Unfortunately this is a terrible terrible use of science and data, coupled with near complete absence of any ethical frame in which science is bring deployed (badly) for public policy recommendations. Which therefore results in an opinion, and not anything more evidentiary, that is devoid of policy merit, scientific rigour and moral justification. What it does, among other things, for example, is to recommend by implication that we should reduce focus on curbing toxic and other pollution from motor vehicles! Doing so two years in a row in the same manner, even if partly masked the second time over, makes it irresponsible, if not worse. Why I say it: Because the opinion, 2 yrs in a row, comes riddled with these absurdities: 1. Using biomass burning data from all over country (vast rural geography +dense urban) to distract away from pollution issues of urbanised dense areas such as Delhi or dirt industrial belts. 2. Confusing actual exposure of people to pollutants with ambient levels of pollution. Ex: vehicular exhaust in your face vs biomass smoke dispersed in open vs biomass burn inhouse. 3. Equating luxury emissions of rich to the suvival essential of poor. 4. Confusing action priorities for indoor pollution and health with outdoor pollution. 5. Trying to suggest a strange one country one priority list solution replacement of airshed specific, pocket specific actions based on different pollution exposures and ambient profiles of cities and other contiguous areas. 6. The absolutely wrong anecdote to start with: the racist nomenclature of 'Asian Brown Cloud' for this black carbon aerosol phenomenon, sensationalist scare mongering publicity of interpreted impact was debunked by globally recognized scientists such as J Srinivasan and S Gadgil as exaggerated unproven raising the fact that substantive bits of the cloud was likely natural phenomenon and not human activity induced. Everyone including UNEP piped down on it after. Lots more to read for anyone online. I could go on and on... And I am only a student of environmental policy making, that the author and I studied at the same 'school': Centre for Science and Environment.