
25% of Cars Cause 90% of Automobile Air Pollution - ph0rque
http://ecosalon.com/25-percent-of-cars-cause-90-percent-of-air-pollution-study-finds/
======
SCAQTony
And 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-1...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-
create-pollution-cars-world.html)

~~~
collyw
Can 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
Also 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
Additionally, it refers specifically to sulfur compounds, not to air pollution
in general.

~~~
SCAQTony
Respectfully 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_shippin...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shipping#Conventional_pollutants)

~~~
seanflyon
Sulfur compounds are one kind of air pollution. No one is saying that sulfur
doesn't count, they are saying that other things count too.

------
organsnyder
Living 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
Why would mandatory smog checks never be politically feasible? They are not
just a California-only thing.

~~~
moey
Because 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
You 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.

------
sgustard
This 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
If 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
Only 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.

------
collyw
Here 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
Emissions 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
And even in Virginia, it differs at the county level. You don't need to get
your car tested in southwest VA.

~~~
nikomen
It does seem odd that the state requires safety inspections but doesn't
require emissions tests in every jurisdiction.

~~~
rconti
And 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.

~~~
lmm
I don't know, the idea that Californians care more about environmental
pollution than human lives seems to fit the stereotypes.

------
peter303
I 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
Yep, 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
I 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)

------
janvidar
These 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.

------
koolkat
What 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.

~~~
rpcope1
I would rather see a massive uptick in retrofitting newer engines into older
cars; I've done it a couple of times on older Volvos (240-940 vintage) and
other makes, after the engines got really tired. I'd imagine it's
cheaper/easier to just manufacture better engines and ECMs than it is to
manufacture new cars, and you get to keep cool old cars on the road.

~~~
c_i_v
surprisingly (or not) , this is rather difficult to do in California. There is
a referee that has to validate that the engine swap was completed successfully
and without compromising the emissions equipment of the swapped engine. Though
not every ref judges on the same scale. There have been reports of some
requiring that the gas tank from the donor car be swapped as well (very
difficult since the tank usually fills a space in original car that is
unlikely to match with the recipient).

I'd like to see a more thorough emissions test be implemented (i.e. more than
testing at two speeds, enough to gauge all operating conditions) so that it
could be more objective in its process. This would also have the benefit of
allowing a way to bypass the restrictive modification exception system.

------
jchrisa
This 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
You'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
I 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.

------
paulshapiro
What 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.

~~~
sp332
A summary of the three papers is here: [http://media.utoronto.ca/media-
releases/traffic-emissions-ma...](http://media.utoronto.ca/media-
releases/traffic-emissions-may-pollute-1-in-3-canadian-homes/) 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-8-2881-2...](http://atmos-meas-tech-
discuss.net/8/2881/2015/amtd-8-2881-2015.html)

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-8-2881-2...](http://atmos-meas-tech-
discuss.net/8/2881/2015/amtd-8-2881-2015.pdf)

~~~
caseysoftware
So 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.

------
IvyMike
Here'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/)

------
phkahler
It'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.

------
shaunrussell
I'd like to see a study like this about airplanes, tractor trailers, and
container ships.

~~~
csours
Add lawn and garden tools.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=small+engine+polution](https://www.google.com/search?q=small+engine+polution)

------
neuromancer2701
I 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.

------
headShrinker
It 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
Combining MPG numbers is what the harmonic mean is for :)

~~~
colanderman
Thank you, I've been looking for a name for that function for years.

------
exabrial
Duh.

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.

~~~
baddox
How 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
There's also the energy cost and pollution of manufacturing a new car.

~~~
baddox
That's what I'm asking about.

------
alwaysdoit
When 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?

------
VeejayRampay
As 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".

------
eridal
Pareto principle?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle)

------
task_queue
Let's legislate the consumer end of things because regulating business which
pollute the air by a factor of 1000 is wrong.

------
fuzzieozzie
Not if you consider carbon dioxide as pollution :P

------
kevinSuttle
This math is completely illogical.

------
bvrlt
Title should be: "25 Percent of Cars Cause 90 Percent of __Vehicle __Air
Pollution "

~~~
Dylan16807
That'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.

~~~
bvrlt
Even better.

------
gr8b8m8-88
Hey this is just like 25% of the people on earth (China) causes 90% of the
general air pollution.

------
madaxe_again
And 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.

~~~
ac29
>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)

~~~
madaxe_again
I'm fully aware that octane isn't energy density - octane is a long chain
which prevents pre-ignition - hence pinkpinkpink - pre-ignition - pinking. I
had to fill up a mercedes 190E 2.6 on 60 on one occasion, and fuck did it hate
it - particularly as I'd lost my exhaust somewhere in the desert. Set off car
alarms when I got into town, just by driving by.

My point was rather that they _require_ fuels with such incredibly low octane
ratings due to the astonishingly crap compression ratios on ladas, volgas, and
yaz trucks, and most soviet technology. The point was that they could run on
near-as-damnit bunker oil, watered down with expensive petrol.

Because these vehicles are still in use, they produce an extraordinary amount
of pollution, as the low temperature burning that occurs in them results in a
crap-tonne of soot.

Same kinda deal with diesels, but again, their diesels will _literally_ run on
bunker oil, and you wouldn't believe the incredible clouds of crap that spew
forth from them - particularly when they have no exhaust system.

