Diesel Cars Contribute To 5,000 Premature Deaths a Year In Europe, Says Study (phys.org)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: Emissions from diesel cars rigged to appear eco-friendly may be responsible for 5,000 air pollution deaths per year in Europe alone, according to a study published on Monday. The numbers are in line with previous assessments of deaths due to the so-called "Dieselgate" scandal, which erupted when carmaker Volkswagen admitted in 2015 to cheating on vehicle emissions tests. Many other carmakers have since fallen under suspicion. The researchers from Norway, Austria, Sweden and the Netherlands calculated that about 10,000 deaths in Europe per year can be attributed to small particle pollution from light duty diesel vehicles (LDDVs). Almost half of these would have been avoided if emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from diesel cars on the road had matched levels measured in the lab. If diesel cars emitted as little NOx as petrol ones, almost 4,000 of the 5,000 premature deaths would have been avoided, said the authors. The countries with the heaviest burden are Italy, Germany, and France, the team added, "resulting from their large populations and high share of diesel cars in their national fleets." Touted as less polluting, the share of diesel cars in Europe rose fast compared to petrol since the 1990s, and now comprise about half the fleet. There are more than 100 million diesel cars in Europe today, twice as many as in the rest of the world together, said the study authors. Diesel engines emit less planet-warming carbon dioxide than petrol ones, but significantly more NOx. The study has been published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

Comments

Well, if it also causes that many premature births

[fustakrakich]

Then we're even, right?

Re:Stop with the economic distortions.

[DontBeAMoran]

The biggest factor should be that technology and industries move a lot faster than bureaucrats. By the time laws get passed, what they're trying to regulate has already changed.

Does VW get any credit for this criminality?

[ITRambo]

Does their deceit about the emissions levels on VW diesel engines, that contributes to deaths, lead to any criminal charges? Nope. Just fines and a round of golf. Corporations have no true accountability when the leaders get to go home and a lonely engineer is set up to take the fall.

Re:Does VW get any credit for this criminality?

[thegarbz]

Yeah they all get off free.

Oh except for the VW executive who was arrested at the airport while on holiday and has been stuck in jail for the past 1/3rd of the year.

And the 5 other senior executives who also have been had criminal cases brought against them, though currently they are in Germany so if the USA wants to do something it will have to be via extradition.

Don't let that ruin your narrative though.

Re:Does VW get any credit for this criminality?

[hey!]

I remember one interesting paper I read in my undergraduate psych course which made a lot of intuitive sense: the experiment showed that the likelihood of punishment had a much stronger effect on subject behavior than the severity of punishment. Think of how everyone slows down when they see a cop car parked on the side of the road, but they blithely sail past signs announcing that speeding fines are doubled.

Imagine a universe in which someone involved in the kind of fraud VW did was fined, say, 5% of his annual wages -- a mere slap on the wrist compared to jail time -- but everyone believed that if you did tried it you'd be caught. On other hand, imagine a universe where the punishment was life in prison, but nobody believed anyone would ever get caught. Which universe has the most fraud?

I think we understand this with respect to our own behavior, and yet somehow when a problem like this comes up, we turn to "make the punishment worse" rather than "make the punishment certain." Because it's *easy* to make punishments more severe. It's hard to catch people, bring them to face justice, and successfully try them. But that's what we've got to do.

Re:The article is bullshit

[Namarrgon]

As usual, you can't just assume it's that simple. PM2.5 particles can also be formed by chemical processes from precursor NOx emissions, adding to the levels from direct emissions.

In fact, according to this study, secondary formation of PM2.5 from NOx emissions can be surprisingly high:

Based on an analysis of the composition of the PM2.5 measured in the United States, the percentages of the PM2.5 formed by precursor NOx and VOC compounds is quite variable. The portion of PM2.5 comprised of all secondary components (sulfates, nitrates, ammonium, organic carbon) varies anywhere from 30% to 90% of all PM2.5.

Hate to say it...

[skam240]

I hate to say it but so what? I tend to be on the left environmentally but that statistic is not compelling at all. Five thousand people out of the hundreds of millions in Europe die early deaths because of diesel emissions? Far more deaths can be attributed to all kinds of every day things then that.

I think significantly altering our atmosphere is a bad idea and I like clean air and all but that statistic isn't compelling in the least.

Re: Hate to say it...

[jabuzz]

The problem is that (in the UK at least) only 14% of NOx comes from vehicles. The figures in the study show that the UK is broadly comparable to the rest of the EU in this regard.

So worrying about 5000 extra deaths from dieselgate is missing the point by some considerable margin. The big problem as I understand it is actually domestic gas boilers, which has been exacerbated by the switch to condensing boilers.

Basically the problem is if you maximize efficiency from burning *ANY* fuel, you need to increase the combustion temperature to do so. However increasing the combustion temperature will lead to increased NOx production.

Another kicker is that NOx is a short term pollutant. That is it is removed from the atmosphere in a matter of months if not weeks. CO2 on the other hand takes decades if not centuries to be removed.

Finally the study is flawed because it makes the fatal assumption of a "zero risk choice". That is producing more CO2 does not and will not cause more deaths than producing less CO2.

Re:Hate to say it...

[AmiMoJo]

If someone sold food products that killed 5000 people a year, not to mention all the others who didn't die but got sick, it would be a big deal.

That's what happened here. If they hadn't cheated on the emissions tests, 5000 people a year wouldn't die. Killing people through negligence is not acceptable, let alone killing them by deliberately cheating on safety tests.

Re:Suck it meatbags!

[Z00L00K]

And then you look at the following:

Tobacco consumption is responsible for nearly 700,000 deaths in the EU every year. Smokers suffer more from poor health (as they are more at risk of cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases) and half of them die prematurely (14 years on average).

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/...

That makes the diesel exhaust problem marginal.

Re:Ha, yeah right.

[Z00L00K]

Just look at smoking-related deaths and you see that the diesel figures are no more than marginal noise.

Re: Suck it meatbags!

[Anonymous Coward]

In November the EEA reported that air pollution is causing 467,000 premature deaths in the EU, which would put it in the same league as smoking. The 5,000 figure quoted is additional deaths just caused by the misreported dieselgate vehicles; diesel as a whole expected to contribute twice that many to the total.

Re:Stop with the economic distortions.

[dehachel12]

> reality is that powering electric vehicles with coal-generated power is worse than just letting people by gasoline-powered vehicles.
study : http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-ve...

Re:Stop with the economic distortions.

[schleimkeim]

yeah, because the free market regulates itself soooo great in the US.

Diesel never was tought as "less poluting"

[GuB-42]

The real reason we have a lot of Diesel cars in Europe is because of taxes.
Gasoline is taxed more than diesel and cars tend to consume more. People are quick to do the maths and opt for the more economical solution, especially those who drive a lot.

Re:Diesel never was tought as "less poluting"

[GuB-42]

And what reason, do you think, explains why governments reduced that tax on diesel?

The most convincing reason I've heard is that originally, it was a way for the government to tax personal cars more than trucks. Cars used gas and truck use diesel so that was an effective solution.
You see, personal cars are for a large part run with disposable income, where trucks are an essential part of the economy, which mean they can't tax them as much before being disruptive. Furthermore, long haul trucks have range that allows them to take advantage of lower prices in foreign countries, which creates competition.
Personal diesel cars are a reaction to this policy. But even then, it still fulfills its purpose since professionals are more likely to choose diesel than "recreational" drivers.

Note that the trend is going back to using gasoline as new, more efficient engines are coming out and the difference in fuel price is not as significant.

Meta-analysis

[sycodon]

Is there anything more useless than a Meta-analysis?

How many times have eggs been bad for you, then good again?

Butter?

Fats?

Etc?

Brought to you by Meta-analysis.

Nitrogen oxides

[XXongo]

Its even worse than that. NOx reacts with Methane to remove it from the atmosphere, and Methane is much MUCH worse that CO2 with regards to greenhouse effects.

News flash: oxygen reacts with methane to remove it from the atmosphere. Nitrogen oxides are 0.00003% of the atmosphere. Oxygen is 20% of the atmosphere. Putting more nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere has a negative effect on health, but doesn't reduce the amount of methane in the atmosphere enough to notice.

Estimates vary, however the accepted figure appears to be that the net effect of global diesel use is 20% net cooling effect.

Another news flash: making shit up really isn't a substitute for science.

So yes, Diesel contributes to global cooling! Climate change! Disaster!

To repeat: making shit up really isn't a substitute for science.

(Also, lightning creates about the same amount of NOx as small vehicles, and both are much less than shipping, aircraft, or heavy industry..)

Lightning produces some nitrogen oxides. Specifically, "over the United States lightning accounts for only about 5 percent of the total U.S. nitrogen oxide annual emissions and about 14 percent of the total emissions in July."

And lightning-produced nitrogen oxides are randomly distributed through the atmosphere. Nitrogen oxides produced by automobiles are concentrated where the most automobiles are, which coincidentally happens to be where people live. Lightning-produced nitrogen oxides are important to global atmospheric chemistry, but they're not a major player in pollution. https://www.nasa.gov/home/hqne...

Illegal Migrants From Africa and Afghanistan

[Mrakodrap]

Contribute To Over 5,000 Premature Rapings a Year In Just One Country In Europe, Says Study.

Re: Suck it meatbags!

[I'm New Around Here]

What if the employees all smoke? What if the employers specifically hire smokers just to allow smoking in the business?

Re: Suck it meatbags!

[I'm New Around Here]

> If you don't want second hand smoke, stay out of the buildings where smokers smoke. Why must you ban smoking in ALL private businesses?

It will be like binding arbitration clauses in contracts or businesses that don't allow blacks or gays.

I didn't know that "non-smokers" was a protected class.