←back to thread

473 points Brajeshwar | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.971s | source
Show context
lkbm ◴[] No.46218856[source]
> Particulates issued from tailpipes can aggravate asthma and heart disease and increase the risk of lung cancer and heart attack. Globally, they are a leading risk factor for premature death.

Minor nitpick, but tailpipes aren't the primary source of emissions. The study is about PM2.5[0]. which will chiefly be tires and brake pads. Modern gasoline engines are relatively clean, outside of CO2, though diesel engines spit out a bunch of bad stuff.

[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s44407-025-00037-2

replies(15): >>46218921 #>>46218933 #>>46219022 #>>46219122 #>>46219147 #>>46219190 #>>46219382 #>>46219549 #>>46219741 #>>46219841 #>>46219865 #>>46220664 #>>46220784 #>>46220991 #>>46222644 #
Aurornis ◴[] No.46219741[source]
> though diesel engines spit out a bunch of bad stuff.

Exactly. The noxious tailpipe emissions in a city are usually from diesel trucks, small vehicles like motorcycles (small or absent catalytic converters), modified vehicles (catalytic converter removed or diesel reprogrammed to smoke), but not modern gasoline ICE vehicles.

The love for diesel engines in many European countries was always confusing to me.

PM2.5 is also a broad category of particulates that come from many sources. The PM2.5 levels in the air depend on many sources, with wind being a major factor in changing PM2.5 levels. It’s hard to draw conclusions when a number depends on the weather and a lot of other inputs.

replies(9): >>46219834 #>>46219878 #>>46219959 #>>46219971 #>>46220037 #>>46220097 #>>46220699 #>>46220737 #>>46230262 #
1. efaref ◴[] No.46219878[source]
The love for diesel came from a catastrophic misunderstanding and the resulting belief that CO2 must be reduced at all costs. Diesel engines of the past produced slightly less CO2 per km than petrol engines in exchange for much worse overall emissions. The fact that they were slightly more efficient in terms of fuel consumption helped with the sales pitch, too.
replies(1): >>46231454 #
2. potato3732842 ◴[] No.46231454[source]
Nobody was even thinking about CO2 when the policies that got Europe where they are were enacted.

Europe began embracing diesels 40yr ago when they were noisy and stinky and they did it because they taxed the crap out of fuel so people rightfully prioritized buying vehicles that got better fuel economy.

Giving a crap about CO2 is a recent thing.

replies(2): >>46231501 #>>46264360 #
3. hollerith ◴[] No.46231501[source]
Interesting. If not to reduce CO2 emissions, what was the rationale presented to the voters for having high taxes on fuel 40 yr ago?

In the US, Federal lawmakers would be voted out of office (even now after the science of climate change has settled) if they imposed taxes on fuels anywhere near as high as European lawmakers do.

replies(1): >>46231786 #
4. potato3732842 ◴[] No.46231786{3}[source]
>Interesting. If not to reduce CO2 emissions, what was the rationale presented to the voters for having high taxes on fuel 40 yr ago?

Energy security. They didn't have north sea oil back then. Buying from Russia or the ME was fraught with political peril. And of course the .gov is never gonna pass up a chance to increase revenue.

5. efaref ◴[] No.46264360[source]
I don't know about mainland Europe, but in the UK it really was exclusively about CO2 emissions per distance travelled, to the extent that Vehicle Excise Duty (the annual tax you pay on a car) was defined in terms of g/km of CO2 emitted. This happened in 2001 and wasn't changed until the wake of the emissions cheating scandals [1].

[1] https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-tax-rate-tables/rates-for-cars-re...