Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution

[Psamathe]

To address the problems we need to avoid the "it's everybody else's fault" because we don't want to change our own behaviour.

Are you quite sure that the “woodburners” are not just another minority outgroup that we can blame for society’s problems in order to justify a business as usual situation as the best possible solution for ourselves as motorists?

Maybe read some of my other posts in this thread. We need to address all significant causes of air pollution and avoid forcing people to breath air that damages their health. And as I have previously said that would also include motor vehicles as well as other sources. I'm confused as to where you get the "....in order to justify a business as usual situation as the best possible solution for ourselves as motorists?" from what I've said.

Ian

[al_yrpal]

I have noticed that so called 'environmentalists' often tend to get a bee in their bonnet about one particular thing whilst failing to appeciate the bigger picture. Motor vehicles cause atmospheric pollution, so do electric cars, but there are other sources too, and in certain situations their impact can be considerable and very damaging.

Al

[meic]

I have noticed that so called 'environmentalists' often tend to get a bee in their bonnet about one particular thing whilst failing to appeciate the bigger picture.

Prioritising the wheezing of Londoners over the drowning of Bangladeshis.
Global warming v local air quality, though it could be possible to tackle both simultaneously.
Which environmentalist made the mistake? Gordon Brown in choosing diesels or those who restrict and scrap serviceable vehicles to replace them with ones that create more CO2?

The rest of your post looked like a fairly typical example of Wanlock Dave's "justifying business as usual"

[old_windbag]

so called 'environmentalists'

If humans lived as nature intended then we'd be truly environmental and balanced( nature would see to that ). Unfortunately since the industrial revolution the advancement of our quality of life has come with a trade off in destruction of the environment in it's many forms, atmosphere, forests, wildlife. I'd have thought that finding that perfect balance of a sustainable minimally damaging modern lifestyle would be the goal for all of us, rather than have split camps of consumers and "environmentalists".

I cannot stress enough that world population levels are critical to our sustainable future. Every mouth brought into this world and it's knock on effect, extra crops, extra cows and their methane output, extra land clearance, extra effluent+pollution, finally extra goods and vehicles. We have serious problems to address and our impact in the UK stretches out into places we may never see or even have heard of.

But keep popping them out anyway, it's someone else problem to sustain them.

[pwa]

so called 'environmentalists'

If humans lived as nature intended then we'd be truly environmental and balanced( nature would see to that ). Unfortunately since the industrial revolution the advancement of our quality of life has come with a trade off in destruction of the environment in it's many forms, atmosphere, forests, wildlife. I'd have thought that finding that perfect balance of a sustainable minimally damaging modern lifestyle would be the goal for all of us, rather than have split camps of consumers and "environmentalists".

I cannot stress enough that world population levels are critical to our sustainable future. Every mouth brought into this world and it's knock on effect, extra crops, extra cows and their methane output, extra land clearance, extra effluent+pollution, finally extra goods and vehicles. We have serious problems to address and our impact in the UK stretches out into places we may never see or even have heard of.

But keep popping them out anyway, it's someone else problem to sustain them.

I think you are right. That is the most fundamental cause of environmental degradation. Too many people. But it makes you unpopular if you mention it. It is the elephant in the room.

[old_windbag]

Too many people. But it makes you unpopular if you mention it.

It's harsh in some respects but had we not got film cameras and reporting from remote locations, then many humans would succumb to natures balancing act and not receive aid to continue the cycle again in a few years time. Where natural events occur such as regular droughts or floods then say 200yrs ago we'd be oblivious to the natural extinction of branches of humanity. As for all animals thats how it works, it's not pleasant but in natures plan it has worked for millons of years. The price we pay for that help in surviving is to learn from it and not repeat the process.... rather than thinking that extra food means an invite to have even more offspring.

I am staggered by the behaviour of humans as often reported on the news( perhaps biased to pessimism ) and really question where if any intelligence lies. Then to add to that we have the tribal, feudal conflicts that seem to continue decade after decade. But perhaps many of these are again caused by too many, wanting access to too many resources. Our own huge western conflicts no different.

The human race is rather messed up( was it ever not I guess ) and religious beliefs and territorial rights seem to get in the way of education and common sense and a better sustainable future for all, in whatever country. We can live in peace and have food in abundance and energy too.... if we control our population by education and family planning and not thinking our own children are not the burdens on resources that everyone else are.

[Bonefishblues]

Too many people. But it makes you unpopular if you mention it.

It's harsh in some respects but had we not got film cameras and reporting from remote locations, then many humans would succumb to natures balancing act and not receive aid to continue the cycle again in a few years time. Where natural events occur such as regular droughts or floods then say 200yrs ago we'd be oblivious to the natural extinction of branches of humanity. As for all animals thats how it works, it's not pleasant but in natures plan it has worked for millons of years. The price we pay for that help in surviving is to learn from it and not repeat the process.... rather than thinking that extra food means an invite to have even more offspring.

I am staggered by the behaviour of humans as often reported on the news( perhaps biased to pessimism ) and really question where if any intelligence lies. Then to add to that we have the tribal, feudal conflicts that seem to continue decade after decade. But perhaps many of these are again caused by too many, wanting access to too many resources. Our own huge western conflicts no different.

The human race is rather messed up( was it ever not I guess ) and religious beliefs and territorial rights seem to get in the way of education and common sense and a better sustainable future for all, in whatever country. We can live in peace and have food in abundance and energy too.... if we control our population by education and family planning and not thinking our own children are not the burdens on resources that everyone else are.

The late, great Rosling gives us hope and better understanding that this will happen as part of the natural development cycle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E

[old_windbag]

late, great Rosling

I have that program on my pvr and his joy of stats was repeated recently. I suppose population increase is off topic but in terms of air pollution( even in london ) it is relevant.

But separating our natural behaviour from our modern lives perhaps is not possible. We have built in traits that work to continue our species love, hate, jealousy, greed. Some seem positive and to be encouraged, the negative not so but must exist for a reason in control terms. I.e. jealousy in protection of our own gene line, just as male lions killing cubs of other males.

As much as people like to think they aren't rascist, sexist etc..... I think each and everyone of us discriminates by their own internal tick box selection criteria. When those tick boxes disagree between individuals we have a conflict. So my utopian world is unlikely to ever happen as those human traits will always give rise to conflicts from one to one up to country to country. Add to that our propensity to fall back on religious beliefs as part of our makeup and its not looking so good. I think from my standpoint as an outsider to the human race who believes in the pursuit of science for a better future it all seems rather bleak .

[Wanlock Dod]

We need to address all significant causes of air pollution and avoid forcing people to breath air that damages their health.

In order to best focus our efforts we should probably put the most effort into tackling the single most important source, before then moving on to the next most important source (because that will have become the most important source by that time). I wonder if anybody would care to suggest where our efforts might best be put to good use in improving conditions for the greatest number of people?

[Bonefishblues]

We need to address all significant causes of air pollution and avoid forcing people to breath air that damages their health.

In order to best focus our efforts we should probably put the most effort into tackling the single most important source, before then moving on to the next most important source (because that will have become the most important source by that time). I wonder if anybody would care to suggest where our efforts might best be put to good use in improving conditions for the greatest number of people?

We should prioritise that/those which will give us the most rapid overall reduction.

[Mark R]

I wonder if anybody would care to suggest where our efforts might best be put to good use in improving conditions for the greatest number of people?

Are you talking about here in Europe? And about improvements which can make a difference quickly?

In that case: diesel engined cars, vans, BUSSES, and hgv's. Deal with these pollution sources and huge numbers of people can benefit.

I put busses in caps because IMO they are amongst the most egregious polluters yet they are often granted access to areas which are otherwise vehicle free.

It's quite ironic; when I focused on diesel emissions earlier in the thread (the biggest slice of the pollution pie and all that...) I was accused of having a single minded obsession and refusing to consider other sources of pollution

[old_windbag]

BUSSES

There are quite a number of these on the bus routes in my area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Dennis_Enviro400

In the city centre they start off on electric then move to diesel but when stationary nothing running. It helps.

Last night there was an item on the new electric taxi cab( well it's a range extended hybrid ) but it costs around 50k+. They said there may be up to 12k government aid, but either way it's a big outlay to replace something like that when running a business. Likewise with buses the money has to come from somewhere and most likely in fare increases. I think the movement to cleaner vehicles is for the better good but we can't suddenly force people into debts not of their own making but on the knee jerk reaction of beaurocrats. The technology has to be right, reliable and phased in over a sensible financial period with much government help..... but privatisation of so many transport services makes that more awkward. State owned we could be doing this in a sensible manner and could have done by now.

[reohn2]

so called 'environmentalists'

If humans lived as nature intended then we'd be truly environmental and balanced( nature would see to that ).

Did nature have an intention?
It seems to me that what drove manunkind to where it is today was profit,in some circumstances that was benign but for the most part it was self interest to the exclusion of all else,we're now realising that the cost of such lunacy has the potential for self exclusion too.
The major problem facing humanity is rampant capitalism,where profit is the be all and end all of everything, we're learning -though it may be too late- that in a very poignant and costly way.
We need to realise there's a better way and that we're overpopulating the earth to the point where we won't continue as a species unless we curb some of our excesses.

Unfortunately since the industrial revolution....

Thats when it all hit the fan,when we considered ourselves as owners of the earth,not custodians of it,to do as we please with it,thinking there were no cost to ourselves and the earth on which we need as our home.
The next milestone after that was the splitting of the atom and the nuclear madness that followed....

[Psamathe]

We need to address all significant causes of air pollution and avoid forcing people to breath air that damages their health.

In order to best focus our efforts we should probably put the most effort into tackling the single most important source, before then moving on to the next most important source (because that will have become the most important source by that time). I wonder if anybody would care to suggest where our efforts might best be put to good use in improving conditions for the greatest number of people?

I think it becomes a balance between what is achievable, what the other impacts are and what the costs might be. We could undoubtedly improve a lot of air quality issues by banning all ICE vehicles tomorrow - but it would not be very practical and would prove very expensive. Hence there becomes a balance. Some forms of air pollution can be addressed without such high impacts or costs. Hence the balance and the need to consider the different sources.

Part of the challenge in the UK is that we have a government who rather than try to address air pollution, prefers to fight through the courts to avoid doing anything (I see reported today that the 1st step of taking the government back to court over its failure to act has now started (again)); such a government does not carry out much research and investigation into sources or possible ways/impacts of pollution reduction. So we become dependent on research from other countries where there will be similarities and differences.

Clarifying with a "daft" example to illustrate the point: suppose poor air quality was due to 100 units of pollution, two causes source A accounting for 80 units of pollution and source B accounting for 20 units of air pollution. Yet you can reduce source B pollutants to 5 units with minimal impact at minimal cost but to reduce source A by even 10 units would be an expensive nightmare with massive impacts. Should you completely ignore source B because source A is "larger". When the aim is to improve air quality I'd suggest you try and address them all and if you want to focus on any particular source, consider the greatest gains given timescales, impact, cost, etc.

Ian

[pwa]

I gave up flying for environmental reasons about 15 years ago. I cycle to and from work a lot of the time, and make an effort not to use the car too much. I am an enthusiastic user of Park and Ride facilities where they exist. But I burn a bit of wood in winter. I'll give up my vice when I see others catching up on the other things.

Last night I pondered what I might buy if we needed another car. We don't, but I gave it a bit of thought anyway. And for the short journeys, if a bike were not feasible for some reason, one of those plug-in Renault Twizzy things might do. I like the look, and the simplicity, but sadly I just don't need one.