If this includes carbon dioxide, and likely it does, time everybody in these areas should stop breathing and defecating immediately. Both contribute heavily to CO2 and methane emissions. No fast walking or biking either! These areas need to clean up their act, immediately!
Troll, What is your point?
You keep taking items from this paper and posting it here with no comment.
Do you work for NY Times?
I do not want a subscription, thank you.
I never get any information from them.
Map of flat tires by zip code in U.S.
What a completely useless map. CO2 disperses quickly, there’s no health issue about being next to a road. Any issue is with the total volume over a wide area. A useful map might be of health-related emissions, like hydrocarbons, CO, and particulates.
At least where I live there are a minimum of 1000 trees between my property and a paved road.
It’s an auto emission.
They contribute but not heavily.
You can right-click on the link, save it, read the copy. I have no subscription.
But persists in the atmosphere, the total concentration inuring to the outcome of every plant and animal.
That’s a different thing.
This map lets us know what our contribution is.
I dunno, I’m concerned about flats. I’d like to see the correlation though between flats and houses getting new roofs. Guy down the street got new shingles and I’m afraid to drive by there.
Looks like Troll though is starting another war. The ole 60’s songs keep coming back to me “and the war rages on . . .”. I thought Deblasto was outlawing cars along with the glass buildings though. Maybe hasn’t had time yet due to being out of town a lot.
Yeah I know, shut up Bing. Your smart alack comments are not welcome but it’s raining again so can’t get any work done outside. Maybe I’ll go start the snow blower and raise our emissions a little to get a spot on the map.
Those are the exact things I mention in my post. CO2 is not a local pollutant. Those that you posted, and I mentioned, are.
You missed the point. Where there are elevated CO2 emissions from cars there are many other more dangerous emissions from cars. CO2 is very easy to measure, thus track.
No where in the article does it mention using these maps as proxies for actual health- damaging pollutants. 100% of the article is about CO2 emissions, something better handled on a regional basis.
What’s worse, no actual measurement of CO2 was done. It’s just an estimate. It has nothing to do with actual CO2 concentrations near these roads:
“To create their database, Boston University researchers used federal traffic data to calculate the number of miles travelled on local segments of each road in the United States and converted those miles to carbon dioxide emissions by estimating how much fuel is consumed by different types of vehicles using those roads.”
Here’s a much more meaningful map:
What are you Greta thornbergs father ?
Are you just being obtuse or you actually didn’t read the links? All I can say is WOW.
Taken directly from link above.
Areas near high-traffic roadways often have much higher levels of pollution than the rest of the community. A 2010 review estimated 30 to 45 percent of the people in North American cities live or work near enough to a busy road to experience significantly higher levels of pollution.
Air pollution from motor vehicles can harm health in a range of ways. For example, nitrogen oxides worsen asthma and increase risk of infection. Particulate matter from motor vehicles can also cause asthma attacks, respiratory and cardiovascular harm and even early death. Particulate matter can also lead to lung cancer, and some VOCs are connected to other cancers as well. See the “Terrible 10” air pollution health risks.
I’ve just reread that article linked by the OP, I found none of those passages. Maybe they aren’t showing on my phone.
How do you think they tell the difference between auto CO2 and 20 million human created or waste decomposition CO2? They can’t descriminate between the sources. And CO2 is considered a pollutant no matter its source.
Really? NOX, CO and HC, sure but those levels are a fraction of what they were in the 70s. CO2 is food for plants.
And if he were, would that be a problem?
The girl probably doesn’t much about business, the auto industry, and so forth, but she’s got guts, and won’t be bullied into submission
I’m not disparaging her when I say she doesn’t know much about business and so forth, because she’s a teenager, and there’s many guys on this forum who have decades of knowledge which she doesn’t
Flats and roof construction? Well, there is a need for lots of roofing nails
@Mustangman … From what I read on the internet a human produces around 3 pounds of cO2 per day, a car about 3 pounds per hour.
Interesting bit of info. If we just consider NYC, how many cars are on the roads compared to people, including non-driving people, inside the border? Is is 10:1, 100:1? And their waste treatment?
Ahh, my comment was tongue-in-cheek anyway. Those that want to tell me how to live rarely walk the talk. Driving a Prius and installing solar panels on their 10,000 SF home doesn’t offset their overall carbon footprint. It just makes them feel superior.
Is there no value in identifying the source of a pollutant unless it is a local pollutant?
I can’t help but notice how everyone went on the attack over an article analyzing “nearly 60 percent” of carbon emissions.
If you’re not interested in reducing your personal carbon emissions, nothing is stopping you from keeping calm and scrolling on. Some of us are interested in it though, and I find it strange that anyone would need to go on the attack the way some of you have.
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re just trolling for fun, and that you understand the absurdity of this argument.