4 ms·

It's quite easy to find websites that claim it is, do you have something more authoritative that claims otherwise? Eg. https://www.tiretechnologyinternational.

It's quite easy to find websites that claim it is, do you have something more authoritative that claims otherwise? Eg. https://www.tiretechnologyinternational.com/news/regulations/pollution-from-tire-wear-1000-times-worse-than-exhaust-emissions.html https://www.tiretechnologyinternational.com/news/regulations... cites a UK study.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
This is misdirection, in particular the vagueness of 'particulate' in their report, which doesn't reflect the numbers in the UK report they cite, but don't link to. Presumably they counted larger particles, which by weight will dominate, but have less impact on air quality (but a bigger impact on water). Traffic was about 25% of PM2.5 in 1995, combustion was like 90% of that. Of what remains from traffic, tires is about a quarter, equal to brakes, which EVs also eliminate. This is why the legislation focused on the exhaust emissions from combustion, it was a massive single source of the pollution. "Every bit helps" though right? Except PM pollution is global in scope. The Government recently claimed that even removing all the people and activity in the UK wouldn't let them meet a 5ppm target, because of the contributions from global fossil fuel burning getting blown over borders. You can look at the UK government recommendations for things to target. Low hanging fruit are people burning coal and wood in urban areas and shifting to EVs and renewables for cooking and heating.
- Veedrac 4y ago
  > Traffic was about 25% of PM2.5 in 1995, combustion was like 90% of that. 1995 numbers seem like a poor choice, given engines ran vastly dirtier back then. > "Every bit helps" though right? Except PM pollution is global in scope. The latter point doesn't contradict the former point. Every little bit does help. I am certainly not claiming we should make tire emissions the primary focus of emissions reduction, just that we should care about air quality enough to also tackle tire emissions seriously.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

This is misdirection, in particular the vagueness of 'particulate' in their report, which doesn't reflect the numbers in the UK report they cite, but don't link to. Presumably they counted larger particles, which by weight will dominate, but have less impact on air quality (but a bigger impact on water). Traffic was about 25% of PM2.5 in 1995, combustion was like 90% of that. Of what remains from traffic, tires is about a quarter, equal to brakes, which EVs also eliminate. This is why the legislation focused on the exhaust emissions from combustion, it was a massive single source of the pollution. "Every bit helps" though right? Except PM pollution is global in scope. The Government recently claimed that even removing all the people and activity in the UK wouldn't let them meet a 5ppm target, because of the contributions from global fossil fuel burning getting blown over borders. You can look at the UK government recommendations for things to target. Low hanging fruit are people burning coal and wood in urban areas and shifting to EVs and renewables for cooking and heating.

Veedrac 4y ago
> Traffic was about 25% of PM2.5 in 1995, combustion was like 90% of that. 1995 numbers seem like a poor choice, given engines ran vastly dirtier back then. > "Every bit helps" though right? Except PM pollution is global in scope. The latter point doesn't contradict the former point. Every little bit does help. I am certainly not claiming we should make tire emissions the primary focus of emissions reduction, just that we should care about air quality enough to also tackle tire emissions seriously.