3 ms·

That's a really difficult argument to make without a source. A lot of recent research is disproving the age-old trope of 'Damn Dirty Diesel'. sources and addit

• jeffwass 8y ago
  First paper only covers CO2. Second paper only considers fine-size (<20 nm) particulates (and not larger sizes like 100nm+) of direct injection cars, and is a bit misleading by comparing six cars to a single carefully-selected diesel car with particulate filter. Further, in reality here in a London, people are cutting open their Diesel particulate filters to avoid cost of replacing clogged filters and still passing MOT exhaust tests, which apparently don’t/can’t check for filter tampering. Third paper is way back in 2002 and considers only cars, not heavy trucks and buses, which are way worse in urban settings.
  • gamblor956 8y ago
    As jeffwass notes, diesel is better at CO2 emissions. But in California, particulate emissions matter more, especially in SoCal, which is prone to inversions that trap particulate pollution.
  • djaychela 8y ago
    I don't disagree with your points here, other than the MOT changed in May to include inspection of the DPF system if fitted (on 2006 onwards vehicles) , including checking for one which has been cut open. Obviously not foolproof, but at least its a start - if the DPF is missing, it's a fail now.