9 ms·
25% of Cars Cause 90% of Automobile Air Pollution
- bvrlt 11y agoTitle should be: "25 Percent of Cars Cause 90 Percent of Vehicle Air Pollution"
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Dylan16807 11y agoThat's more likely to mislead, because it implies a difference between 'Car' and 'Vehicle', and 'Vehicle' can include trains, ships, planes, etc. 25 percent of Automobiles Cause 90 Percent of [Automobile] Air Pollution.
- paulshapiro 11y agoWhat does "badly tuned" mean? I feel like there is a need for a lot more clarity. Anyone have the source study (or know what it is). I'd like to know more.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- organsnyder 11y agoIn our old car, the catalytic converter wasn't effective, and the cost of fixing it was more than the car than the car was worth. The check engine light was on constantly as a result, but it was easy to ignore. Judging by the smell of that car's exhaust, it was definitely in the 25%. Bad air-fuel ratios also cause lots of pollution due to unburned fuel being sent out the tailpipe. I would think that this is less common with fuel-injected vehicles, but there are still plenty of old carburated vehicles on the road, especially where road salt isn't used.
- jobu 11y agoAlso, diesel engines have problems with carbon buildup over time, which reduces the combustion efficiency and causes the notorious black clouds of soot. (http://www.bellperformance.com/bell-performs-blog/blog/carbon-buildup-in-diesel-engines http://www.bellperformance.com/bell-performs-blog/blog/carbo...).
- sp332 11y agoA summary of the three papers is here: http://media.utoronto.ca/media-releases/traffic-emissions-may-pollute-1-in-3-canadian-homes/ http://media.utoronto.ca/media-releases/traffic-emissions-ma... They just set up some measurement tools by the side of the road and waited for cars to drive by. They didn't check the "tune" of each car or test whether any kind of tune-up would change anything. Edit: more links! Naomi Zimmerman's webpage: http://naomizimmerman.com/publications/ http://naomizimmerman.com/publications/ Abstract of the relevant paper: http://atmos-meas-tech-discuss.net/8/2881/2015/amtd-8-2881-2015.html http://atmos-meas-tech-discuss.net/8/2881/2015/amtd-8-2881-2... This PDF is labelled "supplemental" but it looks like the full text of the paper. http://atmos-meas-tech-discuss.net/8/2881/2015/amtd-8-2881-2015.pdf http://atmos-meas-tech-discuss.net/8/2881/2015/amtd-8-2881-2...
- caseysoftware 11y agoSo that's a pretty significant conclusion to draw without any hard data on the "tuned-ness" of a car. I wonder how much could be attributed to old cars instead. That's something that would be easily measured by identifying the cars. But that may open a different can of worms if they determine people with the oldest cars are the biggest polluters* because it could be seen as an attack on the poor. * Odds are the old cars are the biggest polluters.. less efficient to start with, more likely to be out of tune, more worn parts, etc. But I don't have any data to state that as a conclusion.
- ksab 11y agoThanks for your interest in our work! (Lead author on the ultrafine particle mapping paper). The SOCAAR facility has operated at this roadside location since 2006 and is one of the largest air quality research lab in Canada. Over the years, we have routinely seen peaks in CO2 as vehicles pass our monitoring station. However, when some vehicles pass, we also see NOx, black carbon or ultrafine particle peak(s). While we have video footage of the road, it can be extremely difficult to link the measurements to a single passing vehicle. Identifying these vehicles and why their emissions are different from the rest of the vehicle fleet is where the research our heading.
- chiph 11y agoThe common term for such vehicles is "gross polluter". Here's a study on them (pdf warning) http://www.csus.edu/indiv/s/shafizadehk/pubs/UT2004.pdf http://www.csus.edu/indiv/s/shafizadehk/pubs/UT2004.pdf
- josefresco 11y agoIt seems there's more to it than just badly tuned - it seems how to drive also effected the results: "The most surprising thing we found was how broad the range of emissions was," says Evans. "As we looked at the exhaust coming out of individual vehicles, we saw so many variations. How you drive, hard acceleration, age of the vehicle, how the car is maintained – these are things we can influence that can all have an effect on pollution." Not sure how they can tell "how a car is maintained" or "how you drive" from spot checking 100K with a roadside probe... anyone have thoughts?
- sukilot 11y agoThey are speculating , but saying it isn't just the car's "genetics" (make model and production year)
- crxgames 11y agoBadly tuned generally refers to incorrect AFR (air-fuel ratios). These can not only cause lower power, but increase the amount of unburned fuel and other chemicals in the exhaust. On some high performance cars you can even go as far as using the fuel's injection to cool combustion and decrease knock in the combustion cycle of the engine...sometimes this can lead to a richer AFR (more fuel in exhaust gases) which causes pollution.
- crxgames 11y agoThese "badly tuned" cars could also have worn out valve seals/piston rings which can cause excess amounts of oil to burn during combustion, adding to the chemicals spewing out the exhaust.
- sliverstorm 11y ago(Worn seals & rings leads to oil burning, not excess fuel consumption)
- crxgames 11y agoIndeed. That is what I meant, but alas that is not what my brain wanted to type.
- akallio9000 11y agoMost (if not all) cars decrease the air/fuel ratio on wide open throttle, which ensures lack of air to burn pistons, etc., as well as cooling the charge to allow greater volumetric efficiency. Carburetors had a "power valve" to accomplish this, fuel injected vehicles usually have a vacuum hose attached to the fuel pressure regulator to increase fuel pressure temporarily. A fouled O2 sensor, mass air flow sensor or manifold air pressure sensor could throw off the ratios during normal operation. I'd venture to guess that "badly tuned" implies a misfire (probably a fouled spark plug) causing an entire cylinders worth of raw gas dumped into the atmosphere. This excessive fuel will melt down the catalytic converter which exacerbates the problem.
- userbinator 11y ago"badly tuned" for minimal emissions, I assume; tuning for maximum power is somewhat different than for minimum emissions.
- ams6110 11y ago"Tuned" is a holdover term from the days of carbureted fuel systems that doesn't have a lot relevance anymore. Modern cars don't need routine "tune-ups." Yes, if a sensor fails or something like that it can cause an emissions problem, but a properly working engine computer tunes itself, and if it detects anything isn't what it should be, it activates the "check engine" light on the dashboard.
- VeejayRampay 11y agoAs a programmer my first impression when I read this (if this is actually true) is: "Nice, when we fix those, we'll have done good on car-induced air pollution".
- SCAQTony 11y agoAnd 16-container ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world. Perhaps these ships are softer targets to correct than tens of millions of cars? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-1...
- collyw 11y agoCan we have some proper references rather than the Daily Mail. Its the UK's equivalent of Fox news. They have a pro car owning readership, so any headline like this will be welcome to them
- genericuser 11y agoAlso even their language is phrased such as it says "16 of the world’s largest ships can produce as much lung-clogging sulphur pollution as all the world’s cars" Note the inclusion of the word 'can' before produce. Making this statistic unreliable without further support.
- vonmoltke 11y agoAdditionally, it refers specifically to sulfur compounds, not to air pollution in general.
- WilliamSt 11y agoShips going from (for example) Europe to Asia switch to the cheaper sulfur bunker when exiting the EU. This could be easily fixed with international regulations so people wouldn't be able to use that misleading argument.
- SCAQTony 11y agoRespectfully sulphur is air pollution and causes significant harm. From Wikipedia (section of Environmental impact of shipping: Conventional Pollutants) "...Of total global air emissions, shipping accounts for 18 to 30 percent of the nitrogen oxide and 9 percent of the sulphur oxides.[15] [16] Sulfur in the air creates acid rain which damages crops and buildings. When inhaled the sulfur is known to cause respiratory problems and even increases the risk of a heart attack.[17] According to Irene Blooming, a spokeswoman for the European environmental coalition Seas at Risk, the fuel used in oil tankers and container ships is high in sulfur and cheaper to buy compared to the fuel used for domestic land use. "A ship lets out around 50 times more sulfur than a lorry per metric tonne of cargo carried."[17] Cities in the U.S. like Long Beach, Los Angeles, Houston, Galveston, and Pittsburgh see some of the heaviest shipping traffic in the nation and have left local officials desperately trying to clean up the air.[18] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shipping#Conventional_pollutants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shippin...
- jchrisa 11y agoThis is why we should move from mandatory emissions checks on all vehicles, to spot checks of the worst vehicles (but we'd need to get the police excited to run a test.)
- atom-morgan 11y agoYou'd have to get everyone excited to allow those tests to be run. If you're spot checking the worst vehicles that will more than likely lead to a large proportion of checks occurring in low-income areas.
- teach 11y agoI don't see why you couldn't do a red-light camera sort-of thing. Spot emissions testers at ground level along with a photo of the offending license plate.
- ohitsdom 11y agoThis is my biggest concern with emissions tests- it disproportionately affects lower income people. Not sure how to get around that, other than offering subsidies for them to upgrade/repair to a more efficient vehicle. But as others have said, there is better low hanging fruit to go after rather than older cars.
- organsnyder 11y agoLiving in a state (Michigan) without any sort of vehicle inspections, I can usually spot a vehicle that will be especially bad well before I smell it. If I'm driving, I'll punch the recirculate button to head off the issue, and look at making lane changes (or even varying my route) to avoid vehicles. This doesn't work as well if I'm walking or biking, however. I have asthma, so I'm especially sensitive to this. I'd love to see mandatory smog checks introduced here, but I know that this will never be politically feasible. At least our road salt tends to take old vehicles off the road fairly quickly...
- sliverstorm 11y agoWhy would mandatory smog checks never be politically feasible? They are not just a California-only thing.
- moey 11y agoBecause the Big Three car makers and the National Association of Manufacturers run this state. They said it will "increase costs" and "cost tons of jobs" if a smog law was passed, since they will have to spend more to pass the tests.
- sliverstorm 11y agoYou would think those groups would be in favor of regular smog testing, as it accelerates the retirement of old vehicles. The automakers resisted adding smog equipment (which did increase costs), but that battle is already lost. They already make exclusively 49- and 50-state emissions legal vehicles.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- sukilot 11y agoIt is also a PR thing: they don't want the government to admit that the cars are pollutants.
- 11y ago
- collyw 11y agoHere in Europe (well UK and Spain whee I have lived and owned a car) you need to get a check every year for older cars, and that includes an emissions test. Don't you get that in the States / Canada? (It would appear that the study was done in Canada). Saying that, go to many less developed country and the cars are far worse condition. My friend always used to claim that the environmental cost of producing a new car took 9 years to counter with the efficiencies in fuel consumption. No idea how true that is, anyone know?
- nikomen 11y agoEmissions tests in the US are at the state level, not federal. For instance, the state of Virginia has emissions tests. However, the state of South Carolina does not require a test.
- joshwd 11y agoAnd even in Virginia, it differs at the county level. You don't need to get your car tested in southwest VA.
- nikomen 11y agoIt does seem odd that the state requires safety inspections but doesn't require emissions tests in every jurisdiction.
- rconti 11y agoAnd in California, which is often considered the strictest state ever invented by man, we have stringent emissions tests but no safety inspection at all! It really confuses all of the California-bashers when you tell them that.
- justin66 11y agoThere's a logic to it. A person who values their safety - most do! - has an incentive to deal with safety issues, regardless of whether they are compelled. Less so with emissions issues.
- phkahler 11y agoIt's not clear to me weather they included big trucks - the ones hauling stuff. They're diesels which make more particulates and in large quantity. If they are not included, then they should be, because it would be stupid to further regulate cars until we know if they're actually making most of the pollution.
- koolkat 11y agoWhat i allways ask myself is for example if someone has an old car which polutes more than a new one, what would polute more to buy a new one or to continue to use the old one. Because producing the new car releases a lot of polutants as well. I have never investigated this.
- Retric 11y agoThat's a sad reflection on out throwaway economy. Obviously repairs are often a much cheaper option. Further cars limited lifespan so 1 new car could mean replacing 15 cars 1 year sooner.
- mgarfias 11y agoYou’re not counting labor costs, tracking down an issue with an older car can be seriously time consuming, and that time costs something like $75-100/hr. For instance, my fun car had a persistent miss that made it basically undrivable. It took me something like 20-30 hours to find the issues and fix them. I have OBD2 scanners (the real deal, not the toys), all the tools needed, and the ability to read the service manuals and follow the dianostic proceedures. Someone driving an old pile, isn’t likely to have the time, know how, or funds to fix the old car. So instead of spending $5k to fix the thing, they spend $300/mo on a new (or new to them) car.
- Retric 11y agoMost states limit the max outlay required before they give someone a pass. In some cases, a vehicle requiring repair expenditures over $450 may get a waiver from the state exempting it from further repairs regardless of test outcome. You can see a lot of details here. http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-99-23-REV.pdf http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-99-23-REV.pdf Also, repairs often increase fuel economy so not only do city's become far more livable again the net cost is fairly low.
- sukilot 11y agoIn principle it should be much easier to clean a factory than distributed city air. But in practice it may be a lost cause either way.
- shaunrussell 11y agoI'd like to see a study like this about airplanes, tractor trailers, and container ships.
- csours 11y agoAdd lawn and garden tools. https://www.google.com/search?q=small+engine+polution https://www.google.com/search?q=small+engine+polution
- headShrinker 11y agoIt should be "Gallons per mile" not "Miles per Gallon" I read this article a few years ago, and following article illustrates the point very well. http://www.mpgillusion.com/p/what-is-mpg-illusion.html http://www.mpgillusion.com/p/what-is-mpg-illusion.html
- mizzao 11y agoCombining MPG numbers is what the harmonic mean is for :)
- colanderman 11y agoThank you, I've been looking for a name for that function for years.
- janvidar 11y agoThese days "air pollution" means a lot of different things. This article is talking about air quality and particles, such as soot. This impacts mostly the local air quality and environment, whereas CO2 is a global problem and impacts the climate in ways not necessarily detectable in the local environment.
- madaxe_again 11y agoAnd 99% of those 25% are probably in the developing world, and the ex-USSR. I've been all over the planet, and I have yet to see trucks which emit thick black smoke straight from the engine (no exhaust system) like the ones Russia and other ex soviet states are absolutely chock full of. Edit: Also, only place on earth I've ever seen a petrol pump with the choices of 60, 80, or 85 octane fuel. Pinkpinkpinkpinkpink.
- kaeluka 11y agoThey took measurements in Toronto
- smeyer 11y agoThe specific quote if madaxe_again missed it: >Researchers at the University of Toronto looked at 100,000 cars as they drove past air sampling probes on one of Toronto’s major roads.
- madaxe_again 11y agoNo, fully aware that this study was in Toronto, but if it's remotely indicative of the variation of the environmental damage car emissions cause, then the problem is vastly exacerbated by old and poorly maintained vehicles driven in less wealthy and/or impoverished parts of the world.
- ac29 11y ago>Also, only place on earth I've ever seen a petrol pump with the choices of 60, 80, or 85 octane fuel. If youv'e ever seen a pump with diesel, you've seen a pump with 15-25 octane [1]. Also, I wouldnt confuse octane with energy content -- pure ethanol has an octane rating of 100+, despite having lower energy density than pure gasoline [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
- selimthegrim 11y ago
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- _lce0 11y agoPareto principle? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
- alwaysdoit 11y agoWhen I see a car that seems to be putting out a visible and/or smellable amount of smoke/soot/smog, are these the worst polluters? I guess what I'm asking is if visible inspection is a reliable way of detecting these vehicles?
- peter303 11y agoI remember a pollution program in CA where they'd buy 20+ year old cars and junk them. Those cars made most of the pollution then. This program was a pollution credit program. A factor met its pollution control program by cutting either its own or someone elses pollution by a statutory amount.
- ScottBurson 11y agoYep, that's still going on. I've received a couple of letters offering to buy my 1993 Toyota MR2. The letters do say something like "If your vehicle is a classic or is otherwise special to you, ignore this letter." It is a bit of a classic -- in any case, it's worth a lot more than the $500 (or $1000? not sure) they're offering.
- malyk 11y agoI believe california will buy cars that can't pass the smog check for $1500 for low income earners and $1000 to others. http://www.smogtips.com/vehicle_buy_back.cfm http://www.smogtips.com/vehicle_buy_back.cfm
- task_queue 11y agoLet's legislate the consumer end of things because regulating business which pollute the air by a factor of 1000 is wrong.
- sgustard 11y agoThis article would be more helpful with some historical context. At some point in the past, if all cars were equal, 90% of cars produced 90% of the pollution. Over time newer cars replaced most of the old ones, and now it's 25% of cars. But the overall amount of pollution has dropped too. A future clickbait headline will read "5% of cars cause 90% of the pollution!" and sound very alarming, but in fact that's a measure of progress in removing most of the remaining polluters.
- danmaz74 11y agoIf 5% of cars really caused 90% of the pollution in the future, then we should certainly banish those cars, shouldn't we? It would be a very informative title.
- nitrogen 11y agoOnly if those were new cars. If electric cars become the norm, then one day 100% of car pollution will be produced by <<1% of cars, but the total will be so low that it won't be worth worrying about those antique internal combustion cars. Percentages can be misleading.
- fuzzieozzie 11y agoNot if you consider carbon dioxide as pollution :P
- IvyMike 11y agoHere's an article from almost 20 years ago, about the possibility of using roadside pollution detection to identify these bad vehicles: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9605/27/emissions/ http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9605/27/emissions/
- neuromancer2701 11y agoI can't find the article but Google used to think that replacing cars and coal plants(with clean coal) would be enough to curb CO2 emissions but a new study they just released(last 6 months I think) said it wouldn't matter at all. That has changed their strategy from clean coal to carbon sequestration.
- gr8b8m8-88 11y agoHey this is just like 25% of the people on earth (China) causes 90% of the general air pollution.
- exabrial 11y agoDuh. Spend 5 mins on the road in Missouri and you'll see 100 new cars go by with a scant trace of engine noise, and 1 1994 geo metro missing an exhaust, plastic wrap over one window, two doors of different colors, with the driver on a cell phone smoking a pack of Pall Malls, riding on 3 bald tires and a spare, with the rusted tail pipe spewing white smoke. They pull into quick trip and run inside for a bottle of oil so they can fill up the engine before they pump their gas. Once again, liberal regulations new cars hardly solves any problems, but looks great for pleasing the voters of "blue states." ...sort of like providing tax credits for new home owners for energy efficient homes... Where apartment complexes have air conditioners from 1970 and the tenants pay the electric bills. All these regulations just add cost to doing business without providing any real benefit to the environment. But the regulations buy votes, so why not? If we want this changed, we really have to start voting for science, which currently, neither party can associate with. Stupid stupid stupid.
- jcromartie 11y agoThe fact that 100 new cars go by without a trace is evidence that the regulations work, no?
- baddox 11y agoHow long does an old car with bad emissions have to last before it's worse than the environmental impact of replacing it with a new car?
- WalterBright 11y agoThere's also the energy cost and pollution of manufacturing a new car.
- baddox 11y agoThat's what I'm asking about.
- justin66 11y agoIn many states it's a largely solved problem, with annual or biannual inspections needed before you can renew your car registration. (along with the ability for police to site you if there's a visible or audible problem) There are loopholes, though. There are fair number of trucks in my state that are allowed to run dirty diesel trucks with basically no exhaust protections. Their industries (construction? mining?) get some exemptions under the law, I assume. It's utterly stupid, as those trucks probably account for more particulate emissions than all the other vehicles on the road put together. But God forbid someone increase their "cost of doing business" by requiring some improvements.
- kevinSuttle 11y agoThis math is completely illogical.