3 ms·

They should regulate based on the vehicles mass versus its fuel type if they want to make a dent on local air pollution. Tire dust alone contributes 2000x the p

• toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Tire dust isn’t contributing to climate change, and air pollution from fossil fuel combustion is a known contributor to reduced life expectancy. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/06/14/air-pollution-takes-2-years-off-your-life-more-than-smoking-or-alcohol.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/06/14/air-pollution-takes-2-ye... > Air pollution, which is primarily the result of burning fossil fuels, takes 2.2 years of the global life expectancy for each person, according to a new report out Tuesday from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago (EPIC). > For comparison, that's a smidge more the decline in average life expectancy caused by smoking, more than three times that of alcohol use and unsafe water, six times that of HIV/AIDS, and 89 times that of conflict and terrorism. Light vehicles aren’t going away (although more mass transit and cycling infra is always welcome), so requiring them be EVs is an improvement. We can then continue on to solve for tire pollution.
  • asdff 4y ago
    I'm not denying that burning fossil fuels contributes to climate change. I'm arguing that in terms of peoples personal vehicles, the vast majority of particulate polution (3 orders of magnitude more) comes from the tire dust rather than the tailpipe. Tire dust is basically microplastics. It gets into your lungs and sticks around, and is also associated with reduced life expectancy and poor health. It's a significant source of PM2.5, which is estimated to be responsible for 95% of the global public health impact from air pollution. It also of course damages ecosystems when it runs off into our watersheds. https://jalopnik.com/tire-dust-is-the-ddt-of-our-generation-1850024765 https://jalopnik.com/tire-dust-is-the-ddt-of-our-generation-... That's true that taking a vehicle and replacing it with an EV makes a lot of sense and would reduce pollution, but to me that depends on them being equal weights. Usually EVs are substantially heavier than equivalent ICE cars, so this would mean we trade one form of emissions (less tailpipe emissions) for another (more tire dust). I'm not sure if that would pencil out to be overall better, considering the tailpipe emissions from a modern (last 25 years we will call it) are responsible for so little of the particulate pollution to begin with, and adding on another 1000lbs to a given car frame represents a massive proportional increase in weight. I wonder if larger cars mean wider or larger tires, and what that might do for particulate generation as well? Maybe one solution is to have "urban cars" running off of powered catenaries and very small batteries, rather than larger and heavier battery packs, almost like a trollybus.
    • amalgamated_inc 4y ago
      > larger cars And super torquey cars! 0-60 in 2 seconds!
      • asdff 4y ago
        Yeah, that will peel off some rubber
• duskwuff 4y ago
  Is that a real problem, though? The fuel costs alone are probably enough to convince people to not offer taxi/rideshare services in Hummers (or whatever).
  • asdff 4y ago
    It sure is, tire dust is no good for your lungs or for your water sheds. You are right which is why the prius is the most common car used by rideshare drivers today.
    • brianwawok 4y ago
      You are sure worried about tire dust. Do you work for big oil?
      • asdff 4y ago
        No, I just would prefer we invest in substantiate changes to our urban form like adding more transit and bike infrastructure, than doubling down on the car and all its ills which aren't resolved by fuel choice alone.
      • amalgamated_inc 4y ago
        What do you think tire dust is made of? lol Do you work for Big Unreliable Energy & Big Luxury Only Unaffordable EV?
• Tagbert 4y ago
  If the guardian were right about that, we would have to replace car tires every 10,000 miles.