https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
That's probably dust from the London Underground, which is mostly iron (from the rails and wheels), brake dust (ceramic) and dead skin.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.8b01914
The crux of that is that particulate pollution had a low correlation with passenger car volume, and a high correlation with trucks. Indeed, they found low utilization trucking routes had worse pollution than the busiest highway in North America (which would have been much more pronounced if the latter didn't also have significant truck volume).
Though it is worth noting that there are a number of worse sources of particulate pollution. Wood burning fires, for instance, or home gardening equipment with virtually no pollution control.
How can one group be 'exponentially worse' than just one other group? How can you see an exponential relationship between two data points? That doesn't make any sense. You'd need to be looking at a relationship between at least three data points to say it was exponential.
Language evolves, and not always for the best.
Also, to address the definition of "exponentially", I refer you to the second definition here [0]:
-- "any positive constant raised to a power."
Think about it - you can express any change from A to B as a positive constant raised to a power. So if that's what you think it means then you're saying any change from A to B is rising 'exponentially'.
You’re definitely right that wood burning stoves and static plant are big sources, although location of emission is very important, someone using garden machinery intermittently on their own property or a wood burning stove out in the country is mostly polluting themselves, the same can’t be said for a freeway being driven through an urban neighbourhood.
Big trucks, however, couldn't make the transition as quickly, and for the necessary torque still rely upon diesel. And they've gotten away with much, much worse, though again California is taking the lead and in the next few years older trucks will be banned from the roads.
Regarding the location of particulate sources, I've read that even in London, England, something like 75% of the particulate matter is from outside the city, blown in from farms and rural areas.
Or am I missing some sort of sarcasm joke?
Goal is not to make a difference, it is to make you feel better for yourself.
If they're (hypothetically) a commercial driver, spending the day at work driving around in an 1980s diesel truck, or installing golf course sprinkler systems, they'd still feel that they're an environmentally responsible person.
If the ad campaigns instead of suggesting toothbrushing habits informed the public of the disproportionate pollution caused by old trucks or vilified inefficient agricultural watering practices, that person might have a 100x more effective impact from their personal obligation if they advocate replacement of the truck or change agricultural practices. Also, consumers of these polluters might help encourage change by, say, preferring a waste disposal company that uses newer trucks or by changing consumption to eat peanuts grown with rainwater instead of desert-grown aquifer-fed California almonds.
Realistically there could be a new initiative like that 1-5 times a decade. Society rarely behaves in the most optimal way, and as I said saving water is very low effort, though it might also be low impact. The real faillure not following up with more and better initiatives.
What if none of the available waste disposal companies are using newer trucks, are you supposed to call them every week like with congress people? And how is buying a bag of peanuts branded with some promise of ecological responsibility any different from saving water brushing their teeth? A single bag of peanuts from a different brand doesn't make any impact by it self and it only serves to make people feel like they've done their part adequately.
By analogy, if you were trying to help someone get out of debt, would you advocate they take unpaid time off work to walk along the roadside collecting cans for the deposit, or work overtime hours at $50/hr?
There's limited energy and funds available for these initiatives; by advocating ineffective ones more harm than good is done.
Something like turning off water is something anybody (also the campaign agency) can comprehend. Turning off water safes water, easy.
Now think about trying to reduce exhaust pollution, you can't see it, people don't know how much pollution is generated by a car, and most importantly: there is no easy solution to reduce it. Yes, you can ask people to leave their car at home and commute to work by bike, but that does not work for everybody and reduces comfort for most people.
The campaign agency could have done an awareness for exhaust pollution, but that would have been much harder to do, and probably they won't make much friends while doing so. Where as something easy as a water saving campaign will give that loads of goodwill.
So it really depends on the situation as well.
Sure there was some building of some sort there back in their 1962 photo. But that isn’t Harriet Tubman school we are talking about today. The school was only opened in 1982. Built after pressure by community activists who wanted a school in their neighborhood. Further it was actually closed in 2012 and then reopened in 2018. With much written at the time of reopening about the pollution problem.
So really the “villain” (if there should be one) would have to be Portland Public Schools that built, closed, then reopened a school next to an existing traffic sewer. In 1980s it is somewhat forgivable mistake, we weren’t as aware then. But in 2018 they knew full damn well the pollution problem. Nobody can deny that.
This school shouldn't be there. Is pollution bad? Yes. Was Robert Moses and his cohorts a disaster for urban environments? Yes. Do cities need to be greener and have better transit? Yes. But still, the school simply shouldn’t be there. So the article really falls apart on a number of levels.
In this case I think people using the existence of the school to campaign against this freeway project are doing a selfish disservice to the students. I'm generally anti-freeway, very pro-transit, very pro-urban. But let's be clear: the current levels of pollution are unacceptable as is, regardless of widening. The school shouldn't stay where it is even if the freeway doesn't get widened. So the people using it as a prop in their campaign to prevent widening are essentially arguing it is fine to stay where it is. This is sad and IMO a selfish use of this bad situation for the students of this school by the anti-freeway campaigners.
fueleconomy.gov will let you look up cars, and the "Energy and Environment" tab will show you CO2 emissions and greenhouse gas emissions, each on a grams/mile driven scale.
A 2019 Volve V90 station wagon emits 328g/mile of CO2 and 444g/mile of GHG.
A 2019 Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid emits 51g/mile of CO2 at the tailpipe and 140g/mile total including the upstream electricity production, assuming you live in Beverly Hills.
A 2019 Tesla S P100D emits nothing at the tailpipe and 120g/mile.
A 2019 Honda Accord Sport/Touring is 345g/mile CO2 and 410g/mile total GHG.
Does that help?
That's the general case, though. This school might be dealing with other particulate sources, as another comment mentioned a large number of industrial sources nearby (e.g. cement plants are a big source). In which case maybe the school just isn't in the best place.
And it's worth noting that we now measure and pay attention to this but it was much worse in the past. Smelling the wonderful smell of a wood burning fire is usually an indication that you're in a dangerous particulate zone.
Also, there's no "unemployed exemption" to property tax, that I know of.
Of course there are retirees who don't work but own real estate. These folks generally own cars, but don't drive them as much as those who work, yet they generally don't have children or even grandchildren in the schools and yet have to pay for the schools. Which is fine.
The category of people who don't have cars is largely comprised of people who don't have jobs because if you don't have a car you can't get to work. These people don't own real estate. They generally live with others who do, or in subsidized housing and live off government benefits of some kind or another such as disability or aid for people with dependents.