No new petrol or diesel cars by 2040

[JohnD]

What I am, as yet, far less convinced about is the suggestion/implication/claim that most/all of the reduction in US violent crime seen post-1973 is a consequence of the reduction in lead exposure during the preceding 2-3 decades.

I don't recall the estimate in the research.

But I'm willing to believe that if, say, murders went up by 5% in all the developed countries of the world, when leaded petrol reached its peak, and came down by 5% twenty years after it was phased out, 5% is as good an estimate as any other.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And if Bas is hard-of-reading

I'm not. I didn't say "I couldn't properly read the Wikipedia article", I said "I didn't ..."

I did not drink alcohol at lunchtime today, but that does not mean that I am a teetotaller, nor that I have an alcohol intolerance. Or a raging hangover.

Correlation/causation conflation again.......

"Abortion and birth control access
The famous abortion-crime hypothesis forwarded by Freakonomics is suspect because of two reasons. The first is that it's not strictly causal i.e. cause precedes effect (crime rates were going up before Roe v. Wade) and the second is that it's not internationally expandable. For example, the Abortion Act of 1967 in the United Kingdom, all but legalizing abortion, occurred well before before Roe but the UK had a surge in crime after the United States' peak (though only by a couple years). Contrariwise, Canada experienced tighter restrictions in legalized abortions from 1969-1988 but had a crime wave similar in duration, peak, and decline of that of the United States.[17]

A more plausible hypothesis is that greater availability of birth control in general may have caused the decline in the crime rates, and as more people used birth control in the late 1960s and 1970s, fewer unwanted children were born into unfortunate circumstances. This has the advantage of cutting across all countries and being an international trend. However, there remains a very large flaw in that crime rates were considerably lower in the 1950s than they are in modern times; the surge between the 1960s and 1990s and subsequent decline remains unexplained, and if lack of family planning was truly the cause, then crime rates should have been even higher before the mass availability of birth control in the United States. This is not the case. "

Another plausible hypothesis is different ways of classifying and recording crime. These change over time within countries, and can vary between countries to such an extent that figures cannot ever be compared.

After five years of people trying to pick holes in the leaded petrol hypothesis, can you find nothing more convincing?

I'm not trying to pick holes in anything, unless you want to classify rigour as picking holes.

I have no financial interests in the production, distribution or use of TEL in petrol, nor do I own any vintage cars that cannot be made to run on unleaded - why would I not want there to be a causal link?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I saw a research program suggesting batteries will be discarded for high capacity capacitors, they can be charged in seconds and take up less room than batteries.

Do some sums on the size of cables that would be needed to recharge a car in seconds.

 

[JohnW2]

But I'm willing to believe that if, say, murders went up by 5% in all the developed countries of the world, when leaded petrol reached its peak, and came down by 5% twenty years after it was phased out, 5% is as good an estimate as any other.

Yes, but you're "5%" is actually 100% - i.e. you are assuming that all of the increase and decrease during those periods were due to lead in petrol.

You seem to be fairly easily convinced. Before drawing the conclusion you have done, I would want to try to satisfy myself that (amongst other things) there were no other factors which had 'gone up and down' in roughly the same fashion, over the same time period, as environmental lead pollution - and which therefore might have been partial explanations for the change in murders (or whatever).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnD]

Another plausible hypothesis is different ways of classifying and recording crime. These change over time within countries, and can vary between countries to such an extent that figures cannot ever be compared.

I don't recall the studies comparing absolute figures between two or more countries. I did however see rises and falls within countries (and, for the US within states) and the remarkable fact that there was the same time-lag (not the same date) between use and disuse of leaded petrol, and rises and falls in crime. I find it particularly striking that this happened in countries with high arrest rates and countries with low; rich countries and poor countries; countries with strict gun laws and countries with lax; countries with long prison terms and countries with short. What do you think could be the common factor?

 

[JohnW2]

... the remarkable fact that there was the same time-lag (not the same date) between use and disuse of leaded petrol, and rises and falls in crime. I find it particularly striking that this happened in countries with high arrest rates and countries with low; rich countries and poor countries; countries with strict gun laws and countries with lax; countries with long prison terms and countries with short. What do you think could be the common factor?

That, of course, is the question that statisticians have to grapple with, and hopefully they would not approach the task with the pre-conceived view that there is only one possible answer!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Doggit]

So, back to OP then.

I suspect that the ban on diesel and petrol cars, won't apply to Hybrids. To be able to charge and run all those purly electric cars, they'd need to increase the grid capacity by 15%, and unless they can do that by nuclear power by 2040, then they'd still be producing greenhouse gasses from the extra powerstations needed, and if they're gas powered one, then that may well push fracking even more, otherwise we're even more reliant on overseas gas supplies.

And if the can't put charging points in the ground every 10ft, then you'd never be able to recharge all those electric cars. And as most people would be charging them overnight, would there then be any justification for off peak electricity rates.

Aston Martin made a very interesting point today, in that the specialist car makers don't have the ability to make the conversion to EV, and whilst Tesl make intersting EV's would Aston and Bentlys fare as well.

Now at least they are suggesting the removal of speed humps to keep traffic flowing, but what about reviwing all the trafic lights that have been deliberately designed to slow down traffic, and why haven't they (or will they yet) forced all cars to be fitted with stop start technology, and banned drivers from sitting with their engine running.

And what about the fact that just 15 of the giant tankers put out more CO than all the cars in the world.

 

[JohnW2]

I suspect that the ban on diesel and petrol cars, won't apply to Hybrids. To be able to charge and run all those purly electric cars, they'd need to increase the grid capacity by 15%, and unless they can do that by nuclear power by 2040, then they'd still be producing greenhouse gasses from the extra powerstations needed, and if they're gas powered one, then that may well push fracking even more, otherwise we're even more reliant on overseas gas supplies. .... And if the can't put charging points in the ground every 10ft, then you'd never be able to recharge all those electric cars.

Quite so. I really don't think that they've thought this through. They have considered only the pollution caused by cars with internal combustion engines and, I think, overlooked the question of how all the electric cars will get charged. A "U-turn" or, at least, a delay of a few decades may well be on the cards!

And as most people would be charging them overnight, would there then be any justification for off peak electricity rates.

Again, quite so. Perhaps more to the point, as has previously been mentioned, can one really believe that any government would let all the excise duty on petrol/diesel used by cars vanish, rather than finding some other way of collecting similar amounts of revenue from 'car fuel'??

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnD]

And what about the fact that just 15 of the giant tankers put out more CO than all the cars in the world.

Can you think of a reason why modern cars, with electronic mixture control and catalytic converters, are not much good for suicide by CO poisoning?

You might as well say that one tanker kills more dolphins than all the cars in the world.

 

[JohnD]

That, of course, is the question that statisticians have to grapple with, and hopefully they would not approach the task with the pre-conceived view that there is only one possible answer!

Have a go at http://www.nber.org/papers/w13097.pdf

It will take you a while. it did me, but that was nearly ten years ago.

You can read section 5 first if you want reassurance.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Why don't they ban diesels sooner if they are serious about the problem?

That would be no hardship. The newer ones stink something awful.

 

[stillp]

Was there no violent crime

Can you think of a reason why modern cars, with electronic mixture control and catalytic converters, are not much good for suicide by CO poisoning?

How d'you know that?

 

[JohnD]

How d'you know that?

I thought it was widely known

Suicide by car exhaust was well-established up to the introduction of catalytic converters. Prior to that it contained quite a bit of deadly carbon monoxide.

 

[JohnD]

Why don't they ban diesels sooner if they are serious about the problem?

Now that it has been announced, I expect most people will stop buying them, and makers will stop producing them. Tweaking of the fuel tax will make them unattractive. I hear buses will be modified to cut their emissions.

 

[JohnW2]

Have a go at http://www.nber.org/papers/w13097.pdfIt will take you a while. it did me, but that was nearly ten years ago.

That's one of the ones you linked to before, and I have started working my way through it.

One has to wonder why there has apparently been so much interest in this matter many years after the culprit toxin was removed from petrol - since, no matter what research and data analysis shows, there is nothing more than can be done, or needs to be done. The cynical might wonder whether some litigation lawyers might have been doing the 'encouraging', particularly in the US, since I otherwise somewhat struggle to think of 'who might gain what' by all this 'long after the event' effort!

Kind Regards, John