The topic of the road toll attracts endless media and political attention (the good Senator Bartlett has recently ruminated on it), and with good reason. But the evidence suggests that (at least in urban areas) the most dangerous thing about motor vehicles isn’t the potential for accidents, it’s what comes out of their tailpipes in normal operation.
The New South Wales Parliament Upper House has just investigated the effects of air pollution in the Sydney Basin, and the results are absolutely staggering. In the report, they accept estimates that air pollution causes “between 643-1446 deaths annually in the Sydney Basin”, and a conservative estimate of the health costs is somewhere between $700 million and $6 billion dollars annually; it is difficult to make more precise assumptions, but even the low figure is staggering.
Comparing death tolls is always a bit of a simplistic approach in comparing the seriousness of a problem. Seasonal influenza and pneumonia kill roughly 3,000 Australians a year but (while nobody ever says this out loud) we don’t get as upset about it because it’s overwhelmingly the elderly and infirm, not too far away from death by other means, who die from it, whereas car accidents disproportionately kill young adults. But, still, even taking the demographic factors into account, and taking the lowball estimate of health costs, they are absolutely astounding numbers – and one of the major groups affected is children with asthma. Yep – sick kiddies, and a whole lot of them.
So why isn’t this regarded as a national emergency? Why aren’t there front-page articles in the newspapers about it? Why aren’t Morris Iemma and Peter Debnam forced into bidding wars on pollution reduction targets – heck, why don’t we declare a “War On Air Pollution”? Why aren’t protesters chaining themselves to car dealerships? And (sorry, but I can’t help myself here…) why aren’t there daily media releases from, oh, Bob Brown on the topic, instead of dozens on nuclear power whose risks are miniscule by comparison ?
<sarcasm>No… the Greeens have never talked about air pollution.</sarcasm>
Wow. Why didn’t anyone think of this before? Maybe someone should pass a Clean Air Act, or something like that.
Why don’t we put catalytic converters on cars! Hey, I think you’re finally on to something.
Ah. Now we see the Merkel agenda. Cars are worse that nuclear power. We aren’t doing enough to reduce pollution from cars, so what does it matter if we increase pollution from the nuclear industry?
as this is about nuclear reactors :
– is there any point in Australia setting them up? Surely we can generate sufficient electricity using a combination of other sources. There isn’t such a huge amount of uranium to go around anyway – so why not just sell what we’ve got to those who already have the reactors in place – and fund ourselves some serious energy diversification?
http://greens.org.au/policies/carefortheearth/energy
From the Greens.
A few, very few, extracts, almost at random.
“significantly reduce the total quantity of solid, liquid and gaseous wastes and aim for closed loop systems
.2.11 contain urban sprawl and protect prime agricultural land
reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions to ecologically sustainable levels using clear national energy policies and mandatory targets
13.3.2 require efficiency standards on all vehicles
introduce new and effective national mandatory energy performance standards and energy rating labelling for:
[list follows]
You get the idea.
SJ, I’ve noticed on a number of threads you’re taking a fairly personal approach towards Robert. Could you please read the comments policy and argue on the issues? Many thanks in advance.
Hey did you see the report on China’s annual road toll the other day? Officially 89,000 but that may be grossly under-reported apparently. (hands up if you were guilty of getting your knickers in a twist over casualties in Iraq eh?)
Stuff the air pollution causing death, I reckon this one takes the cake http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,21060308-401,00.html?from=public_rss
Serves all those bloody bottle toting women right I reckon. Time for the health warnings on their bottles.
Mark, I think I am arguing on the issues. Sorry if some derision shows through. Robert’s apologias for Howard and Bush don’t impress me very much.
Wbb: that’s predicated on the idea that we’re going to run out of uranium any time soon.
The IAEA report suggests that there is plenty.
When you hear people talking about known reserves of various metals, that only has the most cursory relationship with how much is actually out there. The world’s known uranium reserves went up by last year when BHP Billiton did some extra exploratory drilling round Olympic Dam.
There’s other ways that the uranium supply could be stretched; take at the moment, depleted uranium (the waste from the enrichment process) contains somewhere between 0.1 and 0.3 % uranium-235 (the bit that burns in a conventional reactor); it’s simply not worth running the enrichment facility to extract the last remaining bit. If the price of uranium goes up, that changes, and the level of u-235 in the waste stream would be reduced and more of it would be burned. Newer reactor designs ensure that more of the uranium that goes in ends up getting “burned”. Not to mention using better turbines and whatnot to improve the thermal efficiency of the plant.
Hannah, Austin: that’s well and good. And Bob Brown (whom I was picking on as a semi-random example) is also to some extent responding to the issues of the day. But it’s a matter of emphasis. Bob, as leader of the Greens, has in the last few months put out media releases on topics including Telstra removing payphones, and the demise of The Glass House, amongst hundreds of others, including dozens on logging and nuclear-related issues.
Perhaps it’s a commentary on the media and public as well as Bob Brown, but why is it that an environmental issue that results in hundreds, possibly thousands of premature deaths a year isn’t worth a single media release from the leader of a professed environmentalist party?
SJ: Last I checked the US Congress doesn’t have jurisdiction in New South Wales (insert joke about 51st state here…).
Yes, there have been a number of clean air laws passed over the years, in Australia as well as overseas. However, if you read the report the evidence is that they’re not nearly strict enough yet.
As someone who is out there every day commuting by bicycle I can attest to a personal perception of increase. It is getting dirtier, interestingly research has shown that it’s even more polluted in your car when you’re sitting in traffic, it’s actually is easier breathing outside on my bike sucking on the tailpipes.
BTW Observa, I’ve seen traffic stats that have shown the road death in China compared to Oz are pretty similar on a percapita basis. I think it’s the /100,000 population one. I get what you’re saying and in some ways I agree, however it only makes the case against motoring even more damning…….it’s unsafe and unhealthy and impacts on current national security issues.
Robert Merkel Says:
Jeez, I’d never have predicted you’d say something like that. And I never would have predicted that you’d defend uranium mining to wbb. Gosh, was I mistaken.
SJ, how about you engage the arguments instead of snark?
Here’s the problem and the Howard Govt’s dilemma over Kyoto and the like.
“ASIAN leaders today signed an energy security pact that seeks to reduce oil dependency and greenhouse gas emissions in some of the most polluted countries on the planet, but offers no concrete targets.”
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,21064395-401,00.html?from=public_rss
Basically talk’s cheap.
Ok, thanks for the heads-up Merkel. My stockbroker must have it the wrong way round. I’d better clue him in before he gets some other mug punter to go long on some sexy little uranium startups he’s got the inside running on. Well, as he thought.
Meanwhile, Michael Duffy invites a known paid shill to tell us all we need more highways.
Link.
Its a neat post Robert.
With say 1000 deaths and a cost per death of $5 million (conservative) we come up with a cost estimate of $5 billion.
Its many times the costs of congestion which gets most of the publicity.
Why do we tolerate it? My guess is we suppress this sort of data because peiople focus on the gains from travel.
If the data is reliable its another indication of the way society systematically understates the costs of driving motor cars.
Search ‘urban air pollution” on Greens site and get these:
Government continues to delay electric car trial in Australia by
Public transport is critical to election 01.10 by nswcampaign, 05-10-2004 03:02 PM
Fund sustainable transport before motorways 05.08 by nswcampaign, 06-08-2004 04:29 PM
Fund sustainable transport before motorways 31.6.04 by Deb, 27-07-2004 06:19 PM
Tunnel vision prevails 29.06 by nswcampaign, 08-07-2004 05:38 PM
Greens announce federal funding for investment in NSW public transport 14.5.04 by nswcampaign, 11-06-2004 02:10 PM
Greens transport plan for Monaro & ACT 16.07 by nswcampaign, 27-07-2004 06:06 PM
A Federal Future for Victoria: Roads to Congestion 7.6.04 by Deb, 08-06-2004 01:23 PM
Renew Australia to rebuild public transport by Administration, 23-08-2006 12:52 PM
Do you want me to try the individual states?
Mark Parnell is on about cycling in SA currently.
16th July 2004
Greens defend release plan to turn Townsville into a Green Valley 23.9.04 by Deb, 29-09-2004 11:02 AM
Green Plan to Make Townsville a ‘Green Valley’ by Administration, 23-08-2006 12:52 PM
What arguments, Phil?
Pollution is bad, mkay?
Or how about this:
The number for China is about 0.0069% of population/year. The number for Australia is about 0.008% of population/year.
But China has about 0.7 cars per thousand people. Australia has about 500.
Nice try, hannah. But what was asked for was a daily press release on the subject from Bob Brown. Please.
Reducing vehicle pollution levels would pit Morris or Peter against the heavies of the vehicle industry – too big a fight compared with the winnable won waged against NSW industry a few years ago when the State Pollution Control Commission was seen for what it was – a licence to pollute – and the EPA began life afresh. Or so we should believe.
Maybe it needs a coalition of local government centred on the Sydney basin to do a bit of Arnold Schwartzeneggar arm twisting of State instrumentalities – a mandatory pollution governator on each car exhaust. if local councils can regulate parking then maybe they could tackle the air quality at their back end.
Senator Milne is the Greens spokesperson on transport and climate change etc.See below.
Senator Milne: Portfolios and Contact Details The new economy and small business â—? Climate change â—? Energy â—? Regional services â—? Transport â—? Tourism â—? Corporate ethics â—? Asia-Pacific Region â—? Local government â—? Science â—? Environment – World heritage & Bio-security and invasive species
Here is a recent media release:
“Latest greenhouse figures expose Australia as globally irresponsible Senator Milne, 20th December 2006″
which includes this titbit:
“Transport emissions are set to be up 40% on 1990 levels.”
Happy now?
“Bob, as leader of the Greens, has in the last few months put out media releases on topics including Telstra removing payphones, and the demise of The Glass House,”
What on earth? You point out two media releases from 2-3 months ago from the Greens and somehow they are off the ball?
Agreed that the media may not be that interested in deaths from air pollution as it probably doesn’t sell as many papers as do the stories about teenage drivers going crazy behind the wheel.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that Brown doesn’t have a policy stance on the issue.
Or perhaps you a living the day of the lazy journalists. The type that doesn’t ring people for comment on an issue. Or even email them. They just rely on the items that are already written and no more.
That being said, I have known about this disparity in the deaths from these two causes for a number of years. When I have discussed it with people, they are shocked. This doesn’t mean it has ever got into the media.
(Full disclosure: I own a small amount of stock in Compass Resources, a startup miner with interests including uranium).
Wbb: there’s no shortage of iron ore or coal in the ground either. Hasn’t stopped the price going up a lot lately.
The current high price of uranium is because it’s not being dug up out of the ground fast enough (because the demand increased), not that there’s not enough of it, or that it can’t be dug up faster.
Mind you, there’s plenty of froth and bubble in the junior miners at the moment, particularly in uranium. Prices don’t tend to stay high forever, and there’s a big gap between saying you’d like to find uranium (or any other mineral) and actually digging it up and selling it at a profit.
Hannah: that’s talking about greenhouse gas emissions – a very serious environmental issue to be sure, and related, but not the same. For instance, wood-fired heaters are not a greenhouse problem, but they are a very serious problem when it comes to particulate emissions. And anti-pollution gear on conventionally-engined cars can reduce various pollution emissions a lot, but won’t help with greenhouse. I had a flick through Senator Milne’s media releases: pollutants don’t seem to get a mention (though many of the policies she advocates would help, even if they are often muddleheaded ways of going about it). For instance, Senator Milne has a number of releases about the desirability of expediting trials of an electric car, but none of them mention the effects of nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide and so on from conventional vehicles.
Perhaps I am being overly harsh in picking specifically on the Greens. But here is an envronmental issue that is killing thousands of people and making thousands more sick, and it’s happening right in our own backyards – indeed, statistically, it will certainly happen to people we know personally (though attributing specific deaths to it is unlikely). Why aren’t we all shouting from the rooftops and demanding stronger action on it?
That’s better SJ, remember though that I did not state it categorically I did say “I think”. Remember, play the ball not the man.
Nothing matters until the government and/or the media makes it a public health issue – think of the gun ban, the new P plate laws, etc – even if they won’t really do anything, or the effect will be so small, with the social cost being rather large, as to not really make it worth it (such as with the P plate laws, which may reduce up to 10% of deaths (in other words, 10 people) at the cost of every single P plater in the state, as well as the encouragement of drink driving (as designated drivers no longer work).
So if and when air pollution from cars, etc, becomes beaten up to be an enormous public health issue, we will see movement in the governments and the media about it. Until then, it will rest.
Just on pollution, what about any pollution that jets and aircraft create and fuel dumping? Not to mention the momentous amount of fireworks that is let off at every sports game and the humongous fireworks on new years eve.
Wouldn’t all this contribute significantly more than the domestic user?
The engineering students at the University of New South Wales are on the case.
Whether this developing technology gets the support it deserves remains to be seen. The Federal Government, whilst spending some $500 million on developing the untried “clean coal” technology of geosequestration, has axed funding for all of its dedicated renewable energy programs.
Also, I think Hannah has more than adequately pointed out the plethora of national and State Greens policy commitments which do address the issue of non-greenhouse pollution from motor vehicles and which advocate a suite of measures (more public transport, more cycling, better urban planning, etc) which would help to remedy the problem.
Disclosure of personal interest: I am a Green who cycles a 25 km round trip from Highgate Hill to the Nathan campus of Griffith University each working day.
Vee: pollution from jets is an issue, but a relatively small one compared to cars (both for greenhouse and other toxic emissions). Jet should, and do, face emissions regulations just like cars. Fireworks are a piddle in the ocean, even compared to the pollution released by the people who drive to watch them.
Paul: solar cars are engineering exercises for students. They are never going to be practical transport options; you can’t even usefully augment the range of practical electric cars with solar panels – or, at least, solar panels mounted on the car. The energy is just too diffuse.
Robert: Never say “never”.
See here and here.
….and here for the most recent engineering exercise for students. As noted, the latest Holden Commodore is less fuel efficent than the Model T Ford.
Paul: there’s no shortage of building roof space to stick solar panels on. It’s cheaper and more efficient to stick panels on roofs and plug the car into an electric socket. The range extension you’d get with solar panels actually on the car would be very marginal, as the power you need to move the car is very large compared to what you could generate in motion.
Robert – the first link from Paul says a day in the sun equates to 50km extension – seems like plenty to me. My car never goes that far in a day unless I’m out in the sticks. But even if it isn’t enough to run the car outright, it can’t hurt.
A solar car that can generate its own power, combined with the ability to plug it into the grid when the sun’s not out, combined with direct-to-grid generation from a roof panel in the home looks good to me. This is based on my recieved understanding that transmitting power is more efficient and less polluting than storing it. Is that right?
File under the “it sounds crazy, buuuut…” dept. …
Why necessarily think of solar-powered cars in terms of personal car ownership? Why not think of them on, say, a slot-car model? At least in the cities. Say a fleet of small, individual public cars in an inner city area, all available for rental or free for the day’s use on an availability basis, all plugged via a citywide slot or groove system into a solar powered electric grid. If you want to own your own car, use it for trips out into the country, man! But in the city, grab yourself one of those neat little free cars lined up down on your corner like shopping carts at a supermarket, sign in for the day, plug into the SolarGrid, and go, go, go…!
You mean trams?
I mean little, mini, individually-operated trams, that go wherever *you* need to go, instead of you waiting around for hours to be packed on a thing that stops and starts forever, and only *kinda* takes you where you need to go. If we’re talking solar power, why the hell not? The sun’s buying. Every house could have a solar panel that feeds the grid, and the power slots could charge the thing up while you drove along main avenues, with enough power saved up to get you into the side streets when you needed to. Then, back onto the slots on the avenues when you were running low.
Either that, or chariots drawn by robots, which I confess would look a whole lot cooler.
“waiting around for hours”
?????
Not in Melbourne, matey! Anyhoo, I knew whatcha meant, I was just having a go. Robot chariots is a nice idea, but I’d only back it once they’ve perfected the wise-cracking robot bartender. First things first.
FDB, not many cars spend their days parked out in the sun. Why would you put expensive solar cells on a car when they’ll spend most of their time in carports and underground car parks, when you could put them on roofs?
The only benefit of putting them on cars would be that it charges up the car while you’re driving, extending the range. But the amount of power you’d gain is so small the range extension would be very marginal, not justifying the extra cost and weight.
Yes, this means I am extremely skeptical of their research project.
Electric cars are a definite possibility. Solar cars no.
J_p_z: you might be interested in Personal Rapid Transit.
Don’t knock public transport, Jay Pee Zee. The time convenience you sacrifice waiting at the stop at the end of the street is more than made up for the ability to ride it when you’re too drunk to operate a car on you’re own, and let’s face it, the morning commute wouldn’t be the same otherwise.
Would Rosa Parks, tired of standing at the back of the bus, just have said “Fuck it, I’m going to campaign for an individual transportation solution for Montgomery”? I think not.
Robert Merkel:
“… why aren’t there daily media releases from, oh, Bob Brown on the topic, instead of dozens on nuclear power whose risks are miniscule by comparison ?”
As previously noted, it isn’t Bob Brown’s portfolio and his responsibilities are already great, as the leader of a small party that runs on a shoestring budget.
But in terms of cold hard reality, minor parties become a little bit tired of holding press conferences/policy launches and writing media releases that no journo will bother with. For the public and the media the issue you raise is a big yawn. Sad but true.
As to the issue of alternative energies for cars, we should bear in mind that typically only about 3% of the energy used transports the passenger- the other 97% transports the weight of the vehicle. Light weight vehicles, like carbon composite fibre vehicles, will hopefully make alternative energy sources much more viable.
Does everyone know about a vehicle that is often as quick as any car around a city and certainly as quick as a car in dense traffic. It creates zero pollution. Also unlike solar powered or hydrogen powered cars, it is not a thing that may be available 10 years or longer in mass production in the future. It is available as a vehicle RIGHT NOW. It is also good for health and helps lower obesity..
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the to often forgotten technology
THE BICYCLE.
It is a technology that is too often forgotten about, or not even considered. In countries that have embraced the bicycle users report that travel into the city by bicycle, including parking is faster than in a car. Bicycles are good for health, and do not produce any air pollution when used, or emit greenhouse gas emisions.