Many years ago Europe decided to fight “Global Warming” by encouraging the use of diesel cars because diesel produces a little less CO2 per mile than gasoline engines.
But they are paying a massive price in terms of air pollution.
Diesel car owners could face tax rises to tackle deadly air pollution, a Cabinet minister indicated today.
In an interview with the Evening Standard, Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin said it had been a “mistake” for former Labour chancellor Gordon Brown to slash taxes on diesel.
The decision had caused a “dramatic rise” in the number of diesel cars spewing toxic nitrogen oxide (NOx) in London and other cities.
“We have got to look at that,” said the minister. “It is something the Chancellor will need to look at in due course.”
Mr Brown cut the duty on low sulphur diesel by 3p in his 2001 Budget — a move unveiled shortly before the general election — and also reduced company car taxes on diesels, billed as a bid to help meet climate change targets.
However, although diesel engines produce less carbon, which is blamed for global warming, they emit up to four times as much NOx and 20 times as many particulates — minute particles that penetrate and damage the lungs, heart and brain. About 9,400 Londoners die prematurely every year from breathing the city’s polluted air.
sunshine hours 
“But they are paying a massive price in terms of air pollution.”
There is actually little or no more evidence for this or NOX than there is for AGW, most “evidence” is derived from computer
gamesmodels used by the “usual suspects” such as the EPA.Most of the problem is alleged to be due to carbon particulates in diesel exhaust, but numerous other automotive particulates are entirely ignored. There are huge tonnages of tyre dust – not to mention asphalt and stone dust – produced every year, also large quantities of brake pad and metallic brake disc dust. Even more likely to be harmful are the quantities of platinum and other rare metal dust caused by the progressive deterioration of catalytic converters, which are so plentiful that there are companies extracting it from the road dust.
Platinum from road dust, Veolia cleans up on British streets
http://www.reuters.com/article/britain-environment-dust-idUSL6N0TM38A20141202
I really can’t see carbon particles being much more harmful than platinum, somehow.
And then there is the emission of assorted unpleasant chemicals from catalytic converters before they are fully warmed up, mostly formaldehyde, the odour of which is very noticeable in urban areas during morning rush hour in particular.
So basically just another way to use fear to stitch up the fossil fuel-using motorist.
Incidentally, I recently noted a report that claimed that electric cars in fact produced larger quantities of rubber and brake dust than fossil fuelled cars of similar class due to their greater weight…
It is clearly impossible to argue that deaths are premature except by extrapolation of statistics. If it was possible to tell everybody the exact date of their non premature death a whole raft of problems could be solved, personally and nationally. Equally it is impossible to ascribe any of the deaths specifically to pollution, whatever you identify that as. Just what degree of what pollutant would hasten death?