2 ms·

> The claim isn’t that brakes and tires contribute the most pollutants, but the most particulate pollutants. Yes, but that's the "spin", the gaslighting. "Hey,

> The claim isn’t that brakes and tires contribute the most pollutants, but the most particulate pollutants. Yes, but that's the "spin", the gaslighting. "Hey, don't look at the huge amount of other pollution our gas vehicles produce, instead look at this small portion where we are not the main villain. Repeat after me: Baaaad break pads, baaad!!" Fossil fuel industry is fighting for their survival. Even if I agree with the numbers and the research, I can't agree that we should focus on this. The greenhouse gases pollution is a much bigger problem, EVs solve that, so if their break pads still produce the same amount of particulates, what does it matter? Don't let them get away with "see those EVs are not as good as you were told".

generj 6y ago
Focusing on PM pollution tends to reduce CO2 emissions. Most PM 2.5 comes from burning fossil fuels, so insisting on lower levels means burning fewer fossil fuels. PM studies are able to tie pollution directly to lives and thus dollars (through statistical lives). So, if reducing coal use costs $2.7B a year, but we extend enough lives, prevent asthma, etc., to equal at least $2.7B then as a country we should enact the regulation. The US starting doing exactly this from 1996-2003 and it reduced CO2 emissions by making coal plants, steel mills, etc., more expensive to operate. As a result, PM studies like the Harvard Six Cities study were highly controversial and fossil fuel companies lobbied hard against them. It is a lot harder to tie climate change to direct costs because the impacts are somewhat fuzzy and on a long timeframe. In this case, discovering brake pads and tires cause PM2.5 means we can invest in less-emitting brake pads. But this isn’t likely to produce tires/brakes that dramatically reduce emissions. A more likely approach is investing in mass transit, which would reduce CO2 output. I wouldn’t say greenhouse gasses are a larger problem but a rather a harder to coordinate long-term global problem. PM pollution caused 4.2 million premature deaths in 2016 [0]. It is hard to directly state how many deaths climate change caused in 2016 but conservative estimates [1] are for about 500,000 deaths a year by 2050. Most PM deaths stem from terrible industrial air in poorer countries which if combated would also dramatically cut CO2. [0] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(outdoor)-air-quality-and-health https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(ou... [1] https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/health/climate-change-health-emergency-study/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/health/climate-change-health-...

generj 6y ago

Focusing on PM pollution tends to reduce CO2 emissions. Most PM 2.5 comes from burning fossil fuels, so insisting on lower levels means burning fewer fossil fuels. PM studies are able to tie pollution directly to lives and thus dollars (through statistical lives). So, if reducing coal use costs $2.7B a year, but we extend enough lives, prevent asthma, etc., to equal at least $2.7B then as a country we should enact the regulation. The US starting doing exactly this from 1996-2003 and it reduced CO2 emissions by making coal plants, steel mills, etc., more expensive to operate. As a result, PM studies like the Harvard Six Cities study were highly controversial and fossil fuel companies lobbied hard against them. It is a lot harder to tie climate change to direct costs because the impacts are somewhat fuzzy and on a long timeframe. In this case, discovering brake pads and tires cause PM2.5 means we can invest in less-emitting brake pads. But this isn’t likely to produce tires/brakes that dramatically reduce emissions. A more likely approach is investing in mass transit, which would reduce CO2 output. I wouldn’t say greenhouse gasses are a larger problem but a rather a harder to coordinate long-term global problem. PM pollution caused 4.2 million premature deaths in 2016 [0]. It is hard to directly state how many deaths climate change caused in 2016 but conservative estimates [1] are for about 500,000 deaths a year by 2050. Most PM deaths stem from terrible industrial air in poorer countries which if combated would also dramatically cut CO2. [0] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(outdoor)-air-quality-and-health https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(ou... [1] https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/health/climate-change-health-emergency-study/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/health/climate-change-health-...