51–60 of 345 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NOx is also the biggest product of animal agriculture. It also has an effect on climate change. Global warming potential is around 300 times larger than CO2. [1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential#Value...
Not a chemist, but pretty sure Nitrous oxide (N2O) isn't in the NOx family.
As a German who never owned a car (have driver license 30+ years) and never will, hurray! Next: Petrol cars please. Costs for cities would decrease a lot [1], room for bicycles would increase, noise would drop to a level which can't believed, ambulances would be adjusted to walking persons instead of loud cars with their stereos on and air would be wonderful. [1] https://www.amazon.de/High-Cost-Free-Parking/dp/193236…
This is a very backwards approach. Why don't we destroy our cities that have replaced the beautiful nature that used to be there instead of them?
As a German who never owned a car (have driver license 30+ years) and never will, hurray! Next: Petrol cars please. Costs for cities would decrease a lot [1], room for bicycles would increase, noise would drop to a level which can't believed, ambulances would be adjusted to walking persons instead of loud cars with their stereos on and air would be wonderful. [1] https://www.amazon.de/High-Cost-Free-Parking/dp/193236…
Is this backed by real science? I was under the impression that modern diesels were highly efficient and quite within the acceptable emission standards.
Diesel cars have been under fire for quite some time because auto makers across the entire industry cheat on emission tests: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal
As a German who never owned a car (have driver license 30+ years) and never will, hurray! Next: Petrol cars please. Costs for cities would decrease a lot [1], room for bicycles would increase, noise would drop to a level which can't believed, ambulances would be adjusted to walking persons instead of loud cars with their stereos on and air would be wonderful. [1] https://www.amazon.de/High-Cost-Free-Parking/dp/193236…
It'd also practically stop economic growth of areas outside large cities and slow down economic growth of the city itself. Many businesses would be ruined (and thus people working on them). Many people would loose their jobs. This is a very backwards approach. Why don't we destroy our cities that have replaced the beautiful nature that used to be there instead of them?
Cars are a net negative for societies (see e.g. https://tu-dresden.de/bu/verkehr/ivs/voeko/ressourcen/dateie...). Just imagine having most (80%+) of goods transported by cargo bike: lots of (local!) employment, lots of new technology needed, etc.
I am so confused by government policy here in the UK. Right now I'm looking at a 5 year old used Diesel car with £0 road tax and 70+ MPG for about 10k GBP. My current Petrol engine costs £130/annum road tax, and only gets 30-40 MPG, I can also buy petrol cars with road tax of £240-500/annum (based on emissions) But if I buy the Diesel, it could be banned or worthless in a few years, because of these types of policies…
As a German who never owned a car (have driver license 30+ years) and never will, hurray! Next: Petrol cars please. Costs for cities would decrease a lot [1], room for bicycles would increase, noise would drop to a level which can't believed, ambulances would be adjusted to walking persons instead of loud cars with their stereos on and air would be wonderful. [1] https://www.amazon.de/High-Cost-Free-Parking/dp/193236…
It'd also practically stop economic growth of areas outside large cities and slow down economic growth of the city itself. Many businesses would be ruined (and thus people working on them). Many people would loose their jobs. This is a very backwards approach. Why don't we destroy our cities that have replaced the beautiful nature that used to be there instead of them?
It's important to note that popularity of diesel is the doing of the German government. The fuel is subsidized for the sake of the environment because it's more efficient. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/eb8be120-de5... The situation is similar to Germany's work on its electric power sources. Nuclear was turned off because it's dangerous. Now Germany spews out about same carbon as before giant investm…
The link between German industrial policy/protectionism and environmental disasters like diesel has been known for a while now but European cities in particular will be paying the price for a long time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first link goes to a paywall for me. Is the fuel subsidized, or just taxed less? The tax on gasoline in Germany is roughly 100% at current prices.
Diesel is subsidized, as it is in other parts of Europe.
The only fuel in Europe that you could class as 'subsidized' is so called 'red' diesel that is used in agriculture. You could run that in your regular diesel engine and it will work just fine but the coloring will stain the fuel delivery system and the tank in such a way that even many runs of regular fuel later it is detectable and this will get you a very heavy fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'd also practically stop economic growth of areas outside large cities and slow down economic growth of the city itself. Many businesses would be ruined (and thus people working on them). Many people would loose their jobs. This is a very backwards approach. Why don't we destroy our cities that have replaced the beautiful nature that used to be there instead of them?
A city ban on cars would effect areas outside of cities?