294
submitted 1 year ago by boem@lemmy.world to c/europe@feddit.de
all 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Anekdoteles@feddit.de 58 points 1 year ago

Chad dw links the studies it mentions

[-] Sigmatics@lemmy.ca 51 points 1 year ago

"2x above WHO limits" means "within EU limits". WHO recommends 5 micrograms, which is pretty unrealistic considering the population density of urban areas today. Unless we fully move off CO2 based transportation

[-] Anekdoteles@feddit.de 62 points 1 year ago

Unless we fully move off CO2 based transportation

Which is no problem at all in urban areas.

[-] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 year ago

Unless we fully move off CO2 based transportation

My understanding is that electric cars produce similar amounts of particulate pollution compared to other cars, because while they lack an internal combustion engine, they are also heavier and that increased the amount of particulates produced through tire wear and braking.

In other words, cars as a whole are the problem. Walking, cycling, streetcars and subways are the solution.

[-] Macros@feddit.de 24 points 1 year ago

While it is true that all cars hurt the environment (Creating a 1t box out of rare and complex materials and moving it along with the person to every place simply does) the thing with particle pollution is a myth by the anti-climate-change-mitigation movement.

Just think of the fact that they use regenerative breaking most of the time. Almost no wear on the breaks. And the battery weight is largely offset by drive train and engine.

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/electric-cars/running/do-electric-vehicles-produce-more-tyre-and-brake-pollution-than-petrol-and/

[-] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The very article you linked shows how the real-world tire wear of electric vehicles is substantially higher than the same models using IC engines. Whether it is due to higher acceleration or higher weight is not explained.

I am not opposed to electric cars. I am opposed to all cars and to the idea that electric cars are somehow a panacea, ignoring their externalities like traffic noise, air pollution and danger to other road users.

[-] Macros@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It doesn't?

It is 12.5% higher for a taxi company as stated in the article ( 25% Front wheels, 0% rear wheels, while break wear is 50% lower) and there was no difference measured for moderately driven vehicles.

Edit: This also strongly suggests it is due to acceleration as the back wheels also have to carry the weight and the front wheels get the additional wear from the acceleration)

Combine that with tail pipe/energy emissions (which only get better as more and more of our energy mix is renewable) and the picture is quite clear.

I repeat myself here: Yes I agree cars are bad! Reasons stated above. But if somebody insists on buying a new car it is better for the climate and the environment if he gets an electric one.

For the record: Nope do not have a car myself and I am well of legal age to get one.

[-] Sigmatics@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

That would be even better. But knowing how lazy/convenient people are, it will never happen

(I don't own a car myself and am doing just fine)

[-] ApfelstrudelWAKASAGI@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

I think a lot of the convenience just has to do with what's availible and what's commonly done. There are cities where public transport is completely the norm (or cycling etc. are extremely common) but it has to be convenient, cheap, and availible.

In other words, the gov't has to invest first.

[-] bilboswaggings@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 year ago

Guess what, WHO is way more abouth health

So I would rather go in that direction

[-] Sigmatics@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

I agree, as I said I would love to move off carbon based transport. But the 5 microgram goal is realistically not achievable with the current state of transportation and the current political goalposts of electrification

[-] tryptaminev@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

So we should change our current technological and political ways.

[-] randomperson@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

WHO is ineffective and useless as we have seen during pandemics.

[-] bilboswaggings@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 year ago

Ofc, nearly everything is corrupt as well

In this scenario though I would just much rather have cleaner air than have the EU and the rest of the world moving the goalposts

[-] letmesleep@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

Or we start filtering the air we breathe. I.e. use more air cleaners and wear masks more often.

[-] Sigmatics@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

That would be horrible. I don't want Europe to become like China

[-] letmesleep@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Become? The problem here is that we already are far beyond what is healthy. Air quality tends to be worse in China than in Europe, but a big difference is also that the Chinese tend to be less hesitant about wearing masks when it's important for the health.

The air is actually getting better (both in Europe and in China), but it will likely take decades before it's within WHO limits. Hence for the foreseeable future it makes sense to consider masks and air cleaners as an option. I'm not saying it's a good idea to wear a mask 24/7, but there's quite a few places and times in Europe where I'd put one on. There's real time data (e.g. here for Germany) and certain weather conditions exacerbate the problem, so it should be possible to avoid most issues with relatively little mask wearing.

The only issue with normal (FFP1-FFP3) masks is that they only work against particulates. For other issues (SOx, NOx, Ozone) they don't do much. Though afaik air cleaners with activated charcoal are helpful in these cases.

[-] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I already tend to wear an N95 on the Tube in London whenever I go there. The air quality down there is absolutely horrendous, let alone being packed in like sardines.

[-] Chetzemoka@kbin.social 33 points 1 year ago

It's wild to me, old enough to remember the thick clouds of yellow smog that used to blanket Los Angeles and acid rain dissolving historical buildings and statues, to see how far we've advanced in reigning in air pollution. I can kind of understand the struggle that older generations have in updating their ideas about what is and is not acceptable. All the more reason to have age restrictions on politicians to try to make advancement possible at the speeds required to save the species from climate change.

[-] Obi@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 year ago

I haven't thought about how having young politicians increase the overall speed of progress, not only due to the difference in ideas from one generation to the next but also from a purely logistics viewpoint.

[-] Gladaed@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

Sulfur isnt the only kind of air pollutant.

[-] boem@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago

With the EU voting on new air quality rules, satellite data shows that 98% of people face pollution above limits recommended by the World Health Organization.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 10 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Virtually everyone in Europe lives in polluted towns and cities where annual average levels of fine particulate matter are higher than the World Health Organization's  (WHO) recommended limit.

The European Parliament's Environment Committee had suggested adopting the WHO recommendations, which are stricter at five micrograms of fine particulate matter per cubic meter of air.

Geography is partially to blame: the region is surrounded by mountains and pollution created by heavy traffic, industry, agricultural emissions and residential heating is trapped in the area.

A study published in the science journal The Lancet used pollution data from 2015 to estimate that around 10% of deaths in cities like Milan could be prevented if average PM 2.5 concentrations dropped by around 10 micrograms per cubic meter.

"On top of having a negative geographical situation, we've been doing exactly the opposite of what we should do," said Anna Gerometta, a lawyer and president of Cittadini per l'Aria, an NGO that advocates for stricter air quality policies in Italy.

In Italy, environmental campaigners have noticed a similar problem in bridging a gap between science and daily life: "People don't understand the issue with air pollution.


The original article contains 1,206 words, the summary contains 176 words. Saved 85%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 1 points 1 year ago

Nah, it's just a weird weather condition trapping hot air until it rains mid next week.

[-] Oha@lemmy.ohaa.xyz 5 points 1 year ago

I love living in a tiny village

[-] FreeLunch@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Until your neighbours start burning wood

[-] Colour_me_triggered@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Having lived in Bergen (Norway) I can say with some degree of confidence that these readings are taken in summer. Otherwise Norway would have 5% marked in black.

[-] madis@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Black, as in worse than red? Why?

[-] Colour_me_triggered@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

It's surrounded by mountains, public transport sucks, high road density, studded tires, no wind, cold temperatures. the pollution just doesn't go anywhere until spring.

this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2023
294 points (100.0% liked)

Europe

8332 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS