Two-Stroke Scooters Cause More Pollution Health Hazard Than Cars or Trucks

Two-Stroke Engine Diagram

Two Stroke Engine Illustration

Something most folks may not be aware of is that standing behind a idling scooter is about 1000 times worse than standing behind a idling car breathing in fumes – that’s because common two-stroke scooters which make up a large portion of the vehicles in Asian countries especially Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, and India process fuel in a way that leaks fuel out of the exhaust port after each cycle.

These two-stroke engines have been banned in certain cities in China already, but are a cheap way to buy transportation in 3rd world countries and most likely will remain for years to come. This is something everyone should be cognizant about when going about their daily activities – avoid being around these scooters and hold your breath if they pass by you. The emissions from these vehicles in essence is attaching toxic benzine and organic aerosols to dust and dirt in the air just ready for unsuspecting victims to inhale. You can compound the problem if there is already pollutants suspended in the air.

For reference purposes below is a visual chart showing pollutants by vehicle type and running versus idling.

Click on Graph to See Pollutants Per KG of Fuel

Click on Graph to See Pollutants Per KG of Fuel




Gallagher, Sarah. “Scooters Pollute More than Lorries.” The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 20 May 2014. Web. 20 May 2014.


My Pollution Solution

Now here’s my plan, set up an international organization that collects money from each polluting country based strictly upon carbon emissions multiplied by a coefficient which is related to a country’s GDP and perhaps the longitude (since countries farther north need to use more fuel just to survive). As it is now, developing or poor countries are basically begging money from richer countries for their own use to put towards reducing their own emissions. The reason this won’t work is that in my estimation most of these poorer countries have leadership of questionable integrity especially when given essentially blank checks to be used towards lowering emissions, while many of their people can’t even afford food to keep themselves alive. Instead, there should be a third party to implement effective systems to reduce carbon emissions. The third party will be completely transparent, and have no prerogatives to appease one country over the other or award contracts to one company over another.

Joining would be completely voluntary, but would yield benefits such as technology-sharing in clean energy technologies, and also a certain amount of peer-pressure should arise from those who decide not to join. The money will be used for mitigating the effects of global warming wherever on the globe it is more economical or effective. Certain methods, which have been speculated upon yet not yet proven, include spraying minuscule water droplets into the atmosphere over the ocean to reflect the sunlight before it hits water… The point being, if there is any active way to reduce the problem, money will be used to do this. The proportion of work could be based on a country’s contribution – say the United States contributes 30% towards the fund, then 30% of the effort will be concentrated on reducing pollution or mitigating its effects inside the U.S.

Sure, this sounds like another large and wasteful bureaucracy, yet for some reason the problem is apparently not able to be tackled by traditional organizations such as the United Nations or country governments, who squabble amongst themselves… As of today, China and the United States lead the world in pollution production. Although there has been a parade of hand slapping from the EU and environmental groups, real change is not expected in the near future. China said it would reduce carbon emissions per unit of GDP, meaning emissions will grow (assuming China’s GDP continues to grow). The U.S. claims it will reduce emissions over 10% (I am unsure of the exact figure) by 2020…

Clean coal technology, increasing use of natural gas and nuclear power, and a shift towards mass-transit systems may or may not be the primary goal of this organization – but it should have solid technical know-how in these areas. Considering a few companies well versed in these technologies – Bombadier, General Electric, Siemens, Vattenfall to list a few, could possibly contribute technology, manpower, and know-how towards this new organization’s effectiveness in exchange for tax-breaks with equivalent costs put towards their respective countrys’ payment towards the organization.

A few ideas for the organization’s name: GCCI (Global Climate Change Initiative), APL (Anti-Pollution League) just to name two…

Comment and tell me what you think, or any suggestions/comments/hate-speech/etc.