There are real concerns about catalytic convertors. Anyone seen any recent studies on the effectiveness, pro, and cons. I went back and found an article I was reading a few months ago that raised some issues. Are we trading one problem for another?
“But when it comes to climate change, auto engineers and environmentalists have long pointed out another serious issue. Although cats turn most nitrogen oxides into nitrogen and oxygen, they also produce small amounts of nitrous oxide (N2O) in the process, a greenhouse gas that's over 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide. The trouble is that with so many vehicles on the road, even small amounts of nitrous oxide add up to a major problem. Back in 2000, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change noted: "The introduction of catalytic converters as a pollution control measure in the majority of industrialized countries is resulting in a substantial increase in N2O emissions from gasoline vehicles." Fortunately, newer catalytic converters produce dramatically less nitrous oxide than older ones. Even so, while catalytic converters have certainly helped us to tackle short-term air pollution, there are concerns that, when it comes to long-term climate change, they could be making matters worse.”
So the question becomes is the level of N2O more harmful than the temporary decrease in carbon monoxide at the local level, remember CO eventually turns into CO2 naturally.
So my idea to balance this out is half of us run cats and half of us don’t. [emoji23]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk