Former UK Science Advisor David King. By Climaterepair - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, link

Climate Scientist: “Politics Is Now The Battleground For Climate Change”

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t James Delingpole; David King, former long term UK government science advisor, is heading a new climate advisory body. But his track record of recommendations includes some worrying missteps.

Politics Is Now The Battleground For Climate Change Says Leading U.K. Scientist

Felicia Jackson
Contributor
Sustainability

The dangers of climate change are well established but action has been mired in economic and political arguments but, given its effects are diverse and global, there is no longer time to wait for action. Sir David King, the former U.K. chief scientific adviser, and current leader of Independent Sage, has launched an international advisory group of leading climate experts with a program to mitigate the consequences of climate change through emissions reduction, greenhouse gas removal, and climate repair.

The Climate Crisis Advisory Group (CCAG) seeks to provide independent expert advice and guidance to global leaders as they seek further commitments and actions to combat the climate crisis. Open to politicians, advisors and most importantly the public, the Group wants to change the way we look at the climate crisis.

Speaking before the official launch on 23rd June King said, “We’re looking at a  series of disastrous events over the next few decades. Our objective is to get emissions down to close to zero as soon as possible, preferably by 2035-2040, and to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere at scale to bring the atmosphere down to 350ppm CO2e. We will also need and to repair those parts of the climate system that are passing their tipping points to buy time while emissions reduction and removal produce the level of 350ppm.” 

Read more: https://www.forbes.com/sites/feliciajackson/2021/06/24/politics-is-now-the-battleground-for-climate-change/

James Delingpole’s response is well worth reading, with references to “Satan’s Arse Cheeks” and other hilariously brilliant Dellingpolesque verbal flourishes.

One of the biggest criticisms of King, which Delingpole hilights, is David King’s role in the diesel automobile disaster.

In the early 2000s, David King convinced the Blair government to encourage a mass switch to diesel automobiles, including for use in Britain’s high density traffic congested cities, because diesel engines are more fuel efficient. The downside King overlooked is diesel engines emit more pollution than gasoline vehicles. The result of the additional pollution created by a mass switch to diesel was a catastrophic rise in premature deaths.

Here, history has another lesson for us which seems to have gone unmentioned in the various soft-soaping interviews Sir David has enjoyed. Namely, his involvement in perhaps one of the most egregious public health calamity of modern times – the decision by Tony Blair’s government to dramatically cut fuel duty for diesel cars. 

The appallingly misguided policy was implemented at Sir David’s behest in the early 2000s as part of the effort to reduce the nation’s carbon emissions. Obsessed by climate change, Sir David hit on the idea of encouraging motorists to drive diesel cars because they produced roughly 15 per cent less carbon than petrol ones. 

As the government slashed fuel duty and other taxes for diesel drivers, millions dutifully bought the vehicles. At which point, it became apparent the nitrous oxide and other pollutants they belched out were causing severe and often fatal respiratory problems to members of the public. 

Sir David ought to have been well aware of this, since the European Respiratory Journal had in 2001 published a review linking diesel cars to lung problems, and showing that they produced 100 times as many particulates as their petrol counterparts. 

However, he appears to have been persuaded of the case for diesel by car manufacturers who, as we now know, were cheating on their emissions tests. As a result of this widespread adoption of the filthy fuel, tens of thousands of Britons have lost their lives. 

By 2017, nitrous oxide was contributing to the premature deaths of 12,000 people a year in the UK. At which point Sir David gave an interview admitting: ‘It turns out we were wrong.’ 

Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8286797/GUY-ADAMS-Ex-science-tsar-Sir-David-King-told-switch-diesel.html

Now David King is seeking to once again influence policy in Britain.

Adoption of renewables to date has been an unmitigated disaster. As Greentech media explains, it is the unreliability of renewables which does the damage. Hedging against the uncertainty of renewables drives up prices. Businesses are forced to buy expensive financial instruments, usually issued by dispatchable energy providers or merchant banks, which function as a form of insurance against the possibility energy prices will spike when renewables fail to deliver. If they choose not to buy the “insurance”, they pay the full price when energy prices spike to thousands of dollars per kilowatt hour. Either way they pay.

The cost of that “insurance”, or the cost of servicing wild price spikes, is passed on to consumers.

This increased cost in turn must be contributing to Britain’s soaring energy poverty rates, and is likely contributing to Britain’s soaring excess winter death toll.

The fact David King wants to once again get involved in climate and energy policy should ring alarm bells, given that by his own admission he is associated with in my opinion poorly considered policy initiatives which likely led the premature deaths of thousands of people from diesel pollution.

Update (EW): David King claimed he was misled by the auto industry about diesel vehicle nitrous oxide emissions.

4.9 14 votes
Article Rating
119 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 25, 2021 10:09 pm

By 2017, nitrous oxide was contributing to the premature deaths of 12,000 people a year in the UK.”

A dubious claim, but in any case, diesels do not belch out nitrous oxide. This does not seem to be a wll informed article.

Vincent Causey
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 26, 2021 12:02 am

The Guardian, lol.

Edward Dilley
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 26, 2021 3:59 am

Why does nobody mention AdBlue which is now dosed into the exhaust stream of diesel vehicles in the UK?

This is a 30% solution of urea; in the exhaust catalytic converter it forms ammonia which then reacts with the nitrogen oxides forming nitrogen gas and water vapour.

So maybe diesel is not so evil now as has been made out.

Greg
Reply to  Edward Dilley
June 26, 2021 12:40 pm

Well, they’ve been taking the piss for so long they had to find a use for all that urea !!

contributing to the premature deaths of 12,000 people

The spacious claims, usually paraphrased by the Guardian as “caused 12000 deaths”, really means made some small difference to statistical life expectancy.

I’d rather trade the 6 days or whatever as an incontinent geriatric, for the right to own independent personal transport for the rest of my time before I’m in nappies again.

Otherwise I’ll lose far more that 6days walking or waiting for public transport because the eco-facists have managed to ban cars.

Last edited 1 month ago by Greg
Scissor
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 26, 2021 6:43 am

Eric, on the point around “nitrous oxide” here “we” are engaging in an argument around semantics, technicalities and mistaken statements by others, colloquial meanings, etc. People on both sides of the argument could be correct (or wrong) because we are arguing different things.

David King is mistaken about nitrous oxide being a deadly emission. Nitrous oxide is laughing gas. It’s used safely as a sedative for medical procedures, especially in dentistry. He probably meant to convey nitrogen oxides, which are conversely noxious and toxic. On this point, I have to agree with Nick Stokes technical interpretation of what David King said.

I’ve seen numerous people confuse nitrous oxide and nitric oxide and in the colloquial sense it probably doesn’t matter, but if a dentist made such a mistake, the patient could very well end up dead.

Technically, a chemist would usually define NOx as NO + NO2. It could include some other species, but normally subscript x = 1, 2 or some higher integer. N2O is not included in that definition. Sometimes, chemists will denote higher oxide nitrogen oxide species as NOy and denote NOx as NO + NO2 only. N2O doesn’t qualify in that sense either.

Regardless, N2O is a minor emission of combustion systems, including emission controls. It may be emitted in low concentrations (mg amounts) but it certainly is not “belched.” From a toxicity perspective, NOx is much more important.

We could argue all day about such things and not get anywhere. Perhaps there is agreement that David King’s ignorance contributes to misguided policy.

Scissor
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 26, 2021 9:49 am

Where I work, I have to sit through a lot of seminars on this and related matters. The good news is that emission controls and fuels technology have been so successful at reducing pollutants that it’s often difficult to find an anthropogenic signal among nature background.

Reply to  Scissor
June 26, 2021 8:11 am

“David King is mistaken about nitrous oxide being a deadly emission.”
I’m sure David King did not say that. The writer is Guy Adams, of the Daily Mail. As I said, it is not a well informed article. He says it several times, with emphasis.

Scissor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 10:31 am

You started this, Nick Stokes. If you were sure that David King did not say that, then why did you boldly point it out as a “dubious claim?”

The fact of the matter is that most here will disagree with you just to disagree with you whether you are right or wrong. You might ask yourself, why am I getting all these negative votes? You might want to take some responsibility.

C’mon man.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Scissor
June 26, 2021 12:34 pm

Self awareness is very difficult for people of a particular political mind set.

Reply to  Scissor
June 26, 2021 3:26 pm

why did you boldly point it out as a “dubious claim?”’
Because it is a dubious claim. The writer, Guy Adams, asserts it under his own name. He does not attribute it to David King.

But it would be a dubious claim, whoever made it.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 25, 2021 10:17 pm

“ The four main pollutant emissions from diesel engines (carbon monoxide-CO, hydrocarbons-HC, particulate matter-PM and nitrogen oxides-NOx) ”

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10098-014-0793-9

Took 5 seconds

Reply to  Pat from kerbob
June 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Nitrous oxide (N₂O) is not a NOx

Last edited 1 month ago by Nick Stokes
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 25, 2021 11:47 pm

Yes it is.

Reply to  Leo Smith
June 26, 2021 12:06 am

From Pat’s reference, under the heading
Nitrogen oxides (NOx)

Nitrogen oxides are referred as nitrogen oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO₂). NO constitutes 85–95 % of NOx. It is gradually converted to NO₂ in atmospheric air. While NO and NO₂ are lumped together as NOx, there are some distinctive differences between these two pollutants. NO is a colorless and odorless gas, while NO₂ is a reddish brown gas with pungent odor (Chong et al. 2010; Hoekman and Robbins 2012).

No mention of nitrous oxide (N₂O) in the entire article.

Ivar Sætre
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 1:17 am

Wikipedia: Nitrous oxide plays hardly any role in air pollution, although it may have a significant impact on the ozone layer,[4] and is a significant greenhouse gas.

Reply to  Ivar Sætre
June 26, 2021 2:44 am

Indeed so

clarence.t
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 12:55 am

Straight from the EPA.. yes, N₂O is a NOx.

comment image

An NOx is a non-specific molecular compound of nitrogen and oxygen.

Last edited 1 month ago by clarence.t
Patrick MJD
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 1:40 am

Nitrous oxide is not NOx? So sulphur oxide is not SOx? Nick, go away and learn about emissions from diesel engines. You are making yourself look like a fool, again.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
June 26, 2021 2:32 am

Nitrous oxide is N₂O. And it is not emitted by diesel engines.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
June 26, 2021 3:09 am

From your link
“NOx is a mixture of mainly nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).”
It does not mention nitrous oxide anywhere.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 3:11 am

You have never worked on diesel engines have you? It’s ok *NOT* to answer that one.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
June 26, 2021 3:18 am

My hands are clean.

lee
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 3:40 am

“Although not well documented, N2O emissions from non-catalyst vehicles probably averaged 5-10 mg/mi (on the standard FTP test), while early generation TWC-equipped vehicles exceeded 100 mg/mi. As emissions control systems evolved to meet increasingly stringent criteria pollutant standards, N2O emissions also decreased. Today’s Tier 3 vehicles are required to meet a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) N2O tailpipe standard of 10 mg/mi.N2O emissions from diesel engines and vehicles became of concern in the 2000s, when catalytic control devices such as diesel particulate filters (DPFs), lean oxides of nitrogen (NOx) traps (LNTs), and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) units were introduced to control PM and NOx. As with gasoline vehicles, N2O emissions from diesel applications are a balance between N2O formation and destruction within these catalytic devices. Modern U.S. light-duty diesel vehicles must comply with the same 10 mg/mi N2O standard that applies to gasoline vehicles; modern heavy-duty diesel (HDD) engines must comply with EPA’s recently established N2O standard of 100 mg/bhp-hr.

https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/04-13-01-0005/

clarence.t
Reply to  Patrick MJD
June 26, 2021 3:01 am
Patrick MJD
Reply to  clarence.t
June 26, 2021 3:04 am

Don’t tell me, tell Nick Stokes.

Reply to  clarence.t
June 26, 2021 3:13 am

From your link
“While long known to be a trace by-product of combustion, N₂O was not considered a pollutant of concern until the introduction of the three-way catalyst (TWC) on light-duty gasoline vehicles in the 1980s. These precious metal-containing catalysts were found to increase N₂O emissions substantially.”
They are describing, not the output of the engine, but the effect of a certain type of catalyst. Their good news is
“Furthermore, the total mass of N₂O emissions from mobile sources is declining – largely due to turnover of the light-duty fleet. Consequently, N₂O emissions from motor vehicles do not represent a significant contribution to global GHGs.”
I don’t think this trace byproduct can be described as being belched out.

Last edited 1 month ago by Nick Stokes
Patrick MJD
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 3:30 am

I say again you have never worked on diesel engines have you?

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 2:04 am

Semantics – no different to calling CO2 “carbon”
It’s amusing to see Nick trying to make excuses for ICE emissions.

Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 3:13 am

N (itrous) Ox (ide) is NOx, N2O. Did you miss out on some basic chemistry at school?

mike macray
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
June 26, 2021 5:02 am

Haha! N₂O aka laughing gas! Discovered by the venerable Sir Humphrey Davey, as I recall, in seventeen sumpty or other. Apparently after taking a good whiff he appalled his assistants by dancing around the lab giggling like a common idiot!
Not to be confused with the other NOxes. NO, NO₂ and N₂O₄ a whiff of which would have had him coughing and gagging like a hound in a pepper mill, but are copiously produced by lightning at around 50 times a second world wide, so they say.
Happily such NOxes are highly soluble in water, which tends to be plentiful during thunderstorms, and so supply Nitrogen to C₃ or C₄ plants (I forget which) as are unable to fix their own nitrogen from the atmosphere. Nitrogen rich Ammonium Nitrate (NH₄NO₃) can be used to boost plant growth or to blow things up… see Halifax 1917, or Texas City 1947.
Here endeth the basic chemistry lesson on Nitrogen (c.1958).
Cheers
Mike

Matthew Sykes
Reply to  mike macray
June 26, 2021 5:12 am

All NOx gasses, N2O NO NO2,

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
June 26, 2021 8:12 am

Arguing with N.S. is like trying to argue with a plate of scrambled eggs.

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 26, 2021 9:16 pm

Yes, it ends up on your face.

Redge
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 25, 2021 10:35 pm

In case you’re saying the 12,000 people a year is wrong, you’re correct!

It’s 38,000 according to this paper

Reply to  Redge
June 25, 2021 10:45 pm

That is a global figure. It makes 10000 for UK pretty unlikely.

Redge
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 25, 2021 10:57 pm

So what number of deaths as a result of green policies is acceptable?

Reply to  Redge
June 25, 2021 11:07 pm

As your article which added them up says
 Heavy-duty vehicles are the dominant contributor to excess diesel NOx emissions”
Trucks have been using diesel since David King was young. That was not a result of a green policy.

tonyb
Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 25, 2021 11:50 pm

Nick

Trucks have been using Diesel as you rightly say but there was a huge upsurge in private cars using diesel actively encouraged by the UK govt as a direct result of the policy and tax rates were adjusted accordingly.

This was an EU wide policy encouraged by David King and facilitated by the German Govt who had a lot to gain

Reply to  tonyb
June 26, 2021 12:12 am

Yes, but they still emit only a small fraction of total NOx. but the narrative here is all those deaths due to green policies.

Of course the green policy is actually EVs, which emit no NOx at all, and would save far more deaths due to pollution. But No-one wants to talk about that.

lee
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 12:45 am

None in the running. What about the manufacture?

Reply to  lee
June 26, 2021 10:38 am

If just one life can be saved, do it….ban lithium batteries because they have killed…..and ban the windmills and solar panels that allow those lithium batteries to kill. You will be a better person if you join this cause. A Zero Lithium World by 2030.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 2:31 am

But at the time, the green policy was the promotion of diesel engines. That was the fault of that prat King. Try as you might Nick, you can’t wheedle out of that fact.

As for EVs, I quite like the idea of them, particularly with regards to lowering pollution in urban environments (and no, that doesn’t include CO2. It’s not a pollutant. It’s plant food).
However, EVs are currently extremely expensive and here in the UK a comprehensive charging infrastructure is not in place. Hence the UK govt’s plan to ban the sale of ICE vehicles will achieve nothing except hammer the less well-off and shaft those people who need to drive long distances for their job. It’s absolute lunacy.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 4:19 am

No Nick, the Green policy is to make personal transportation so expensive that only elite party members are chauffeured around in it, while most of the surplus population dies of exposure during winter.

Lrp
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 3:30 pm

The narrative is correct and you wouldn’t take any responsibility for supporting a mistaken policy.

clarence.t
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 12:59 am

The growth of diesel powered cars in the UK most definitely was.

Redge
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 1:48 am

You didn’t answer the question, Nick

Reply to  Redge
June 26, 2021 2:41 am

Diesel cars are responsible for about a tenth of Diesel NOx production. Trucks do the rest. How many deaths do you think they should cause?

EVs emit no NOx.

lee
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 2:55 am

We shouldn’t rely on modelled deaths at all.

Redge
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 4:43 am

Don’t deflect, Nick we were talking about “deaths as a result of green policies”

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 6:01 am

Nick, you are correct. But you need to take it a step further. No vehicles emit any pollutants. It’s the process that generates the energy that emits pollutants. ICE vehicles just happen to carry the engine on board to make it more convenient for the driver and passengers. EVz carry batteries, mostly charged using electricity generated by coal or natural gas.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 2:21 am

What was a result of green policy was the promotion of excessively polluting diesel engines cars.
Why are you attempting to defend the diesel idiocy? Is it just because King is in your eco-camp?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
June 26, 2021 4:23 am

Short answer: Yes.

pigs_in_space
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
June 26, 2021 4:30 am

you are talking bollox.
diesel engines in cars are essentially pretty clean. I have no doubt the “excess deaths” crap is entirely invented. It’s a FICTION, invented by yet another lobby group.

I work in the motor industry and watched the rapid change to HDI technology (in fact my brother worked with Lucas-CAV on developing early versions of it).
You can run cooking oil in a lot of diesels, which is absolutely fine.

As for commercial diesel it’s another story.
Trucks use collossal quantities of the stuff, run very high turbo and cylinder pressures, and as economic growth picks up, so does the number of trucks.
I have no interest in the kind of clap trap being thrown around by pro/con nutters on here about the merits/demerits of consumer diesel cars.

I do however have an issue with trucks and the whole society need to have them as the only delivery system running night and day to supply an economy where 80-85% of what’s supplied is dross, or to be thrown away within weeks or months.

Another solution needs to be found for a consumer society founded on stupidity, and mass consumerism. (eg. strawberries in december), / huge market shares of consumer goods from china etc etc.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  pigs_in_space
June 26, 2021 4:42 am

Calm down dear!
It’s spelt “bollocks”. If you’re going to get all sweary, at least check the spelling.
As for you claiming that our consumer society is founded on stupidity, I trust you weren’t stupid enough to buy your phone/PC from a factory that wasn’t right at the end of your street, eh? Oh, and all the materials on your phone/PC were locally sourced, yes?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Redge
June 26, 2021 4:14 am

I believe the plan is around seven billion, isn’t it?

Redge
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 26, 2021 4:44 am

According to David Attenborough and his ilk, the planet can only support seven billion less, so yes that’s about right.

Paul Johnson
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 25, 2021 10:41 pm

The quote is directly from the referenced Daily Mail article, which also notes a 100-fold increase in spewed particulate matter. Your quarrel should be with them.

Reply to  Paul Johnson
June 25, 2021 10:52 pm

It is. But I don’t think using the Daily Mail as a scientific source is wise.

tonyb
Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 25, 2021 11:56 pm

Nick

You might prefer the Guardin

Air pollution a cause in girl’s death, coroner rules in landmark case | London | The Guardian

This relates to a historic court ruling about the death of a girl due to pollution.

You can track back that the cause was primarily said to be due to rising levels of diesel pollution.

Reply to  tonyb
June 26, 2021 12:32 am

Yes, ICE vehicles, particularly trucks, are responsible for rising pollution.
EVs produce far less.

John Dueker
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 12:50 am

Which ignores the fact EV’s have a larger carbon footprint than IC’s. Where will all the spent unrecycled lithium batteries go and how many will they kill from pollution and uncontrollable lithium fires.

But we understand you have to keep Feels stock price up or some other reason besides logic.

clarence.t
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 1:00 am

EVs produce far more pollution in their manufacture.

And in the production of the electricity to run them.

tonyb
Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 1:27 am

yes but electricity has to be produced somehow.

Rich Davis
Reply to  tonyb
June 26, 2021 4:26 am

Unicorn farts are free

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 26, 2021 1:28 pm

Yeah, that’s true, but it’s widely known that unicorns are now extinct. The Chinese killed the last one for its horn … used to make medicine to keep Mao’s pecker up.

John Moore
Reply to  tonyb
June 26, 2021 4:30 pm

! “somehow ”
Global shipping via nuclear-powered ships. While in-port, these vessels energize regional grids.
! Wait: what about domestic and alien (mostly-peaceful) whining, carping Leftists? Let’s speak to that, while laying keels.

Joe Public
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 5:08 am

As is constructing & maintaining almost all buildings and roads; and growing food.

comment image

DMacKenzie,
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 9:45 am

Trucks are one of the great inventions of humanity. If all those goods were moved by ox-carts, there would be quite serious e-coli issues in the streets.

Joe Public
Reply to  tonyb
June 26, 2021 5:03 am

“You might prefer the Guardin

Air pollution a cause in girl’s death, coroner rules in landmark case | London | The Guardian

This relates to a historic court ruling about the death of a girl due to pollution.”

Ella Kissi-Debrah sadly suffered from acute asthma.

The coroner’s court Record of Inquest stated “Asthma was cause of death, contributed to by exposure to air pollution.” FROM ALL SOURCES.

https://www.innersouthlondoncoroner.org.uk/news/2020/nov/inquest-touching-the-death-of-ella-roberta-adoo-kissi-debrah

Air pollution is created by motor vehicles (inc EVs) & rail transport (inc London Underground); building & maintaining homes, schools, hospitals, offices, warehouses etc; and agricultural production etc.

The UK is still waiting for any Inquest to confirm air pollution, not just from petroleum-fuelled vehicles, as the cause of death.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 25, 2021 11:46 pm

Sadly nick, ignring the ignrany perjorative and emotive term ‘belch’ (which immediately shows you arer not intested ion facts, on;ly knee jerk respoosbse) diesls DO emit NOx.
In fact the more fuel efficient they are, the higher the combusion pressures and the leaner the mix which all contrubutres to excess Nitrogen oxide production, unless you detect the test conditions and open up the fuel valve a bit…

The drive for eco style fuel consumption led to the development of ultra lean burn engines. That massively reduced unburnt fuel emissions as well as carbon particulates. But at the expense of Nitrogen oxide production.

Going in the reverse direction results in less NOx, but more unburnt fuel and particulates, all the way to ‘rolling coal’.

Like the Grenfell Tower disaster, that killed more people than Chernobyl, the mindless push to ‘go green’ has unexpected side effects.

Rolling coal.png
Reply to  Leo Smith
June 26, 2021 2:37 am

“perjorative and emotive term ‘belch’ (which immediately shows you arer not intested ion facts, on;ly knee jerk respoosbse)”
I was quoting directly from the article
” the nitrous oxide and other pollutants they belched out…”

Diesels do not emit nitrous oxide.

clarence.t
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 3:24 am
Reply to  clarence.t
June 26, 2021 4:01 am

Well, N₂O was measured by method 3, and was about 5% relative to NOx. But again, they say it was the by-product of a certain type of catalytic converter, not the engine
NH3 (which is a precursor of fine particle formation in the atmosphere (Kim et al., 2000Phan et al., 2013)) and N2O (which is a powerful greenhouse gas and the single most important ozone-depleting substance (ODS) (Ravishankara et al., 2009)) are present in HDV exhaust due the use of urea/SCR DeNOx systems”

And there is no evidence that nitrous oxide was responsible for any deaths.
Note that they definitely do not include it as part of NOx.

Philip Rose
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 5:40 am

In my experience, NOx refers to any oxide of nitrogen or nitride of oxygen, just a lazy generalisation. Academics such as yourself are just sometimes too specific for polite discussion. As for David King he is too extreme in climate or epidemic policy to ever be a government adviser. Too often in public life we employ the ignorant for sensitive subjects, where they then bluff their way through without resort to science.

clarence.t
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 3:31 am
Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 3:12 am

https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2015_09_Five_facts_about_diesel_FINAL.pdf “A typical diesel car emits around 10 times more nitrogen oxides than an equivalent gasoline car.”

Reply to  Matthew Sykes
June 26, 2021 3:21 am

Two paras down
“NOx is a mixture of mainly nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).”
No mention anywhere of nitrous oxide.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2021 4:29 am

Obstinacy may be a sign of dementia

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 27, 2021 11:35 am

What’s more serious is that King should have recommended LNG motors and not Diesel which generate only H2O and CO2 emissions. We would then have had massively less air pollution and far fewer air pollution related illnesses and deaths.

Mr. Lee
June 25, 2021 10:27 pm

Yeah, don’t think I’m going to get science advice from Felicia Jackson
Contributor.

M Courtney
Reply to  Mr. Lee
June 26, 2021 12:10 am

But this is clearly a politics article. It’s even in the title.
“…politics-is-now-the-battleground-for-climate-change”

DiggerUK
June 25, 2021 10:44 pm

This GWPF article gives a resumé of the ‘Dieselgate’ incident in the UK. The main health issue at the end of the day was particulates in the atmosphere.

They have done a number of excellent articles on this quack scientist…_

https://www.thegwpf.com/ex-chief-scientist-our-advice-to-govt-on-preventing-global-warming-was-wrong/

zemlik
June 25, 2021 10:56 pm

These UK scientists seem very good at getting it wrong. They should change the name of SAGE to DOH

mikebartnz
June 25, 2021 11:01 pm

David King and Fauci should join teams as one is as bad as the other.
I would like to upvote Delingpole a thousand times.
Just ask Rio Jeinero about their bio-fuel mandate.
I think this man and group are very dangerous because; to use a Delingpole term; of the prats that will back him all the way

lee
June 25, 2021 11:07 pm

So a chemist didn’t know about diesel emissions. How quaint.
And presumably the fatal pm2.5. 😉

Last edited 1 month ago by lee
another ian
Reply to  lee
June 26, 2021 12:45 am

Try “ultracrepidarian” for fit

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ultracrepidarian

And as a Fellow of The Royal Society

https://royalsociety.org/people/david-king-11748/

he emphasises the need to apply “nullis in verba” even to members of such societies

Last edited 1 month ago by another ian
Vincent Causey
June 26, 2021 12:07 am

Anyway, apart from the so-called diesel deaths (another dubious junk science narrative being spun), the worst thing, the most frighenting thing, is that this pillock will be given a BBC platform to spout his nonsense. The effect of this cannot be overstated. Try and imagine this bile being beamed into every home in the country on a regular basis. This looks like a continuation of the covid project fear play book that has worked so well up to now. Expect this to spawn mass protests up and down the country or countries where millions of useful idiots will be demanding their own enslavement.

tonyb
Editor
Reply to  Vincent Causey
June 26, 2021 12:32 am

Readers might ‘enjoy’ these quotes from 1984 which give some view of the future as the nasty ‘old normal’ is erased in favour of the shiny and virtuous ‘new normal’

1984 Quotes by George Orwell (goodreads.com)

John Dueker
June 26, 2021 12:59 am

“Update (EW): David King claimed he was misled by the auto industry about diesel vehicle nitrous oxide emissions.”

That means he has no nose nor eyes nor shred of common sense. Anyone following a diesel bus for a block would realize what packing diesel engines into rush hour in crowded UK streets is a monumentally bad idea.

Or has he been helicoptered over the traffic for all his life? That or a massive “grant” (aka bribe) is the only way dense pack diesel is a good idea.

Therefore following the fool me twice meme don’t listen to him! He will cause another disaster.

observa
Reply to  John Dueker
June 26, 2021 1:41 am

Poor David. Easily conned by any vested interest cabal with the know how to fiddle computer outputs.

“This rapid heating is threatening the whole world. This thing is cascading upwards and has got many of us extremely worried.”
Head of Independent Sage to launch international climate change group | Climate change | The Guardian
This thing is clearly beyond gravity.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  John Dueker
June 26, 2021 2:22 am

The significant place and problem was ‘Transport For London’

Maybe 25 to 30 years ago, ‘London’ was told to get its Public Transport into some sort of order – so that folks would actually use it.

The preferred solution at that time was to get 1,000’s of buses onto the streets of London – which they did and they made the fares affordable.
There was/were/are 13,000 London buses and it was pretty epic.
It made London affordable and fun

The problem was that many of those buses were decades old (the classic Red London Bus).
Thus, when I got to exploring London, Oxford Street was a car-park of red buses and diesel taxis – all with their engines running ALL the time.
While the pavement was chock solid with people, moving/walking/shuffling at 2 or 3 times the speed the traffic was moving.
You really could ‘cut the air with a knife’

Many other parts of London, esp The City were just as bad

I’d been used to smoky old tractors & trucks but Oxford St was hideous – a gas chamber in all but name and then, King came along and filled in the gaps with diesel cars

The man is a monster, how could have been a Science Adviser and not seen that coming?

Last edited 1 month ago by Peta of Newark
Bruce Cobb
Reply to  John Dueker
June 26, 2021 4:11 am

Or, it means he’s a Big Fat Liar, and used (supposedly) what auto manufacturers told him as cover for what he wanted to do anyway.
My money’s on Big Fat Liar.

Alan the Brit
June 26, 2021 1:00 am

I shall be hanging on every word David King utters – NOT!!! Don’t know about the good old US of A or Canada or Oz, but these high offices are political appointments only & do NOT represent the best technical minds in the country!!! As I’ve said before, the marvellous tv show “Yes Minister” highlighted the often combative struggles between a government minister & his top Civil Servant! Often there would be a scene in the civil service “club” where Godfrey & Humphry (the chief protagonists in the civil service) would discuss a potential new guvment appointment to a high technical position, the correct candidate must be “competent”, “sound”, & definitely “be sympathetic to the government’s views on……….!” Fill in the blanks, especially where a Labour guvment would be concerned!!!

June 26, 2021 1:30 am

Yes. Sir David King is right. Politicians come to power at 5-year intervals, but climate change requires at least 20 to 30 years for decision-making. Thank you 😊

June 26, 2021 2:04 am

The climate change meme is a terminal cancer. It is gradually dominating the entire political and economic space and sucking nations dry of their resources. It will destroy the modern way of life and the technologies that have enabled life to flourish and knowledge to advance. It has replaced true scientific discovery with politicised pseudo-scientific dystopian gibberish. It will impoverish and destroy hundreds of millions of people and leave in its wake nothing but devastation and war.

Other than that, I’m all for it of course.

Last edited 1 month ago by Hatter Eggburn
CheshireRed
June 26, 2021 2:09 am

The number of UK deaths is a contentious point.
As I recall they estimated how much vehicle emissions shorten lives, arriving at 15 minutes per person.
They then multiplied 15’ x 65 million population and divided that total number of minutes by life expectancy years to arrive at a cumulative loss. Roughly added it amounted to 12k lifetimes.
(This is a rough approximation of what they did.)
Regardless of precision it’s unarguable that diesel emissions are real pollution and the pro-diesel policy was an error of judgment.

StephenP
June 26, 2021 2:17 am

One problem with getting rid of diesel is what to replace it with.

Five years ago Mark Evans produced a film called ” Diesel, the engine that powers the world ” which was shown on the BBC, but is no longer available on iplayer.
It may be viewable via Mark Evans’ website.

http://Www.markevans.co.uk/the-engine-that-powers-the-world/

ozspeaksup
June 26, 2021 3:43 am

ok so now youre seeing what a daft mongrel he is
about time
this same overeducated IYI , over rich fool , super ignorant also heavily promotes GMO crops, and chemical farming as a good thing
cos he was told by…some git wanting to make a profit!!

Rich Davis
June 26, 2021 4:05 am

Independent Sage?
Perhaps we need a counter-group such as Dangerous Thyme

MarkW
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 26, 2021 9:50 am

What about Rose Mary, can’t forget Rose Mary.

Rich Davis
Reply to  MarkW
June 27, 2021 9:07 am

I do love rosemary and thyme on may mooing-rare filet mignon!

observa
June 26, 2021 4:11 am

Smacks forehead. I get it now. My problem is I’m just not into cli-fi like the in crowd-
Stories to save the world: the new wave of climate fiction (msn.com)

June 26, 2021 4:57 am

It doesn’t matter what they say. AOC says the earth will end in 2031. Time to update my will … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9OeWswZGaQ

Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 26, 2021 8:26 am

Ditto. She and Al Gore surely must be related.

Dave-E
June 26, 2021 5:05 am

Considering the theory changes its name every time it’s predictions fail. From global cooling, through global warming, to the all-purpose climate change, this scam has been supported largely by government grants, data cooking, professional cancel culture attacks on so-call deniers, propaganda, obfuscation (Climategate for example), and, in the case of the litigious Mann, spurious lawsuits. Politics has ALWAYS been its battleground.

Robert H Watt
June 26, 2021 5:10 am

I seem to remember the increase in diesel powered cars in the UK was the result of the government’s vehicle tax policy whereby tax rates were linked to the amount of CO2 emitted by a vehicle. Diesel cars emit a much lower level of CO2 than similar petrol powered vehicles and consequently were cheaper to tax. There was not much discussion at the time of NOX emissions, all attention was focused on reducing CO2 emissions. Anyway, modern diesel cars with SCR/AdBlue technology are pretty much on a par with petrol cars as far as NOX emissions are concerned.

In my view, the constant shifting of the goalposts by governments in response to demands by climate alarmists/crackpots will continue and EVs will come under attack next. Climate doomsters will never be satisfied until they have driven humanity back into the stone age.

Joe Public
June 26, 2021 5:19 am

For some perspective of the relative effects of pollution particles in the UK, the BBC helpfully informs:

“It shows domestic wood burning in both closed stoves and open fires was responsible for 38% of pollution particles under 2.5 microns in size, three times more than road traffic.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56949426

Ulric Lyons
June 26, 2021 5:39 am

“Speaking before the official launch on 23rd June King said, “We’re looking at a series of disastrous events over the next few decades.”

XR and Greta fans love a bit of Mystic Meg, especially the wives and lovers of the cabinet members, the ladies wear the trousers at Imperial College too.

Thomas Gasloli
June 26, 2021 7:41 am

If you are going to propose a “program to mitigate the consequences of climate change” shouldn’t you be able to list those climate change consequences?

So far we only have consequences from the mitigations: more expensive electricity, black outs, job loses…but no actual evidence of harm from climate change.

MarkW
June 26, 2021 9:44 am

All those dead people have stopped producing CO2. So for the alarmists, extra deaths are a feature, not a bug.

aaron
June 26, 2021 9:52 am

An important point often missed is that oil is oil. There is only so much diesel and gasoline in a barrel, the ratio can only be changed to a tiny bit by cracking (chemical process). The policy not only increased pollution in populated areas,
diesel is most effective under load and continuous operation, it’s best for rail and long-haul shipping. It made it so that diesel was used where it is least effective and that more gasoline would be used elsewhere.

Last edited 1 month ago by aaron
Greg
June 26, 2021 12:38 pm

emissions reduction, greenhouse gas removal, and climate repair.

FFS, we have not even seen any scientifically attributable change and he’s on about “climate repair.”

Next we will be having to pay “climate reparations” to future generations who have not even been born yet.

Last edited 1 month ago by Greg
n.n
June 26, 2021 1:41 pm

Thus confirming the secular maxim: all’s fair in lust and abortion. I wonder how many people will go along to get along with the democratic/dictatorial “consensus” this time.

Giordano Milton
June 28, 2021 7:35 am

Let’s be honest: “Climate Change Is Now The Battleground For Politics” not the other way around.

%d bloggers like this: