12 ms·

Banning all FFs sounds like a worthy objective overall but it seems like bikeshedding to ban small ICEs yet trains, tractor trailers, farm and mining equipment,

Banning all FFs sounds like a worthy objective overall but it seems like bikeshedding to ban small ICEs yet trains, tractor trailers, farm and mining equipment, jet aircraft and industrial sources receive little regulation. Instead, the average person is taxed, penalized, inconvenienced and regulated for the tiny amount of pollution they produce in comparison to greater polluters.

ManlyBread 9y ago
Banning is easy. Right now the ban is irrational, the EV tech is in it's infancy and nowhere near ready for mass adoption, it needs to be on pair or better than the current solution otherwise it makes no sense to enforce it.
tobyhinloopen 9y ago
Cars are major polluters, right? Or is my life a lie?
- bmh_ca 9y ago
  The top seven or so shipping ships produce more air pollution than all the worlds cars combined ... So one could say yes to your question, depending on what you call "major".
  - Retric 9y ago
    That's a false statement. They produce a lot Air pollution of a very specific type because their fuel includes a lot of sulfur. In terms of total pollution ships are actually a small fraction. Further, releasing sulfur over the ocean does not impact human or animal heath significantly.
    - bmh_ca 9y ago
      I take it you believe the Guardian is wrong / misleading / imprecise here? (as are a dozen or so more recent articles) - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping... > One giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50m cars, study finds > Confidential data from maritime industry insiders based on engine size and the quality of fuel typically used by ships and cars shows that just 15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars.
      - IneffablePigeon 9y ago
        It's imprecise in that it refers to pollution that is harmful to human health as if it is the only type of pollution. It says right at the bottom of the article that shipping as a whole is responsible for only 3.5 to 4 percent of climate change emissions. The shipping industry needs to get its act together too but it isn't _that_ significant when it comes to climate change. In terms of sulphur based pollutants it's pretty horrifying, though.
        bmh_ca 9y ago
        > The shipping industry ... isn't _that_ significant when it comes to climate change. In terms of sulphur based pollutants it's pretty horrifying, though. Thanks, that certainly clarifies.
    - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
      Worth also noting that it would be trivial for the ships to burn fuel with less sulphur in it. The big issue in getting international agreement to enforce the change. There's no technical hurdle or complicated logistical challenge such as is being overcome to swap all ICE passenger cars for EVs.
  - lern_too_spel 9y ago
    That pollution happens over the ocean, where it has little effect on humans' health. As of 2016, heavily polluting ships are not allowed within 200 miles of the US.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Particulates/sulfur emissions from bunker fuel (burned by cargo ships) are not the same as CO2 emissions. It's disingenuous to use "pollution" ambiguously to push a narrative. We can electrify land mobility while also moving ocean going vessels to ultra low sulfur diesel or compressed natural gas. All of the above are cost effective today.
    - bmh_ca 9y ago
      > It's disingenuous to use "pollution" ambiguously to push a narrative. That's something that should be taken up with the dozens of reputable newspapers from whom I have drawn that information (e.g. the Guardian, quoted above).
- damnfine 9y ago
  Major, yes, top 20? LOL. Each passebger jet flight you take likely puts out more pollution than you will do in your car in years, as will a campfire. The hippies are a bit backward these days.
  - damnfine 9y ago
    Thabks for the impulse downvotes. If my figures are wrong, say so. But even with 400 passengers, the pollution per person per mile is way higher. You butthurt math challenged hippies can keep on downboting. You are only hurting your own cause.
    - Pxtl 9y ago
      Your figures are so absurdly wrong that they could only come from willfully ignorance or intent to deceive. Coarse insults would be less offensive than your input. We're talking about carbon emissions, and the science is clear on that and yet we still have a constant volcano of misinformation from contributions like yours.
    - sctb 9y ago
      This comment violates many of the guidelines. Please don't post like this here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
    It's not fair to compare a 747 (which produces a lot of pollution) with a family car when the 747 carries 300+ people and travels far more miles. If you look at pollution-per-passenger-mile then jet transport is now more efficient and less polluting than light cars: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2014/07/driving_vs_flying_which_is_more_harmful_to_the_environment.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2014/07/dri... and https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-climate-math-of-flying-vs-driving/ https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-clim...
    - hueving 9y ago
DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
> ...the tiny amount of pollution they produce in comparison to greater polluters A quick google search found this article with numbers pulled from a 2012 US Energy Information Administration (eia.gov) report: https://www.c2es.org/energy/source/oil https://www.c2es.org/energy/source/oil Transportation is the main consumer of petroleum, accounting for 70% of usage, of which 58% is light vehicles alone - so that's 40% of total - that's still far higher than "industrial" use of 25%. Tack on medium/heavy trucks which I assume includes F-150 trucks and giant off-road dump-trucks alike and it's more than half of total petroleum consumption. So no - eliminating fossil-fuels from personal transport alone, while leaving industry alone, will still have a huge beneficial impact on greenhouse gas production. But you forget the halo and knock-on effects: as the market adapts to service non-petrol consumers (e.g. fast EV chargers, battery-swap stations, etc) then industries will adapt to take advantage of them too - it wouldn't surprise me this meant the introduction of an EV John Deere tractor powered the same hot-swappable EV battery pack that might power a hypothetical Ford truck.
- ams6110 9y ago
  F-150 is a light duty truck.
- csours 9y ago
  F-150 through F-350 are all considered light vehicles. The 450-650 are Medium Duty. The 750 other trucks are considered Heavy Duty. (For GM vehicles append another 0 eg, 1500, 2500, 3500) Calling 250s and 350s Heavy Duty is mostly marketing, although, the current 3/4 and 1 Ton trucks are more capable than ever, so the marketing inflation does have some basis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_classification
- djrogers 9y ago
  I think the problem is that you're eliminating the cleanest and most regulated segment of the market, so even if it's 40% of the FF used, it's a much smaller fraction of pollution produced.
  - mikeyouse 9y ago

ManlyBread 9y ago

Banning is easy. Right now the ban is irrational, the EV tech is in it's infancy and nowhere near ready for mass adoption, it needs to be on pair or better than the current solution otherwise it makes no sense to enforce it.

tobyhinloopen 9y ago

Cars are major polluters, right? Or is my life a lie?

bmh_ca 9y ago
The top seven or so shipping ships produce more air pollution than all the worlds cars combined ... So one could say yes to your question, depending on what you call "major".
- Retric 9y ago
  That's a false statement. They produce a lot Air pollution of a very specific type because their fuel includes a lot of sulfur. In terms of total pollution ships are actually a small fraction. Further, releasing sulfur over the ocean does not impact human or animal heath significantly.
  - bmh_ca 9y ago
    I take it you believe the Guardian is wrong / misleading / imprecise here? (as are a dozen or so more recent articles) - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping... > One giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50m cars, study finds > Confidential data from maritime industry insiders based on engine size and the quality of fuel typically used by ships and cars shows that just 15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars.
    - IneffablePigeon 9y ago
      It's imprecise in that it refers to pollution that is harmful to human health as if it is the only type of pollution. It says right at the bottom of the article that shipping as a whole is responsible for only 3.5 to 4 percent of climate change emissions. The shipping industry needs to get its act together too but it isn't _that_ significant when it comes to climate change. In terms of sulphur based pollutants it's pretty horrifying, though.
      - bmh_ca 9y ago
        > The shipping industry ... isn't _that_ significant when it comes to climate change. In terms of sulphur based pollutants it's pretty horrifying, though. Thanks, that certainly clarifies.
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    Worth also noting that it would be trivial for the ships to burn fuel with less sulphur in it. The big issue in getting international agreement to enforce the change. There's no technical hurdle or complicated logistical challenge such as is being overcome to swap all ICE passenger cars for EVs.
- lern_too_spel 9y ago
  That pollution happens over the ocean, where it has little effect on humans' health. As of 2016, heavily polluting ships are not allowed within 200 miles of the US.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Particulates/sulfur emissions from bunker fuel (burned by cargo ships) are not the same as CO2 emissions. It's disingenuous to use "pollution" ambiguously to push a narrative. We can electrify land mobility while also moving ocean going vessels to ultra low sulfur diesel or compressed natural gas. All of the above are cost effective today.
  - bmh_ca 9y ago
    > It's disingenuous to use "pollution" ambiguously to push a narrative. That's something that should be taken up with the dozens of reputable newspapers from whom I have drawn that information (e.g. the Guardian, quoted above).
damnfine 9y ago
Major, yes, top 20? LOL. Each passebger jet flight you take likely puts out more pollution than you will do in your car in years, as will a campfire. The hippies are a bit backward these days.
- damnfine 9y ago
  Thabks for the impulse downvotes. If my figures are wrong, say so. But even with 400 passengers, the pollution per person per mile is way higher. You butthurt math challenged hippies can keep on downboting. You are only hurting your own cause.
  - Pxtl 9y ago
    Your figures are so absurdly wrong that they could only come from willfully ignorance or intent to deceive. Coarse insults would be less offensive than your input. We're talking about carbon emissions, and the science is clear on that and yet we still have a constant volcano of misinformation from contributions like yours.
  - sctb 9y ago
    This comment violates many of the guidelines. Please don't post like this here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
  It's not fair to compare a 747 (which produces a lot of pollution) with a family car when the 747 carries 300+ people and travels far more miles. If you look at pollution-per-passenger-mile then jet transport is now more efficient and less polluting than light cars: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2014/07/driving_vs_flying_which_is_more_harmful_to_the_environment.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2014/07/dri... and https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-climate-math-of-flying-vs-driving/ https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-clim...
  - hueving 9y ago

DaiPlusPlus 9y ago

> ...the tiny amount of pollution they produce in comparison to greater polluters A quick google search found this article with numbers pulled from a 2012 US Energy Information Administration (eia.gov) report: https://www.c2es.org/energy/source/oil https://www.c2es.org/energy/source/oil Transportation is the main consumer of petroleum, accounting for 70% of usage, of which 58% is light vehicles alone - so that's 40% of total - that's still far higher than "industrial" use of 25%. Tack on medium/heavy trucks which I assume includes F-150 trucks and giant off-road dump-trucks alike and it's more than half of total petroleum consumption. So no - eliminating fossil-fuels from personal transport alone, while leaving industry alone, will still have a huge beneficial impact on greenhouse gas production. But you forget the halo and knock-on effects: as the market adapts to service non-petrol consumers (e.g. fast EV chargers, battery-swap stations, etc) then industries will adapt to take advantage of them too - it wouldn't surprise me this meant the introduction of an EV John Deere tractor powered the same hot-swappable EV battery pack that might power a hypothetical Ford truck.

ams6110 9y ago
F-150 is a light duty truck.
csours 9y ago
F-150 through F-350 are all considered light vehicles. The 450-650 are Medium Duty. The 750 other trucks are considered Heavy Duty. (For GM vehicles append another 0 eg, 1500, 2500, 3500) Calling 250s and 350s Heavy Duty is mostly marketing, although, the current 3/4 and 1 Ton trucks are more capable than ever, so the marketing inflation does have some basis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_classification
djrogers 9y ago
I think the problem is that you're eliminating the cleanest and most regulated segment of the market, so even if it's 40% of the FF used, it's a much smaller fraction of pollution produced.
- mikeyouse 9y ago