I don't wish to come across smug and knowing, but the many unpleasant effects of tailpipe emissions aren't exactly news, are they?
When I first visited Los Angeles in the mid 1980's during its period of bearing the 'most polluted city in the world' moniker, there was a great deal of talk about local area pollution and the dire effect this toxic smog had particularly on the old and very young.
On a bad day in LA you could barely see or breath, this pollution was anything but subtle.
20 years of legislation by the Californian government and in particular the California Air Resource Board, (CARB) encouraged the introduction of things like unleaded petrol, catalytic converters and of course hybrid and electric cars.
Now it's in the news again, like the fact that tens of thousands of diesel cars in London being a bad thing is a sudden shock to everyone.
In a recent BBC report it was stated that "...traffic is responsible for 42% of carbon monoxide, 46% of nitrogen oxides and 26% of particulate matter pollution."
Not sure what that means?
Try cycling around London with an air filter face mask and have a look at the filter after a half hour pedal. It's properly black. I first noticed that in about 1979.
So, the sooner we get rid of all diesel taxis, busses, trucks, vans and cars the better.
'But,' say the fossil defenders, 'that could have a huge negative effect on the economy.'
I would like to suggest that it could have a huge beneficial effect on our economy and indeed cut down on the annual estimate of 29,000 deaths that are as a direct result of traffic related air pollution.