In situations like that, the AQI is likely to be "many". 😷

The study here doesn't use the type of model that can predict acute short term exposure, which is why it's not evaluated, but the overall population health burden from long term exposure alone is quantifiable. (2/2)

Just to clear one point up, PM2.5 causes BOTH long term and short term harm. Acute high concentrations do trigger asthma attacks and so on, but sustained long term exposure increases the risk of heat attacks, cancer, strokes, etc. and even small changes in the average make a difference. (1/2)

I use images like that from LS Lowry paintings in presentations to show how much Manchester has improved over the years!

The big caveat in all of this is that this research isn't peer-reviewed. Furthermore, rather frustratingly, it doesn't even say what model they used to predict the impacts. I'd assume it's either PCM or CMAQ, but if anyone happens to know, I'd be interested. (3/3)

This one for me is the most interesting bit. The second panel is what would happen to PM2.5 if people ditched the wood burners and only relied on their primary domestic heat source (usually gas). The numbers don't look huge, but in dense population centres the health impacts can add up. (2/3)

Wish I could have been there. Not been to the AAAR in ages, I don't think! My general excuse is that it's at an awkward time of year and is expensive to get to for me.

Conflating emissions and ambient concentrations is one of my biggest pet peeves in science reporting, particularly when it comes to PM2.5.

Interesting. Always glad to see the data being used!

Have you seen this? Not sure if this is reflected in the current inventory (need to check).

uk-air.defra.gov.uk/library/repo...

Another example of this in air pollution was the implementation of the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) in parts of the UK. Replacing fossil fuels with biomass is one thing, but if farmers earn money for heating buildings that don't need heating in the first place, something has gone wrong. (6/6)

This is an example of a 'perverse incentive' in economics, where an incentive inadvertently creates the opposite of the desired effect. The historical example I use in my lectures is the 'Hanoi Rat Massacre', which is worth checking out. (5/6)

www.atlasobscura.com/articles/han...

The data has shown that the PHEV users who drove the most on ICE were the business users, many of whom had bought them for the tax breaks, not because the fuel economy suited their usage. The end result in those cases was the tax break caused more CO2e (and other pollutants), not less. (4/6)

The utility factors are now being revised in the Euro 6e standards, in turn meaning they will be treated less favourably in taxation. So hear me out when I say this now represents something of a self-own, regulation-wise. (3/6)

www.mphvehiclesolutions.co.uk/news/new-eur...

The 'utility factor' issue has been known to regulators for a long time. They originally assumed a certain amount of driving on electric when they estimated CO2e emissions from PHEVs, but vehicle telemetry collected since has indicated this was an optimistic estimate. (2/6)