[ShocknAwe]

I don't usually start Universal Forums or General Automotives threads, but I thought this article was interesting, and possibly among the first I've seen someone writing to compare other transportation emissions to that of petrol ICE. It's just one article, and that with unposted references, but food for thought given the general direction of automotive marketing in the last few years.

So what do my fellow petrolheads think?

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/ou...ts-107763.html

[GuidoK]

Ok as a former advisor in a few hearings from the Council of State on the subject of air pollution (both in a technical and judicial matter) I can tell you that the following quote of your link is absolutely not true:
" And in many ways, this is what most of Europe's environmental laws have been doing in the last couple of decades. By basing the legislation mainly on CO2 emissions..."

This guy absolutely doesnt know what he's talking about. Also his conclusion:
"Europe has in fact forced most carmakers to promote diesel cars, while also starting an entire market trend."

He absolutely doesnt realise that diesel cars where already popular way before that. A very ignorant person probably peeping through a telescope from across the ocean and never have really lived in europe....

Whether cars are too much taxed or regulated for the amount of pollution they create is another debate but that guy has absolutely no knowledge of air pollution.
I mean it is known that ships have a fairly high emission of NOx because of their fuel but as a transportation method their carbon footprint is by far the lowest. He clearly also doesnt know that most of that NOx is emitted at sea, far away from humans. And he doesnt know that NOx will react with O3 (ozone, created in the lower atmosphere by UV rays ) mostly to nitrogen and oxygen. It's the inbetween stage: NO2 that is mainly harmful. But that all happens at sea. CO2 doesnt fall apart. It stays as a global warming gas.
He also doenst know that when large ships from open sea port a harbour, they have to switch to a different fuel to reduce air pollution, besides giving less NOx mainly to reduce sulphurdioxide (that he also describes). Again sulphurdioxide is very bad for your health, but that quickly dissolves into the moisture in the air, creating acid rain. As acid rain and concentrations SO2 arent really a problem in europe I dont see the point. (they have to use low sulphur fuel in ports to prevent local SO2 pollution)

So I can go on and on....
He has a layman's view, looking at emissions of single things without looking at concentrations in the air (geographically, where there might be an exeedance of the legal set limits) and where that concentration is mainly coming from...
I could go into detail but that would be quoting thousends of pages of legal rules and procedures and technical pages, equations etc from air dispersion models.....

I also dont think he knows what the real technical background of dieselgate was or how pollution in an ICE really works.
The only thing he basically got right (maybe by quoting) is that a diesel car generally emits more NOx (maybe 20-50%, but that can vary pretty much depending on tech) and emits less CO2 (about 25%)
So it's either more air pollution (CO2 technically isnt an air polluting gas) or more global warming.
In area's where there's a lot of smog the first aspect might seem more important, and in other area's the latter one (especially if you have a large population near the sea....)
Also the more power you get from a car with a certain fuel efficiency, the more NOx you create. A lot of modern cars emit more NOx than old ones. It has to do with the efficiency of the burning process. NOx arises at high temperatures, so with efficient high compression (or turbo) high power engines. An M4 might be worse than a corvette. That is probably also a reason that many US models (of european cars) have less power. Different engine management and different exhaust system.

As for restrictive regulation on cars..... Cars in the US are so cheap (as is gas, insurance etc etc)...you guys shouldnt complain.

[Nitrousbird]

Livestock causes more air pollution than all forms of ICE transportation combined.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Nitrousbird

Livestock causes more air pollution than all forms of ICE transportation combined.

And humans. The EPA classified CO2 as a pollutant in 2010. We all exhale at some point or another...

The trees would beg to differ however.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

And humans. The EPA classified CO2 as a pollutant in 2010. We all exhale at some point or another...

The trees would beg to differ however.

Wow, you must be a sighanntis or something.

[David70]

I disagree with the article and have never understood the logic of "we shouldn't have to do 'X' because this other group is worse than we are", especially when the facts presented are so limited.

Well, I'm not necessarily talking about livestock here, although factory farming apparently accounts for almost 40 percent of CH4 methane emissions, which is about 20 times more potent than CO2 in creating global warming.

So based on this we shouldn't try to limit the CO2 caused by other factors? Not following.

[ShocknAwe]

Interesting to read the responses.

I didn't take it so much as the author was saying that petrol emissions shouldn't be restricted, but rather that it isn't necessarily reasonable to be placing all the blame on cars while allowing various other forms to go virtually unchecked.

This limits our fun while still making, possibly insignificant changes.

[David70]

Originally Posted by ShocknAwe

Interesting to read the responses.

I didn't take it so much as the author was saying that petrol emissions shouldn't be restricted, but rather that it isn't necessarily reasonable to be placing all the blame on cars while allowing various other forms to go virtually unchecked.

This limits our fun while still making, possibly insignificant changes.

They don't get all of the blame, heavy trucks have stricter requirements, power plants continue to face higher standards, chemical plants, manufacturing plants, etc. I think ships are tough because the are owned outside of the U.S. and don't fall under our control.

What industry or group gets a free pass on pollution controls?

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The EPA classified CO2 as a pollutant in 2010. We all exhale at some point or another...

The trees would beg to differ however.

the terminology of pollutant is pretty stretched here. It's not harmful to humans (not in this concentration), and trees really seem to love it.
It has effects on the climate but is that the definition of a pollutant.
The only way imho it could be concidered a pollutant, is that in theory the co2 concentration in the air can effect the acidity of water at the surface level (co2 partly dissolves in water and creates carbonic acid, like soda pops.
And some studies show that that for example effects life on the great barrier reef. But if I fart, you can probably figure out a study too that shows that that effects life on the great barrier reef....

Originally Posted by David70

So based on this we shouldn't try to limit the CO2 caused by other factors? Not following.

Methane is about 30 times as potent in global warming, but the concentration methane in the air is about 300 times as low as CO2 so its part in contribution is still lower by 10 fold. But I think the increase in methane is percentage wise bigger than the co2 increase (in the last centuries)


But imho global warming is mostly harmful for us. It's our problem because waterlevels can rise and the human polulation lives mostly near the see, we exploit intesive agriculture which -when climate change- has to be adjusted either geographically or in application.
The planet and nature are imho unaffected, plants and animals will migrate with the shift in climate.
There is a really (scientifically) interesting BBC documentary series called "Earth story" (it looks a bit dated, 1998) where the funcioning of the planet and its climate is explained, with examples through the ages. So how the carbon cycle works (a recycle of carbon over millions of years), how much carbon there is and where its stored and how it has fluctuated in the atmosphere over the millions of years.
That puts what we humans do nicely into perspective (this is a documentary made before the climate hype so unaffected by any political agenda on that). Humans (human behaviour) are now probably the largest source of putting CO2 into the air, but the total amount of carbon stored in fossil fuels is less than 1/1000 of a percent.
Most of it is in limestone.
There is about 5 times as much carbon in fossil fuels as there is currently in the atmosphere so it's imho unlikely that we can put so much CO2 into the atmosphere that this becomes an unliveable planet like mars or venus. It's mainly bad for the way how we live and where we live.
So not bad for 'the enviroment' but bad for 'our enviroment'.
So if you want to know how our planet works, how climate is regulated and how it connects to the tectonic plates, vulcano's, the carbon cycle etc, go watch that documentary (its a series of multiple parts). Then you can make an educated guess how infuential our part can be in the full scope of things (what this planet has seen)

[ShocknAwe]

Originally Posted by David70

They don't get all of the blame, heavy trucks have stricter requirements, power plants continue to face higher standards, chemical plants, manufacturing plants, etc. I think ships are tough because the are owned outside of the U.S. and don't fall under our control.

What industry or group gets a free pass on pollution controls?

Can't say for sure how much of a pass is a free pass. Not going to pretend to be a pro on emissions regulation, levels, or testing.

All forms of watercraft, rail and air, farming is laughably unchecked in the southern US. Trains that operate the heavy rail around here are absolutely disgusting. Heavy ships are tough, but they have to play ball for docking privileges right? Then again, $$$ talks.

Also, just because some regulations have to be met, doesn't mean they are being held to an appropriate standard. There's no way it's equal across the board, or even more stringently targeting heavier players. But again I'm not a pro and not going to pretend to know specifics about this. Just thought the article had some good points.



On another note, anyone been to Cuba? Roads there are awesome with all the old cars.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by ShocknAwe

On another note, anyone been to Cuba? Roads there are awesome with all the old cars.

Same old cars that we in europe are pretty much forbidden to drive anymore. Pre 1992 petrol cars and pre 2001 diesel cars get banned from a lot of major cities with computercontrolled camera's everywhere. If they spot your numberplate entering the city, you'll automatically be fined. Thats how far things have come, also for enthousiasts that have an oldtimer and maybe drive a few 100 miles/year.... go figure.

[ShocknAwe]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Same old cars that we in europe are pretty much forbidden to drive anymore. Pre 1992 petrol cars and pre 2001 diesel cars get banned from a lot of major cities with computercontrolled camera's everywhere. If they spot your numberplate entering the city, you'll automatically be fined. Thats how far things have come, also for enthousiasts that have an oldtimer and maybe drive a few 100 miles/year.... go figure.

Any way to get a pre 1992 petrol car authorized?

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by ShocknAwe

Any way to get a pre 1992 petrol car authorized?

Yes you can but even that varies from city to city. It's either about $30 a day with a max of 12 days a year (for one particular city, every city that has this enviromental zone has its own policy (in the netherlands, in germany its again another story etc), or you can apply for a more permanent authorization. But that is only possible if you had the car in your posession for quite some time and that you need it for a special purpose (medically, with adaptations that have cost a certain amount of money), or for your business like an ice cream truck). stuff like that. It goes really far.
However they do have a dismantle subsidization, where you can get between $1k and 2.5K for your old vehicle so you can look for a more suitable car (only for inhabitants that had their car for some time).
You get the idea, difficult, strickt expensive and varying from city to city.
If you visit, you have to pay.
but I know again from one city if you have a car over 40 years old you are exempt (those are of course the real classics, but a car like an e30 m3, imho also a true classic doesnt apply). But his varies from city to city or country to country.

IT's an impossible situation. I think germany is more standardized in this than the Netherlands, but germany has had these rules for quite some time now, 10 years or so for quite a lot of big cities (Netherlands has 13 cities with emission zones, some only appying for trucks). You might have seen the green/yellow/orange dot stickers (about 3" big) on front windscreens of german cars.
I dont know if countries like france or italy (or maybe scandinavian countries) have these rules.
I know London has low emission zones but I dont know the financial details etc. I dont think I've seen it anywhere else in the UK.

BTW all these zones are not based on CO2 emissions (and the authorization stickers on the cars arent either), they are based on NOx emissions, fine particle emissions (PM10 or PM2.5) and CO / HC emissions (the last 2 mainly for petrolcars from the pre cat era)

[yousefnjr]

Take the cars, but leave the steaks alone or its war

[GuidoK]

I wouldnt be surprised if they'd plan to ban the barbecue due to emissions.
They have somewhat tried that with woodburning stoves where I live (they're a bit of a livingroom trend right now where I live).
as of '22 there will probably be regulations for woodstoves with families. For companies there already is.

[Efthreeoh]

The World is going to die anyway, so who gives a shit?

[RM7]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

I wouldnt be surprised if they'd plan to ban the barbecue due to emissions.
They have somewhat tried that with woodburning stoves where I live (they're a bit of a livingroom trend right now where I live).
as of '22 there will probably be regulations for woodstoves with families. For companies there already is.

They have some pretty serious wood-burning restrictions in Fairbanks, AK, in the winter, because the air quality gets so bad in that valley with no airflow. Cold air just settles there and the nasty stuff just piles up, so much so that it can impact your health.

[GuidoK]

^ I can understand that, but I live in a country famous for its windmills...
Where there's windmills theres....

Thats also the problem for a lot of cities in california (and other cities like mexico city, beijing etc) large cities, lots of traffic and little wind. So no dispersion of pollutants.
The US probably has one of the oldest air pollution restrictions/regulations in the world (I think dating back to '72 or so), because some US cities where the first to experience smog.