Only one of your two links says "study," and it's about the 2015 Toronto study, and it definitely mentions carbon dioxide. If you had been paying attention, you would have known that on April 16 in this very thread, I posted a link to another article about this very study. That one gave the figure 93%, and it was clearly wrong because it relates directly to gas mileage. That threw doubt on all the other conclusions, which is why I looked into how it said they collected the data.
Obviously, you have never read the article whose link you posted, either.
"The researchers took real-time measurements of the exhaust of about 100,000 cars driving past air-sampling probes on one of Toronto’s busiest roads. The study was borne out of concern that vehicle fleet emissions spread farther than previously known."
(Borne? Doesn't boston.com have an English-speaking editor?)
I had thought it was a bogus study because roadside air quality won't tell you what pollution specific vehicles produced. Your article proved me wrong. The study wasn't bogus because it wasn't designed to check specific vehicles. It's apparent that the monitors were at a site far enough away that people hadn't been concerned in the past. Of course the study would monitor pollution over time, and of course it would vary with the wind.
"Jonathan Wang, one of the authors of the study and a chemical engineering PhD student at the University of Toronto, said the chief polluters were older cars in need of a tune-up."
How did the student determine this from distant monitors of air quality?
“We found it was a large amount of transport trucks, but a good proportion was just cars – a mixture of both,’’ Wang said. “We suspect they were older vehicles.’’
If that's not Science, I don't know what is! And where were you being led by the Wang?
New cars (2012-2016) have to meet emission
standards set by the federal government, so buying a newer model is always going to be a greener purchase, Wang said.
What a coincidence! The article in Tree Hugger also said you have a duty to buy a new car!
The year these articles came out, U S auto sales were on the brink of a 38% drop, from 7.5 million in 2015 to 4.7 million in 2019 (before the Pandemic). Imagine how steep the decline would have been if millions of concerned scientists such as yourself had not purchased 2012-2016 cars.
The boston.com article you linked notes a car's production of all pollutants varies directly with gas consumption. The Michigan study to which I linked found that fuel economy increased only about 0.5% per year. There would be little to gain by frequent car replacement. The boston.com article was obviously part of a hoax by the gas-powered car industry.
I'll bet Jonathan Wang is rolling in the dough he got for saving the world through his rigorous scientific study.
