Most people are aware that gasoline sucks as a fuel and is responsible for a large portion of carbon emissions, but defenders love to trot out that “if every end consumer gave up their car, it would only remove like 10% of carbon emissions”
I can find tons of literature about the impact gasoline vehicles have, but is there any broader studies that consider other factors—like manufacture, maintenance, and city planning—while exploring the environmental and/or economic impact of cars and car culture?
I know there’s great sources that have made these critiques, but I’m looking for scientific papers that present all the data in a single holistic analysis
[California Air Resources] Brake & Tire Wear Emissions
[NIH] Secondary particulate matter in the United Statesso much, as you mention, is focused on the exhaust emissions, while ignoring the knock-on, indirect, and delayed effects
- exhaust emissions – greenhouse gasses and particulate matter
- particulate matter from tire wear, brake wear, road wear, road dust re-suspension
- much of the PM2.5 forms indirectly through the reactions of pollutant gases in the atmosphere
a couple more additions
- urban heat island effect – roads and parking lots absorbing and radiating heat
- impermeable surfaces (roads, parking lots) lead to increased flood risk
If we account to impacts on wildlife as well, there’s displacement of species, stressors to local fauna, and the innumerable roadkills as well
I’ve read a few articles about the rubber from tires being one of the worst aspects of car pollution
I don’t know if there’s any gasoline car vs electric studies, but there’s been some research into, for example, carbon footprint of oil drilling vs lithium mining. Here’s one of the articles that has a bunch of sources sited:
10% of a person’s carbon emissions is still more than anybody’s carbon footprint in the developing world. Every little bit helps and cars are the one source of carbon emissions that actually has some semblance of personal responsibility.
That and diet.
I probably shouldn’t have framed the question as “in order to refute the ‘only 10%’ argument,” it’s also out of curiosity and accuracy. Anyone who resorts to “only X%” isn’t arguing in good faith and won’t settle for anything that’s not the silver bullet that solves climate change entirely
