“Exaggerating to make a point” – a common tactic used by the likes of Greenpeace, the Green Party and other Climate Change tree-hugging organisations. Keeping on track with the OP. Diesel passenger cars are extremely rare in China and represent a tiny fraction of total cars on their roads.
Electric Cars – again many exaggerations abound about their range – as long as you don’t get stuck in heavy traffic or turn the lights and radio on. Tesla salesmen are very coy about the heavy batteries bonded low in their chassis (presumably to stop the car falling sideways when cornering) and whether it is terminal for the whole car when they eventually fail?
As said above, modern diesels are efficient and now have mechanicals and fluids built-in to combat most areas of their emissions. In the civilised, western democracy we off course want some freedom of choice without being dictated to by left-leaning, anti-capitalist “green” organisations
View attachment 115321
Yo still haven't suggested why my point is wrong...? Burning fossil fuels causes pollution. If not reduced, can lead to severe smog like seen in China, and other cities. If thats not a clear indicator that we need to move away from burning fossil fuels, then what is? Why would it need to be that severe to be a problem?
I had a feeling you wouldn't actually read the study...
Unfortunately no, modern diesels aren't all created equal. If you read the study you would of come across this graph:
This to me shows how woefully redundant the EU emission testing is. It assumes that modern cars are all clean, but in fact in the real world they are not. The massive variation in EU6 cars and their real world emissions highlight how pointless these test targets are.
Plenty of evidence showing that diesels produce more NOx than petrol, and that NOx are very likely to be linked with respiratory health problems, including lung cancer. Plenty of basic science shows that NOx is a known carcinogen, and that pumping out the amount of NOx from diesels is having a massive impact on public health, likely contributing to premature deaths, as in this report form the World Health Organisation:
https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2012/pdfs/pr213_E.pdf
You're are not arguing with me, I am merely pointing out the evidence from the scientific literature. If you disagree with the science and therefore the findings, go right ahead and prove why. As far as I am concerned, these are the facts of the matter.
On to your points about EV. Don't know about the failure rate thing due to batteries. Plenty of EVs have been about, any figures to suggest this is a known common problem that fundamentally cripples the idea of owning a EV? Always happy to look at evidence to help me make an informed decision.
As for your picture about about how EV are just as dirty, well this is actually quite ironic since you are trying to tell me on the one hand that ICE are fine and not that dirty, then on the other tell me that EVs aren't the answer because they pollute just as much...which is it...?
And unfortunately, when you look at the whole picture, again this isn't true...
The amount of energy required to refine fuels (amongst other things) is extraordinarily high. Further still, this energy is almost 100% provided by fossil burning sources, largely coal power. You then have the energy used to create the car, which can come from any mixture of energy sources, but typically its about 70% renewable clean energy, and 30% coal and oil. Then obviously finally you have the pollution caused when the car creates its own energy by burning that fuel. Importantly, the cars do this in built up populated areas, like inner cities, hence why they are banning diesels in cities as it has the biggest impact on human health.
Now the most damaging parts of this entire process in terms of pollution is the bit where the fuel is refined, and the bit where it is burnt by the car, neither of which is needed with EVs. The energy used to make the EV car ( and indeed any car) could potentially be 100% renewable (as with the Tesla and their Gigafactory, which uses 100% solar), and like wise the energy used to charge an EV could be 100% renewable. So EVs have the potential to be 100% clean, while ICE cars will always be extremely polluting due to the need for fuel. In reality, EVs still rely on some dirty energy, but it is SUBSTANTIALLY lower than ICE cars.
I'm not going to address anti-capatilist, green thing, as everyone agrees they are over the top and not helpful in the debate.