"Just Jeepin'" (macintux)
05/19/2020 at 09:55 • Filed to: Pollution sucks, coronavirus
4
3|
"Just Jeepin'" (macintux)
05/19/2020 at 09:55 • Filed to: Pollution sucks, coronavirus | 4
| 3 |
Specifically, why pollution didn’t drop as much as initially thought with so many cars off the road. Also a discussion of California’s efforts to increase the number of fuel cell/battery-powered trucks.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
facw
> Just Jeepin'
05/19/2020 at 10:18 |
|
Looking at ozone, or smog causing emissions in general , I don’t think that’s shocking, given the massive improvements we’ve made at the tailpipe over the past half-century. Cars are really bad from a CO2 emissions standpoint, and concentrated in cities they can be bad for other pollutants, but in general we’ve already done a pretty good job with them in terms of smog, at least compared to other sources of pollution.
DipodomysDeserti
> Just Jeepin'
05/19/2020 at 10:51 |
|
Everything presented in that article has been known for a while. Counties monitor air quality daily, and even predict it, fairly accurately. A 14% reduction in ozone in LA just from telling people to work from home is pretty significant. Anyone who thinks taking cars off the road will “solve” our air quality issues is very uninformed. I doubt most people could tell you what ozone is without looking it up, so discussing how atmospheric NOx interacts with ozone in an article like this is pretty pointless. But then again, this article seems to assume ozone is the only air pollutant that matters.
Smog is literally the air pollution you can see, and ozone is just one part of smog pollution. I don’t know about LA, but smog has been significantly reduced in Phoenix, even if ozone is still being emitted from other sources.
My bird IS the word
> Just Jeepin'
05/19/2020 at 10:59 |
|
Thats good news for our hobby I guess. Hopefully shift the political focus on to industry