Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Running diesel cars was trumpeted as a cleaner mode of transport. Following the 1997 Kyoto climate change treaty, four in 10 cars on British roads run on diesel, almost 12 million. However it has since emerged that diesel produces four times more nitrogen dioxide and 22 times more particulates, both major risks to health.

As result under Conservative plan, UK diesel drivers will receive compensation to encourage them to scrap or "retrofit" highly polluting vehicles.

Speed bumps are also being scrutinized to determine whether the slowing down/accelerating process they produce also contributes to greater harmful emissions.

If science and research is so all-wise and all-knowing, why were these toxic measures introduced in the first place?

If man can't get something like this right, what hope is there for the environmental success of other major decisions?
The policy makers certainly seem to have been turned very much against diesel in recent years.
Some of the data is very headline grabbing, but when they say things like "4 times as many particulates as a petrol car" they don't point out that a petrol car built only a few years ago probably pumped out even higher levels. The emissions standards have been aggressively reduced over the years.
Also there is some debate on whether the particulates that diesel engines produce are as harmful, even though there are more of them, as they tend to be a lot smaller.

There seems to be a general consensus that diesel isn't as good as we first thought, but it is also not as profitable for oil companies so perhaps they are buying doubt.

People do die from air pollution though so we should endeavour to keep it moving in the right direction I suppose