5 ms·

Even better than diesel filters is not using diesel at all! Fossil fuels are never going to not produce pollution. California with some of the strictest tailpi

Even better than diesel filters is not using diesel at all! Fossil fuels are never going to not produce pollution. California with some of the strictest tailpipe emission standards still has huge smog problems. I don't see the issue with highlighting the air quality co-benefits of fighting climate change. We need to do both!

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>Even better than diesel filters is not using diesel at all Of course that would be better but that's a hard and expensive problem and the 99% solution is easy and cheap. Seems like a pretty obvious choice to me. >California with some of the strictest tailpipe emission standards still has huge smog problems. A combination of bad geographic luck and diminishing returns (everyone else's emissions regulations have 90+% the same effect) >I don't see the issue with highlighting the air quality co-benefits of fighting climate change. If your goal is to stop coughing up a lung today then focusing on better batteries and cheaper green energy is wasted effort when you can directly solve the pollution problem more cheaply right now. Sure air quality is a nice side benefit to reducing C02 emissions but if your true goal is improved air quality then reducing CO2 emissions is a crap way to go about it because the two are only loosely correlated and the bang for your buck is so bad. If your goal is to win eyeballs to your site and get people who's understanding of the problems is on the level checkout-isle magazine to share your article then it is probably a good idea.
- AstralStorm 6y ago
  What do you think those filters and extras that a few car companies were caught software cheating around are meant to do? But then at some point you reach loss of efficiency which means burning more fuel and producing more other pollution. The big problem is prevalence of old cars or ones in disrepair. Then of course coal and oil plants, secondary gas plants; and of course industrial pollution from manufacturing.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

>Even better than diesel filters is not using diesel at all Of course that would be better but that's a hard and expensive problem and the 99% solution is easy and cheap. Seems like a pretty obvious choice to me. >California with some of the strictest tailpipe emission standards still has huge smog problems. A combination of bad geographic luck and diminishing returns (everyone else's emissions regulations have 90+% the same effect) >I don't see the issue with highlighting the air quality co-benefits of fighting climate change. If your goal is to stop coughing up a lung today then focusing on better batteries and cheaper green energy is wasted effort when you can directly solve the pollution problem more cheaply right now. Sure air quality is a nice side benefit to reducing C02 emissions but if your true goal is improved air quality then reducing CO2 emissions is a crap way to go about it because the two are only loosely correlated and the bang for your buck is so bad. If your goal is to win eyeballs to your site and get people who's understanding of the problems is on the level checkout-isle magazine to share your article then it is probably a good idea.

AstralStorm 6y ago
What do you think those filters and extras that a few car companies were caught software cheating around are meant to do? But then at some point you reach loss of efficiency which means burning more fuel and producing more other pollution. The big problem is prevalence of old cars or ones in disrepair. Then of course coal and oil plants, secondary gas plants; and of course industrial pollution from manufacturing.