Article in the NYTimes today. I found this sentence particularly intriguing: "Modifying existing diesel vehicles and making modest changes in the way they are used can eliminate up to 90 percent of the most harmful emissions"

What things do you think they are referring to that could achieve this kind of reduction? I'd love to make my truck's emissions cleaner on top of the reductions from running on SVO.
_______

State Leads in Ill Effects From Diesels, Report Says
By ANTHONY DePALMA

Published: February 23, 2005


Smoky diesel exhaust billowing from the tailpipes of buses, trucks and construction equipment leads to more premature deaths, heart attacks and bouts of asthma in New York than in any other state, according to a report released yesterday by the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental group.

The harmful effects of diesel exhaust were most severe in New York City, despite recent efforts to reduce noxious emissions. The study estimated that there were more heart attacks per capita connected to diesel exhaust in the city than in any other metropolitan area in the country.

Diesel manufacturers contend that the study exaggerates the health risks in part because the results are based on data that is several decades old.

Every year, more than 2,300 people in New York State die prematurely because of exposure to diesel pollution, according to the report. More than 3,600 heart attacks and 51,000 asthma attacks are attributed to the exhaust emissions.

Although it is impossible to separate diesel exhaust from other contaminants completely, the report estimated that more than 315,000 workdays a year were lost because of diesel emissions.

"Diesel exhaust is a clear and present threat to public health that needs to be addressed right away," said Peter M. Iwanowicz, vice president and chief policy officer of the American Lung Association of New York State.

While black smoke is the most visible part of diesel exhaust, it is not the most dangerous element. Nearly invisible particles - some so fine they are no wider than one-hundredth of the diameter of a human hair - are believed to cause the most damage because they can lodge deep inside the lungs.

Modifying existing diesel vehicles and making modest changes in the way they are used can eliminate up to 90 percent of the most harmful emissions, Mr. Iwanowicz said. Allen R. Schaeffer, executive director of the Diesel Technology Forum, which represents manufacturers and diesel fuel refiners, said diesel exhaust makes up a small percentage of air pollution contaminants, and recent advances in diesel technology make a new vehicle eight times cleaner than one built a dozen years ago.

"This study really overstates and overreaches," Mr. Schaeffer said, because it does not use current data.

Even so, Mr. Schaeffer said, the diesel industry thinks it is a good idea to update older engines.

New federal regulations will require diesel engines built after 2007 to meet standards that will eliminate more than 90 percent of pollutants in diesel exhaust.

But existing vehicles will continue to emit the harmful exhaust for decades, said David M. Martin, regional vice president of the American Lung Association of New York State.

Among cities, the report found that New York had by far the most dangerous level of diesel contamination in the country.
________

Just another reason not to live there or any other major city, where everything is crammed in together.

As someone who doesn't live in a major city but is really concerned about the ways people are living and the consequences for the environment, I gotta just add a little something to what Charles posted.

As folks on this forum know better than most, for most Americans the single decision we make in our entire lives that has the greatest impact on the environment (ie. on the quality of life of everyone we share the earth with and our children and their children, etc.) is the car we drive (or don't drive) and how much we drive it.

"Sprawl" by far continues to be our preferred method of growth throughout the US, which not only means continually reducing the natural habitat and resources we all depend on, it also means we're locking in a long-term dependence on a LOT of driving: to get to work, to buy groceries, to see a movie, and so on. That means more pollution, more dependence on foreign oil and the US having to try to exert control in oil-rich places, more power for oil companies and politicians that represent them, and the US continuing to consume 40% of the world's oil -- not exactly the fairest of stats since we're only 5% of the population.

I'm definitely no lover of big cities, especially since so many of them are themselves just massive sprawls, but creating dense pockets of people in towns and cities where we can do a lot more walking and short drives, with large tracts of protected land around them, seems to offer the greatest promise of livable human and natural environments in balance for the long haul.

And in the meawhile, kudos to everyone working on running their cars on alternative fuels!

ok, getting down off my soapbox and going back to work...