Diesel or Petrol?

[Mala591]

Diesel gives on average 20% MORE mpg and produces 20% LESS CO2 so why the mad rush to 'phase out' diesel cars?

Yes, I understand that diesel produces more toxic particles but surely the answer is to develop cleaner diesel and better dpf's (diesel particle filters) than to switch en-masse to petrol and produce far more CO2.

Hybrid and electric cars are obviously the LONG term solution but we will still have diesel and petrol cars on our roads for many more decades.

Are we (yet again) being given the wrong advice about the diesel vs petrol dilemma?

[cricketfieldclarets]

Its a gimmick.

Its like the 'vegan for ethical reasons' without realising that more animals die per vegan meal than standard meal.

Diesel is more economical and has been proven to be as clean if not cleaner.

But its a quick win for politicians and manufacturers.

[IanMcL]

Its a gimmick.

Diesel is more economical and has been proven to be as clean if not cleaner.

But its a quick win for politicians and manufacturers.

The same ones who pointed everyone towards Diesel!

[cricketfieldclarets]

Exactly

[Paul Waine]

Diesel gives on average 20% MORE mpg and produces 20% LESS CO2 so why the mad rush to 'phase out' diesel cars?

Yes, I understand that diesel produces more toxic particles but surely the answer is to develop cleaner diesel and better dpf's (diesel particle filters) than to switch en-masse to petrol and produce far more CO2.

Hybrid and electric cars are obviously the LONG term solution but we will still have diesel and petrol cars on our roads for many more decades.

Are we (yet again) being given the wrong advice about the diesel vs petrol dilemma?

Hi mala, it's an interesting one, isn't it. Diesel - better mpg, so lower co2 emissions, but, higher nitrogen oxides and PM 2.5

RAC's take on diesel - with an interesting timeline - and a reminder that the testing of diesel pollution was not "real world" testing - so, VW and many other manufactures were "failing" the real tests about diesel pollution.

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/emissions/diesels/

Friends of the Earth - diesel and air pollution - 10 facts about an invisible killer

https://friendsoftheearth.uk/clean-air/ ... ble-killer

And, British Heart Foundation welcomes calls to ban diesel and petrol cars by 2030

https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/news- ... rs-by-2030

Extract from BHF:

Air pollution currently contributes to up to 36,000 deaths in the UK each year, while figures from the World Health Organization (WHO) show that over half of all premature deaths related to air pollution on a global scale are due to heart disease and stroke.

Research funded by the British Heart Foundation has previously found that even short-term exposure to diesel exhaust has harmful effects on the heart and circulatory system, promoting blood clotting and putting the heart under additional stress, both of which could increase the risk of a heart attack or stroke in people who are vulnerable.

Unfortunately, the UK’s legal limit of PM2.5 – dangerous particles caused by air pollution that has links with poor cardiovascular health – is not as strict as the levels recommended by the WHO.

*********************

So, it appears that we should make a trade between reducing CO2 emissions - and thus seeking to address the challenges of climate change - by buying diesel engine rvs, in preference to petrol ICEs - and an increased number of deaths today as a result of air pollution (though, not all the 36,000 deaths a year are due to diesel pollution alone).

[Clarets4me]

What's the WHO recommended limits on Police killings of their citizens ?

Jamaican Police have shot dead 3,264 of it's citizens between 1998-2016 ( Pop: 2.95m ), the British Police have shot 47 between 2000-2019 ( Pop 67m ) ..

Road traffic deaths ( per 100 k registered vehicles ) stand at 5.7 people in the UK, and 61.7 in Jamaica. However, I wouldn't recommend taking a spin in the Jalopy in Somalia, as the figure rises to 6,532 ...

To be fair to Mr Brown, his taxation changes to encourage us to switch to Diesel, has only cost around 80,000 lives since 2002 .... many Socialist Governments have been far less subtle in killing their populations ...

[BennyD]

If I’m doing long distances I tend to use diesel cars but if I’m just going out for a thrash then a petrol V8 is my weapon of choice and bolloxcs to Greta.

[tim_noone]

What's the WHO recommended limits on Police killings of their citizens ?

Jamaican Police have shot dead 3,264 of it's citizens between 1998-2016 ( Pop: 2.95m ), the British Police have shot 47 between 2000-2019 ( Pop 67m ) ..

Road traffic deaths ( per 100 k registered vehicles ) stand at 5.7 people in the UK, and 61.7 in Jamaica. However, I wouldn't recommend taking a spin in the Jalopy in Somalia, as the figure rises to 6,532 ...

To be fair to Mr Brown, his taxation changes to encourage us to switch to Diesel, has only cost around 80,000 lives since 2002 .... many Socialist Governments have been far less subtle in killing their populations ...

What's the stats on't harse n Cart?

[Belial]

Diesel gives on average 20% MORE mpg and produces 20% LESS CO2 so why the mad rush to 'phase out' diesel cars?

Yes, I understand that diesel produces more toxic particles but surely the answer is to develop cleaner diesel and better dpf's (diesel particle filters) than to switch en-masse to petrol and produce far more CO2.

Hybrid and electric cars are obviously the LONG term solution but we will still have diesel and petrol cars on our roads for many more decades.

Are we (yet again) being given the wrong advice about the diesel vs petrol dilemma?

Simply put, because the Government are being forced to act on specific pollutants - NO2 and Particulate Matter. They've already been brought before the courts for failing to meet targets, so this is the main priority and as always, the general public bears the brunt. There are other targets such as those around GHG's/climate change, however the stuff to do with how air quality is monitored is what's getting them in the sh1t at the moment, so understandably they are working on that first.

[No Ney Never]

Its the price of fuel that's the problem, far tool cheap to be a deterrent to people simply jumping in the car for short journeys.
People pay £50 for a small bottle of perfume or aftershave, which is nothing more than a few chemicals mixed and bottled on a production line on an industrial estate. 80p for a can of pop, 1/3 of a litre, works out at £2.40/litre. Its only syrup and carbonated water.
Considering what goes into sourcing, extracting, transporting and refining oil, also that it's a finite natural resource, it's way underpriced compared to what people are prepared to pay for so many other things.

[Hipper]

Its the price of fuel that's the problem, far tool cheap to be a deterrent to people simply jumping in the car for short journeys.
People pay £50 for a small bottle of perfume or aftershave, which is nothing more than a few chemicals mixed and bottled on a production line on an industrial estate. 80p for a can of pop, 1/3 of a litre, works out at £2.40/litre. Its only syrup and carbonated water.
Considering what goes into sourcing, extracting, transporting and refining oil, also that it's a finite natural resource, it's way underpriced compared to what people are prepared to pay for so many other things.

As far as the market goes fuel is over priced, especially when considering the fuel tax. Oil and associated companies make handsome profits too.

Of course where it is under priced is in the environmental damage that it does, including people's health. I suppose one could argue that the fuel tax will pay for the environmental costs - I don't know.

You are right though that the cost of fuel is not much of a deterrent for most people but no government, yet anyway, can say they are going to increase the price of fuel substantially and expect to get elected - see fuel protests in the UK in 2000 for example.

[No Ney Never]

As far as the market goes fuel is over priced, especially when considering the fuel tax. Oil and associated companies make handsome profits too.

Of course where it is under priced is in the environmental damage that it does, including people's health. I suppose one could argue that the fuel tax will pay for the environmental costs - I don't know.

You are right though that the cost of fuel is not much of a deterrent for most people but no government, yet anyway, can say they are going to increase the price of fuel substantially and expect to get elected - see fuel protests in the UK in 2000 for example.

Not being specific, but putting out there an idea for further discussion, what would be done with the money generated by a increase in fuel taxation.
£5/litre.
£1.50 towards additional funding to the NHS.
£1 to subsidise the take up of electric vehicles and charging infrastructure.
£1 to improving the roads and public transport.
50p to support renewable energy schemes.
The remaining £1 pretty much as it is now.

[Billy Balfour]

It's around 75 cents a litre in the U.S.

I get that pollution isn't a good thing, but neither is our unreliable public transport once you're out of London and a couple of other main conurbations. The rail service in the UK is utter sshite. The bus service isn't much better and has been cut to the bone. I also don't like the idea of taxing people off the roads while making car ownership a privilege of the rich. Anyroad, any govt, that attempts to tax the car owning public off the roads, will be a short lived one.

By the way, I would leave the car at home more often if we had we decent and reliable public transport.

[gawthorpe_view]

You may also wish to factor in congestion charges if you're planning to drive a diesel vehicle in our cities and larger towns.

[tarkys_ears]

Some half heads on here.