like lead and zinc from
radiator coolant). The net result is cleaner runoff and groundwater.
 Enabling cleaner industry: With EVs taking the lead in transport, government and
industry can focus on water-intensive sectors (textiles, tanneries, mining) for
remediation. Again, EVs solve transport pollution, freeing up effort for other water
issues (no direct citation, but follows logic).
Land and Soil Impact
 Less soil contamination from fuels: EVs use no gasoline or diesel on-site, so there
is no risk of underground fuel-tank leaks (a known soil contaminant) at petrol
stations. Widespread electrification means fewer buried tanks and pipelines,
preventing long-term soil pollution from oil seepage (a major legacy pollutant).
 Battery recycling as opportunity: EV batteries, though heavy, can be recycled.
Advances in recycling technology (as noted by CSTEP) could recover ~90% of
battery materials. A robust recycling industry would make batteries more of a closed-
loop resource, dramatically reducing the need to mine new minerals and sparing land
from quarrying. In the for view, EV adoption drives demand for recycling solutions,
turning a liability (spent batteries) into an industry that cleans up mining’s damage.
Policy, Programs and Targets
 Strong government support: The Indian government has committed massive funds
to EVs. For example, the FAME-II scheme earmarked ₹10,000 crore (2019–22) to
subsidize millions of EVs (7000 e-buses, 550k e-3Ws, 55k e-cars, 1,000k e-2Ws).
Such unprecedented incentives signal a national strategy: electrical mobility is a
 priority for pollution control and energy security. This concentrated push accelerates
the transition far faster than market forces alone, enabling quicker reductions in
urban emissions.
 State policies and adoption: Over 30 Indian states/UTs now have EV policies
tailored to local needs. The results are visible: Delhi (11.5% EV penetration FY24),
Kerala (11.1%), Assam (10%), Karnataka (9.9%). Cities with strong incentives – free
registration, tax breaks, charging subsidies (e.g. Kerala) – see rapid uptake. In
Delhi’s case, EV three-wheelers now dominate that segment (86% of passenger 3Ws
are electric). These local successes demonstrate that with supportive policy, EVs can
quickly displace polluting vehicles at scale.
 Public transport electrification: The government’s PM-Electric Bus (PM e-Drive)
scheme is deploying 14,028 electric buses (₹10,900 cr budget) in 68 cities. For
example, Bengaluru will get 4,500 new e-buses and Delhi 2,800. Shifting bus fleets
to electric cuts enormous diesel emissions – a single e-bus replaces dozens of diesel
buses. In urban corridors, this will yield immediate air quality gains. Such large-scale
public transport EV programs ensure the heaviest vehicle polluters (city buses)
become clean-electric.
 Long-term targets: India has set ambitious EV goals to 2030. While Delhi missed its
2023 “25% new EV” target, the overall national plan (NEMMP) envisions 30% of
vehicles on road being electric by 2030. Even if interim goals are lagging, the
commitment drives sustained policy and infrastructure building (charging networks,
battery factories, R&D). In sum, India’s legal and fiscal frameworks create a
supportive environment where EVs can realistically reduce nationwide pollution over
the next decade.
Infrastructure and Grid Synergies
 Expanding charging network: India’s public charging infrastructure is growing
rapidly. By early 2024 there were ~12,146 public chargers nationwide (up from only
~500 in 2015). States like Karnataka lead with ~5,765 chargers (about 23% of India’s
total). Highway corridors are being equipped with fast-charging hubs (under PM-
eVIVE) and many apartment complexes now install chargers. As this network
densifies, EV range anxiety falls, making EVs practical for more people. Greater EV
use then amplifies their pollution-reduction impact.
 Smart charging with renewables: EV charging can be managed to maximize clean
energy. Charging an EV during the day (solar peak) yields near-zero emissions;
charging at night on coal plants is less clean. By encouraging daytime or off-peak
charging, utilities can smooth demand and soak up surplus solar/wind power. Over
time, this allows EVs to act as distributed storage, aligning with renewable growth.
For instance, Environmentality notes that if EVs are charged on a cleaner grid mix,
India will achieve much bigger reductions in NOx and PM. This synergy means EVs
incentivize further renewable build-out, compounding environmental benefits.
 Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) potential: Though nascent, V2G technology could let parked
EVs feed power back to the grid during peaks. In future, coordinated EV fleets might
stabilize the grid (e.g. charging while wind is strong, discharging while demand is
high). Such integration reduces the need for peaking power plants and makes all
generation (including renewables) more efficient. In short, EVs can become a flexible
grid asset, turning India’s vast automotive fleet into an ally of clean energy. (No
citation; forward-looking inference.)
Manufacturing, Lifecycle and Disposal
 Local industry growth: The push for EVs is driving domestic manufacturing
(batteries, vehicles, chargers). “Make in India” schemes and PLI (Production Linked
Incentives) programs encourage setting up battery giga-plants and EV assembly
units. A more localized supply chain shortens transport and reduces emissions per
vehicle. India’s growing EV production base also means polluting jobs (like refining
and vehicle servicing) will shift to high-tech green jobs (battery engineers, EV
technicians), improving overall sustainability.
 Lower lifecycle emissions: Modern EVs often have lower total emissions over their
lifetime than ICE cars. Analyses show a mid-sized EV emits ~19 tCO₂ over its life vs
~24 tCO₂ for a comparable ICE car. The extra emissions from battery manufacturing
are “paid back” after several years of driving. As India’s grid cleans up, this break-
even shortens. Crucially, every kWh drawn by an EV is progressively greener as coal
gives way to solar/wind. Even today, many EVs in India are effectively charged with
20–30% renewables on the grid. Over 10–15 years of use, EVs will deliver net CO₂
reductions.
 Battery reuse and recycling: EV batteries need thoughtful end-of-life handling, but
this can be managed. Second-life use (e.g. home solar storage) can extend battery
utility after automotive use. Importantly, firms are developing recycling: up to ~90% of
a battery’s production emissions can be eliminated by recovery and reuse of
materials. India is planning battery recycling infrastructure (e.g. under new e-waste
rules). In the for view, the growth of EVs creates an incentive to build proper
recycling – turning a potential waste problem into a resource loop, reducing future
mining and land pollution.
Socio-Economic Benefits
 Improved health and productivity: Cleaner air and quieter cities translate into
better public health. Fewer respiratory illnesses mean lower healthcare costs and
higher worker productivity. Reduced noise levels also improve mental well-being.
While hard to quantify here, studies globally link cleaner transport to economic
benefits (fewer sick days, higher GDP). In other words, the social returns of EVs (via
health) complement their environmental gains.
 Energy security: EVs make India less dependent on volatile oil markets. Instead of
buying fuel abroad, power comes from domestic coal, gas and rapidly expanding
renewables. This shift saves foreign exchange and reduces vulnerability to oil price
shocks. (India’s import bill has been a drain on the economy.) Over time EVs ease
this external dependence while serving climate goals.
 Equitable mobility: India has millions of two- and three-wheelers – many are
already electrifying (e-rickshaws, e-scooters). EVs can deliver affordable, clean
mobility for rural and urban poor alike. For example, electric two-wheelers drop
operating costs dramatically, freeing low-income earners from expensive fuel bills (as
noted, Rs0.52/km vs Rs2/km). Cleaner e-rickshaws can serve city last-mile transport
without polluting slums with exhaust. While first-wave EVs are often richer-person
vehicles, the for perspective sees potential for EVs (like e-rickshaws and buses) to
benefit the masses most.
Arguments AGAINST EVs (Why EVs alone won’t “solve” India’s pollution)
Air Pollution (Against)
 Shifting pollution to power plants: EVs eliminate exhaust in cities, but don’t
eliminate pollution if electricity is dirty. Over 74% of India’s power currently comes
from coal. Charging EVs on this grid essentially moves emissions from tailpipes to
smokestacks – switching a point-source (city street) pollution to a remote (coal plant)
one. Without rapid decarbonization of the grid, overall NOx, SO₂ and PM may barely
decrease; Environmentality notes that India would need a cleaner energy mix for EVs
to cut particulates substantially. In short, EVs on today’s coal-heavy grid provide only
modest net pollution reductions.
 Non-exhaust emissions dominate: Even with all vehicles electric, most vehicular
PM wouldn’t vanish. In Delhi only ~14% of vehicle PM₁₀ comes from tailpipe; a
whopping ~86% is from brake wear, tire wear and road dust (see chart). EVs drop
the 14% exhaust portion but leave the 86% intact. Heavier EVs/buses could even
increase road-dust (more weight = more resuspension). Thus EVs address only a
fraction of vehicular particulates, meaning city air would still be choked by non-
exhaust PM from tires, brakes and surface dust.
 High-generation emissions: Coal plants (unlike car engines) often lack fine filters.
ICE vehicles in India use Bharat Stage fuel standards that already limit sulfur,
whereas many coal plants emit large SO₂/NOx plumes. By accelerating coal-fired
generation at night to power EVs, sulfur and nitrogen emissions (acid rain
precursors) may actually rise. Urban areas (with scrubbed fuels) see lower SOx; EVs
would simply relocate these pollutants to areas near power stations. In effect, EVs
clean cities and dirty the hinterlands. (No direct source, but consistent with [26] and
[11] logic.)
 Non-transport sources left out: Vehicles contribute only part of India’s pollution.
Crop stubble burning, brick kilns, construction dust, and household biomass stoves
are massive PM sources (e.g. winter smog in northern India is largely from
agriculture and domestic burning). EVs do nothing to address these. So even 100%
electric vehicles would leave India far from “solving” its air pollution – the rest of the
economy would still cloud the skies. EVs can clean transport a lot, but they cannot
eliminate pollution from industry or agriculture. (No direct reference; a contextual
point.)
 Slow adoption of EV vs entrenched ICE: Currently EVs make up a small fraction of
India’s fleet. For example, only ~1.33 million EVs were on Indian roads by mid-2022
(among over 300 million total vehicles). That’s <0.5% of all vehicles. Thus the vast
majority of vehicles still emit normally. Scaling to 30–50% EV penetration will take
years. In the meantime, India’s pollution will largely come from old ICE trucks, buses
and millions of two-wheelers. Until EVs reach critical mass, their pollution impact
remains minor.
Noise Pollution (Against)
 Quieter can be a hazard: EVs are very quiet at low speeds. This has led regulators
to require artificial noise for safety. Even then, EVs still make tire and wind noise at
higher speeds. In essence, EVs only eliminate engine growl. Heavy trucks (still diesel
today) remain noisy. Horns and sirens – key noise sources – persist in dense traffic.
Thus total traffic noise may only decline marginally. Moreover, the silence of EVs can
 paradoxically increase danger to pedestrians (necessitating beeps and alarms). In
practice, EVs do not eliminate urban noise pollution; they only shift the sound profile.
 Infrastructure noise stays: EVs have no effect on other city noise sources (airports,
factories, construction). Focusing on EVs overlooks these sectors. A city might be
quieter in terms of engines, but still loud overall. For example, Delhi’s noise pollution
also comes from train horns, flight paths, and industrial areas – EVs address none of
that. Overall, EVs are not a silver bullet against “all urban noise.”
Water Pollution (Against)
 Battery mining drains water: Extracting lithium (for EV batteries) is extremely
water-intensive. About 2 million liters of water are used per tonne of lithium
extracted (often in already-water-stressed regions). For example, Chile’s Atacama
salt flat uses 65% of its groundwater for lithium mining. Such mining can dry up local
water tables. In India, if lithium or cobalt mining ramps up (even in imports’ origin
countries), it aggravates global water stress. Thus EV growth trades off tailpipe water
cleanliness for potential mining-driven water shortages and pollution (brine
discharge, heavy-metal leaching) elsewhere.
 Toxic mining runoff: Battery metals come with toxic byproducts. Cobalt and nickel
mining produce acid mine drainage containing heavy metals (arsenic, copper, cobalt
etc.) which kill aquatic life and poison groundwater. These contaminants do not exist
for petrol extraction to the same extent. By fueling EVs, we shift to these mining
processes – a net new source of water pollution. Without stringent treatment, nearby
rivers and soil can become contaminated.
 End-of-life battery waste: Huge volumes of spent EV batteries will enter waste
streams. Even if collection starts, recycling facilities are nascent. Improperly
stored/landfilled batteries will corrode, releasing lithium, nickel, cobalt and their salts
into soil and groundwater. The Clean Mobility Shift report warns of “enormous
potential for soil/groundwater contamination” from discarded batteries. Each battery
is essentially a toxic waste dump if not handled. In contrast, old ICE vehicles typically
have fewer heavy metals in their scrap. In sum, a booming EV fleet without reliable
recycling introduces new water pollutants.
Land Pollution and Land Use (Against)
 Mining scars land: Lithium, cobalt, nickel and rare earth extraction for batteries
devastate landscapes. Large open-pit mines and evaporation ponds fragment
habitats. For instance, bauxite and nickel mining in India (for non-EV metals) has
already caused deforestation and topsoil loss. EVs require scaling this up. Much of
the relevant mining is overseas (Congo, Chile, Australia), but environmental damage
is still part of the EV footprint. Ultimately, EVs shift pollution to mining regions,
causing erosion, tailings dams, and toxic mine waste on land.
 Battery dump hazards: Lithium batteries are fire and pollution hazards. If a landfill
gets wet, lithium can ignite, while cobalt/nickel can leach into soil. The Clean Mobility
Shift report notes that batteries reacting with moisture can combust and release toxic
substances into the ground. In an EV boom, regular landfills (or substandard dumps)
would accumulate these batteries, poisoning soils. This land pollution challenge is
unique to EVs; ICE vehicles mostly used benign steel and plastics (except for engine
oils, which are far less hazardous in solid waste).
  Road wear increases dust: Heavier EVs wear out roads faster. One study notes an
extra 100 kg of vehicle weight raises road-dust PM by ~1 μg/m³. Since many electric
buses and trucks weigh much more (battery mass), widespread use could accelerate
road degradation and dust. More potholes mean more brake/tire dust too. In
essence, replacing lighter ICE vehicles with heavier EVs could increase non-exhaust
dust emissions from roads, partly negating tailpipe gains.
Policy and Institutional Challenges (Against)
 Electricity still coal-centric: India’s power mix remains dominated by fossil fuels. In
2023, about 74% of electricity came from coal (down to only ~68% by 2026 per
forecasts). In practice, this means every EV ride is mostly coal-powered. If coal
plants are not equipped with stringent pollution controls, rising coal demand for EV
charging could increase overall particulate and SOx emissions (compared to burning
cleaner petrol fuels in urban vehicles). This undercuts the local air benefits of EVs.
 Partial adoption, uneven distribution: So far, EV growth is very uneven. Leading
states (Delhi, Kerala, Karnataka) have <12% EV share. Most of India – especially
rural areas – still run entirely on ICE. In cities that have EV programs, the pollution
from older vehicles in suburbs or neighboring regions drifts back into the city. Also,
many central policies heavily favor 2Ws/3Ws and buses, but not heavy trucks or
agriculture vehicles. For example, Uttar Pradesh’s EV boom is 81% e-rickshaws
(essentially replacing cycle rickshaws with electric ones, not tackling diesel truck
pollution). Thus, the top polluters (old diesel trucks, farm equipment) continue
emitting unchecked, limiting national gains.
 Subsidy versus public goods: Critics argue huge EV subsidies (e.g. FAME-II’s
₹10,000 cr) may be misallocated. The same funds might have paid for cleaner buses,
metro systems, or rural electrification which would also reduce pollution. There is a
risk that pouring money into EV cars (often luxury vehicles) benefits the affluent more
than the poor (who suffer the most from pollution). In other words, EV policy could
become a costly subsidy rather than a broad cleanup. (No direct citation; an
economic perspective.)
 Infrastructure lags and reliability issues: India’s charging infrastructure is still
limited and uneven. As of Feb 2024 there were ~12,146 public chargers – very few
compared to 330+ million vehicles. A report notes many chargers are unreliable or
underutilized. Power outages and voltage fluctuations are common in parts of India.
Until the grid and charger network are robust, EVs will face practical hurdles. This
means real-world EV adoption might stall at low levels, in which case pollution from
traditional vehicles (the majority) remains unchanged.
 Power demand strain: A mass EV fleet would dramatically increase electricity
demand (estimates of over 100 TWh/year by 2030 for light vehicles alone). Building
this extra capacity has environmental costs. If the answer is more coal plants or gas
peakers, then EVs could paradoxically increase total emissions from power
generation (especially if solar/wind cannot ramp up fast enough). Without careful
planning, EV growth might lead to more fossil capacity and its associated pollution.
Infrastructure and Energy Concerns (Against)
 Electric grid robustness: Many Indian regions still lack reliable 24×7 power. Adding
EV charging on top of existing load could cause brownouts or require curtailing. In
the short term, meeting EV demand might mean dedicating older, dirtier plants to
 base load. Only long-term renewable build can offset this, but in the interim EVs risk
increasing coal burning. In rural or peri-urban areas, the grid may simply not handle a
surge of EVs, limiting their deployment to cities (leaving rural pollution unaddressed).
 Charging accessibility: Most Indians park on-street or in shared lots; home
charging is impractical for many. Public chargers are sparse and unevenly placed
(urban rich areas get chargers first). This gap means an EV driver often can’t easily
refill – leading some to keep a petrol backup. Until charging is ubiquitous, EV owners
will find ways (or be forced) to rely partly on ICE vehicles, muting any large-scale
pollution benefits.
 Opportunity cost of electricity: Electricity devoted to vehicles is not available for
other uses (industry, cooling, pumps). Especially in summer peaks, EV charging
could strain the system, forcing use of diesel generators or interrupting service. In
effect, promoting EVs could divert clean power from other critical needs, indirectly
causing more fuel-generator use elsewhere. This trade-off suggests EVs alone may
not be the most efficient way to cut pollution nationally.
 Marginal benefit per rupee: From a policy viewpoint, the pollution reduction per
investment in EVs might be lower than alternatives. For example, replacing an old
diesel bus with a single EV bus (subsidized by many lakhs) yields less total pollution
cut than, say, converting dozens of two-stroke three-wheelers (low-cost) or upgrading
thousands of diesel trucks to BS-VI standard. Some analysts warn that EV incentives
in India could have less impact on ambient pollution than targeted measures on
super-polluters.
Manufacturing and Disposal (Against)
 High embedded emissions: EVs produce more emissions up front. Life-cycle
studies show roughly 46% of an EV’s emissions occur during manufacturing (vs
~26% for ICE cars). In India’s context (where industry is largely coal-powered),
making batteries and electric motors generates a heavy carbon and pollutant load.
One estimate suggests a small EV generates about 8.8 tCO₂ just to build (vs 5.6 t for
an ICE car). If Indian factories mirror this, each new EV essentially “borrows”
substantial pollution from the atmosphere at birth – pollution that needs years of
driving to offset. In a developing grid, this up-front cost delays net benefits.
 Toxic materials handling: EV batteries contain cobalt, lithium, nickel – all of which
can leach toxic chemicals. Without strong regulations and facilities, mining waste is
often dumped or left unsecured. Reports describe acid-contaminated lakes near
cobalt mines and lithium ponds destroying ecosystems. By fueling the demand for
these metals, India’s EV push indirectly fosters these dangerous practices abroad.
On disposal too, end-of-life batteries risk spills of battery acids and heavy metals
(cobalt, copper) into soil. Compared to ICE vehicles (whose main used fluids were
motor oil and coolant), EV components are more toxic if mishandled.
 Waste volume: By 2030 India could have ~128 GWh of EV batteries to dispose. If
not recycled, that’s millions of tonnes of hazardous waste. Current recycling capacity
is negligible, meaning most used batteries could end up in landfills or informal
dumps. This contrasts with ICE vehicles, whose steel/aluminum bodies and even old
lead-acid batteries have well-established recycling streams. EV waste is chemically
far more dangerous. India’s waste management systems are already strained –
adding this volume of toxic battery trash risks large-scale land and water
contamination.
  Resource depletion & imports: India has few battery minerals. It must import
lithium and cobalt, increasing its ecological footprint overseas (and vulnerability to
supply shocks). This resource dependence means India does not control the
environmental practices of its suppliers. In effect, EVs move pollution outside our
borders (often to fragile environments), rather than eliminate it.
Socio-Economic and Practical Limitations (Against)
 Cost barriers: Despite subsidies, EVs remain expensive. A new electric car or
scooter can cost 20–50% more than a petrol version (before incentives). For many
Indians (especially in rural and lower-income urban groups), this upfront cost is
prohibitive. As a result, EV adoption may remain concentrated among the wealthy,
while the majority continue using older, polluting vehicles. Pollution, therefore, stays
concentrated around vulnerable communities who cannot afford the switch.
 Job and industry shifts: A sudden EV transition would disrupt many livelihoods.
Millions work in the fuel supply chain (refineries, petrol pumps) and ICE vehicle
servicing. If vehicles become electric, many of these jobs may vanish. The new jobs
in EV and batteries may not be in the same regions or accessible to the same
workers. This economic dislocation can create resistance or stall policies. Moreover,
local garages and mechanics may lose business, whereas ICE engine maintenance
(oil changes, tune-ups) declines – potentially exacerbating unemployment.
 Range and practicality: India’s infrastructure (roads, high-speed expressways, long
distances) currently favors gasoline. EVs have limited range and require charging
downtime. In rural districts and highway routes, charging stations are virtually
nonexistent. For long-distance travel (e.g. trucks carrying goods) EV is currently
impractical. In practice, this means goods transport and rural commuters remain on
diesel/petrol, continuing to pollute while cities focus on EVs. Until battery range and
charger networks improve dramatically, the “pollution solution” of EVs is
fundamentally urban.
 Grid reliability risks: In many parts of India, electricity supply is intermittent.
Imagine an EV driver who suddenly has no charge because of a blackout – whereas
a petrol driver can always find fuel at a pump. This reliability gap means EVs may not
be a dependable everyday solution for all Indians, reducing their real-world adoption.
If consumers doubt EVs’ practicality, pollution from ICE vehicles will continue
unabated.
 Short vehicle lifetimes: Indian roads are harsh and the climate can age vehicles
quickly. If EV batteries degrade (especially lithium batteries, which can lose capacity
in heat), EVs may become unreliable after a few years. Replacing batteries or
vehicles frequently raises more waste issues (and cost). This could slow uptake as
consumers fear obsolescence. In contrast, ICE vehicles can often be patched up
cheaply. The prospect of battery failures makes EVs less attractive, limiting their
pollution reduction role.
Conclusion: While EVs bring clear potential gains (zero local emissions, noise reduction,
fuel savings), their ability to solve India’s pollution relies on many caveats. The points above
highlight that without major grid clean-up, recycling infrastructure and equitable policies, EVs
can only tackle part of the problem. India’s pollution stems from diverse sources – not just
cars – and EVs shift pollution rather than eliminate it. A truly comprehensive solution will
require parallel efforts (renewables, public transit, industrial controls, waste management,
etc.) alongside EV adoption.