How you can help

Don't sit idling by: Simple ways to reduce the environmental impact of yourexhaust

A few years ago, new owners remodeled the house across the street from mine. The contractor drove a shiny diesel pick-up that he used as a mobile office — parking and sitting in it while he made phone calls or did paperwork. I work at home, so was frequently treated to the sound of the idling truck. One day when he’d been out front a good 45 minutes or more, I walked out my door and the smell of exhaust nearly bowled me over.

You’ve probably run into idling buses in national parks, bike trails and the school pick-up line.

Diesel engines have lower per-mile fuel consumption than conventional gas engines, so they generally emit less carbon dioxide while on the road. But according to Deanna Altenhoff, executive director of the Clean Air Force of Central Texas, diesel exhaust includes nitrogen oxides (NOx), a precursor to ground-level ozone, and particulate matter, tiny soot particles that can lodge in the lungs and that are a potential carcinogen.

“Of the 61.14 tons per day of NOx emitted from on-road vehicles in Central Texas,” Altenhoff said, “29.67 come from diesel vehicles.” Breathing even small amounts of diesel exhaust can inflame the lungs and trigger asthma attacks — especially in children and the elderly — and studies have linked exposure to diesel exhaust with cancer, heart attacks and premature death.

Diesel exhaust includes nitrogen oxides (NOx), a precursor to ground-level ozone, and particulate matter, tiny soot particles that can lodge in the lungs and that are a potential carcinogen.

Limiting engine idling is a simple way to reduce potentially harmful emissions, and a state rule even limits diesel idling to less than five minutes. (Anyone can report violations by calling 512-343-SMOG within 30 days. Reporting is free, and you don’t have to give your name.)

It’s a good idea to limit idling of all vehicles, not just diesel ones, given that there are nine areas in Texas that do not meet clean air quality standards, and vehicle emissions are a contributing factor. Idling vehicles may be a small part of our air quality problems, but they’re one part that’s easy to solve.

Across the U.S., idling cars burn some 1.4 billion gallons of fuel; trucks burn another 1.5 billion gallons, emitting about 58 million tons of carbon dioxide. All while accomplishing nothing. When idle, you're also producing carbon monoxide — an invisible, odorless, poisonous gas. Driving, of course, produces carbon monoxide too, but when you’re not moving, you’re sitting in a cloud of it.

Turning off and re-starting your car uses less gas and produces less carbon monoxide than idling for a half a minute. That’s 30 seconds — a pretty short amount of time. Limiting engine idling is pretty easy, too. Park and go inside rather than using a business's drive-through. You’ll probably save time as well; I frequently park, go in and get my coffee or make a bank deposit, and return to my car before I would have made it to the window.

If you must use the drive-through — say, you have a sleeping baby with you — turn off the car while you wait.

Idling also increases wear and tear on your engine. According to the EPA, idling causes twice the wear on internal parts as driving at regular speeds. An idling engine is not operating at optimum temperature, which causes incomplete fuel combustion and leaves residue on spark plugs and cylinders. Excessive idling also causes water to condense in the exhaust, which increases corrosion.

New diesel engines stay warm for several hours after they have been running, Altenhoff says, retaining more than enough heat to avoid starting difficulties. In very cold weather, it may be necessary to warm up a diesel engine for three to five minutes, but not any longer than that.

So, all you idlers out there: Turn off your engine. You’ll save gas and money — and we’ll all breathe cleaner air.

unspecified

Red Light

San Antonio leads Texas on ending horse-drawn carriage rides by 2030

Getty Images

Horses will no longer pull carriages on the streets of downtown San Antonio.

San Antonio has pulled off something that the rest of Texas has yet to do, but it didn't come without some contentious conversations. City Council has unanimously voted (with one abstention) to phase out the use of horse-drawn carriages over the next five years. That means by January 1, 2030, there will be none on the streets at all; instead, there will be electric carriages.

These plans have been in the making since 2022 — if not always at the same level of intensity — when District 2 Councilmember Jalen McKee-Rodriguez and District 3 Councilmember Phyllis Viagran wrote up some concerns about the horses' wellbeing. A special session at the end of October 2024 hinted to San Antonians that the end for this practice was neigh — sorry, nigh — and the final vote was made on December 12. In addition to accepting the plan, it extended its timeframe by two years.

The initial proposal included worries about the horses' exposure to traffic and pollution, as well how their presence might exacerbate those issues for the environment at large by slowing traffic. It also raised concerns about the effects of standing or walking on hard surfaces for too long, or spending time in extreme weather.

At the December 12 meeting, San Antonians gave impassioned speeches about animal welfare — both to call attention to the need for better conditions and to defend the reputations and jobs of current horse drivers — but it wasn't the first time the council heard from the public about the issue.

In a prior city survey, 50,476 respondents weighed in. Of those respondents, 51.98 percent said they liked the idea to "Transition horse-drawn carriages to electric carriages and pedicabs and ban horse drawn carriages completely." There were alternative solutions listed, but respondents were less drawn to them.

A cultural divide emerged in the data and continued in the December meeting: some people avoided the carriages because they worried about the treatment of the horses, while others enjoyed them because of their historical echoes and living legacy. Many speakers in favor of the plan used this to form their argument, raising questions about history versus progress.

More tangible objections to the plan hinged on the businesses — specifically five companies — and jobs that would be lost, which was the main factor behind extending the adjustment period.

Discussions about the particulars of the electric vehicles are still to come, as confirmed in the discussion near the end of the meeting. Councilmember Jalen McKee-Rodriguez addressed concerns about what would happen to the horses, mentioning the Brady Hunter Foundation as a future partner in finding them rescue homes.

Some council members also brought up rhetorical questions about animal exploitation by groups like Sea World, the San Antonio Stock Show & Rodeo, military and police forces, and even various groups in the Fiesta parade, although these did not come with a formal motion to pick the issues up.

This decision could have a ripple effect on other Texas cities. Dallas has recently considered a similar ban, but it appears to have stalled; Austin's attempts at a ban have been unsuccessful, but according to the Austin-American Statesman, only one operator is permitted to bring horses downtown. She declines to do so because the long hours are unfair to her and the horses. Houston does have horse-drawn carriages, and there seems to be little conversation about banning them.

Cities like Chicago and Salt Lake City have led the charge in the United States with some of the most prominent successful bans. Other cities around the world with bans include Brussels and Guadalajara, which both switched to electric models. Bans that have been around for years, like Guadalajara's and Prague's, still aren't out of the woods — people are still pushing back on the decision, so it sounds like San Antonio still has much work cut out for it.

animals downtown civic issues