I do not believe that the motor vehicle is responsible for as big a proportion of pollution or global warming as the eco-greenies make out.
The web is full of the green lobby. Is there any opposing evidence?
|
Brks
Fact:
modern cars emit a combination of carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas); nitrogen oxides; particulates (small bits of dust and soot); and carbon monoxide.
None of these are particularly good for you, some are more harmful than others, some can cause harm to health, others are believed to cause to the environment (global warming).
Even the oil industry (with the notable exception of esso) belive that emissions are bad for the environment.
Have you considered starting smoking? Apparantly there is a glut of evidence from the health freakery lobby that it isn't too good for you. Mind you, the tobacco industry are adamant that smoking is what real men do and any link to cancer is purely coincidental (with most people irrespective of their genetic makeup, lifestyle, ethnicity etc etc)
Make your own mind up
Regards
Jonathan
|
Goodness is that hoary old global warming myth still alive? Thought it had been debunked as a natural phenomenon ages ago. But then I suppose that cut the beardies' political agenda off at the knees and they couldn't bear to abandon their cherished agendas.
If they had the courage of their convictions they'd be walking (not cycling, that means too much hard breathing and CO2 emissions) and definitely wouldn't be posting on motoring columns.
|
|
Come on G - we've all been round this loop several times before. Not many people deny that the weather is warmer than it used to be, especially those living in S Europe just now. There is good reason to suppose this is partly because carbon is being burnt faster than ever before. But it is impossible to prove direct cause and effect, so (as I have said before) you can believe what you want to believe. If you want or need to drive a car, you won't want to worry about greenhouse gases, at least while driving.
|
|
|
|
I was going to mention this as well but I went to sleep:
tinyurl.com/k3uq
|
|
|
Fact:
modern cars do emit carbon dioxide, but it is unclear whether this has any effect on global warming; they do emit nitrogen oxides but only a tiny proportion of the overall NOx emissions; only diesels emit particulates, and they are getting increasingly better at trapping them (and anyway, do you think diesel cars or diesel buses produce the most particulates?); but no, they do not emit any carbon monoxide any more - that's all caught by the catalysers.
Do try and check the actual facts before posting.
|
Fact: modern cars do emit carbon dioxide, but it is unclear whether this has any effect on global warming; they do emit nitrogen oxides but only a tiny proportion of the overall NOx emissions; only diesels emit particulates, and they are getting increasingly better at trapping them (and anyway, do you think diesel cars or diesel buses produce the most particulates?); but no, they do not emit any carbon monoxide any more - that's all caught by the catalysers. Do try and check the actual facts before posting.
Cry
Thank you for your comments, however you are wrong. I would like to point you in the direction of the following website, where, if you care to check your facts properly, it is quite clear that CO is still emitted from motor vehicles. Catalytic converters cannot capture all CO. www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/Default.htm
If, you still maintain your stance that cars no longer emit CO, could you also explain why it is part of the emissions testing for MOTs?
Could you also explain your statement "they do emit nitrogen oxides, but only a tiny proportion of the overall NOx emissions" nitrogen oxides are NOx. If you mean that the total NOx emissions for UK plc, then you are correct, however, most of the NOx created by industry is not emitted at roadside locations in towns and cities where people breathe it in. This pollutant has known health effects see:
www.doh.gov.uk/comeap/statementsreports/comeapheal...f
What about benzene? Do you have any concerns about breathing in a known carcinogen? see www.scotland.gov.uk/about/ERADEN/ACEU-AQT/00016215...1
Regards
Jonathan
|
Jonathan - this thread is a good example of people tossing contradictory statements at each other, all labelled Fact:. Here is a Fact from me.
Cat converters are designed (among other things) to oxidise to CO² any CO resulting from incomplete combustion in the engine; the MoT test is to check that the converter is doing what it should. My 1993 205 was tested yesterday and recorded 0.00 % CO, so clearly its cat is working, and my car is not adding any (measurable) CO to the atmosphere.
The symbol NOx indicates all oxides of nitrogen, doesn't it? - your sentence confuses me here.
|
Hi Andrew
I thought that people tossing contradictory statements at each other, all labelled fact was called a discussion. :-)
I maintain that nothing in my original post was fiction, everything I said regarding vehicle emissions is correct. However, I will clarify.
>>modern cars emit a combination of carbon dioxide (greenhouse >>gas); nitrogen oxides; particulates (small bits of dust and >>soot); and carbon monoxide.
This is all true, I accept that CO it in the majority of cases converted into CO2, but CC's are not 100% effective and some CO can be emitted from cars as are HCs which are essentially unburned fuel, this is also an undesirable emission, but it does happen. The health threshold for carbon monoxide is relatively low (10ppm). Older cars are the main culprits for this emission.
Carbon dioxide is an asphxyiant
>>None of these are particularly good for you, some are more >>harmful than others, some can cause harm to health, others >>are believed to cause to the environment (global warming).
Breathing in any of the above for a prolonged period of time is likely to lead to health issues.
>>Even the oil industry (with the notable exception of esso) >>belive that emissions are bad for the environment".
This is accepted and most oil companies are trying to address this issue (whether through PR or because they actually believe it, I'm not sure). Esso are the only notable exception.
As you rightly pointed out NOx is shorthand for oxides of nitrogen (or nitrogen oxides). While Nitrogen Monoxide (nitric oxide or NO) is not particularly harmful it is quickly converted to NO2 when it reacts with O3. These reactions and gases are the cause of the smogs that can be seen over cities during the summer months. Things are getting better than they were.
NO2 is the emission which can cause harm to health. For simplicitys sake NOx is often read to mean NO2.
Does that make more sense?
For your information, I am not anticar, nor do I wish to bury my head in the sand regarding global issues, I would rather govts do something about these issues and be wrong about global issues, than do nothing and be right.
|
|
|
|
"only diesels emit particulates"
Not true - petrol engines emit pariculates as well, it's just that they're much finer than diesel particulates, so harder to see. There is a school of thought that says that petrol particulates are much more dangerous, as they can penetrate deeper into the alveoli and even the bloodstream.
andymc
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cars are pretty clean compared to most industrial polluters, and the global warming may well be a natural phenomenon anyway (grapes were grown in Yorkshire a few centuries ago). Car users are a convenient target however, as by definition they have some money and a desire to go on driving. I'd like to see good public transport as well, but of course that costs real money...
|
I have heard it said that cars only contribute to less than 1% of the countrys CO2 emmisions, the rest comes from power stations and household heating systems.
Diesels, of course, produce less CO2 than petrols.
Madman
|
|
And don't forget cows breaking wind.
|
And don\'t forget cows breaking wind.
If you have cows passing CO and NO you are feeding them the wrong stuff. Those that eat grass tend to produce methane which is, in itself a pretty clean fuel.
|
|
|
|
madman
By the Governments own data (The Environment in your pocket, DETR, 2000)in 1998 Industry produced 40.3 Mt of carbon, Transport 38.8Mt Domestic premises 40.8Mt and Services 28.4 Mt. Multiply these by about 3.7 to get them as tonnes CO2. These include power station emission attributed to end user.
Of the transport, private cars are a small proportion (haven't got the figure to hand). Now all these will be accompanied by various emissions of NOx etc. However, as you'll see it's easier to hit the motorist, who's making a small contribution than to hit industry (which contributes to the country's wealth) or to have us shivering in our homes, although both of these emit as much CO2 as transport.
The Government has avoided allowing VAT to be at full rate on domestic fuel, and has a regulator to keep energy prices down, despite the fact this gives the wrong signals when it's trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Low domestic fuel prices also make investment in domestic energy efficiency less attractive It's only recently got round to improving the Building Regulations.
As for pollution, by the Governments own data (same reference) the number of days when air pollution in urban areas was recorded as moderate or higher fell by about half from 59 days in 1993, to 30 in 1999. For rural area it's varied between 21 days and 50 days, but this is a result of the effects of weather on ozone production, not necesarily emissions by man.
Oddly, it's all the fault of the motorist.
Regards
John S
|
|
Cars make a good target because we can SEE and SMELL exhaust fumes. It's harder to persuade people that houses or electric trains churn-out polution.
|
brsk
Yes The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomberg.
I guess a few people on the West Coast USA are very thankful that their dirty polluting emergency generators kicked in yesterday.........wonder how many lives these units saved.
Jim
|
THanks Jim, I will read it.
Also I'll bet there was a hole in the ozone layer in 1066 or even 2000BC.
brsk
|
...and what are we going to do about the 50 odd active volcanoes in the Philippines e.g. Mt Pinatubo June 15 1991 which desolated a vast area, caused the US Forces to go home (some might say not too bad an idea) and whose dust to this day still sparkles on my street when I go for my nightly walk, and whose effect on world weather patterns is well acknowledged. This kind of natural event is overwhelming compared to the greenies' nursery agenda and all their fancy numbers computed in some laboratory in academic isolation from what really goes on in the RW.
After that I don't feel too guilty about that old fridge I abandonedd the other day. Message to the huggers: get together, all have a good communal cry and you'll feel much better, then have a chat with a qualified stress counselor.
Leave the PBM (I'll leave you to guess what that stands for) alone and try and get a proper job selling encyclopedias. Sorry, bad Latin: encyclopediae.
|
|
I would have thought that 43,000 vegans crying must produce some fairly unpleasant emissions!
|
|
|
|
|
|
