1. Lack of political willpower. It is still not considered to be a very high priority thing by those in power, and even the people who live in the region.
2. Again, due to politicians, bureaucracy, and their corruption. Example -
> In two years, Delhi (state govt^) spent Rs 68 lakh on stubble decomposer, Rs 23 crore to advertise it [0]
> ‘No other option’ — as its fields turn black & skies smoky, why Punjab won’t stop burning stubble [1]
[0]: https://www.newslaundry.com/2022/05/11/in-two-years-delhi-go...
[2]: https://theprint.in/agriculture/no-other-option-as-its-field...
^: Not in the original article headline
* yes it's technically a Union Territory but it's functionally a state
Noida, Ghaziabad (UP), Gurugram (Haryana) are a few examples which are highly populated. Noida is slowly growing as UP's manufactoring hub, already being its IT hub. Gurugram is another IT hub.
A lot of this problem is also because of the apathy of the working class who reside in these cities.
We have to learn the art of activism :(
Maybe if the elites start taking their lives more seriously and threaten to move away from these cities we might start seeing some action.
> the kind of person who lives in a Housing Society in Noida, Gurgaon, or Ghaziabad doesn't know or care to partake in Gheraos, Bandhs, or Dharns to push their point through.
That's what I wanted to say with my earlier comment.
Also, what are the downsides to just leaving the stubble on the land?
* working in a study is different from working on every field in the country, and some things are harder to put into practice than other
* some people have the mindset of, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, which is pretty easy to justify given how precarious and time-consuming of a lifestyle farming already is
* in particular, for changes that need capital investment, the precariousness of the field means that it can take time to secure the money to spend on major improvements
This is a weird situation where the interference of the Supreme court feels inappropriate.
For one, the Supreme court has no job interfering in what should be bills and governance related problems. With the Supreme court making it their job, the govts get to raise their hands and shirk responsibility.
Leaving the residue on the field means your soil is protected against erosion and from exposure to the sun. The carbon in the residue isn't relevant but after three years the residue has decayed enough for the trapped nitrogen and phosphorus in the plant to become available to the soil.
[1] https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1588016682060378112.html