3 ms·
the main issue is that if you reduce the effectiveness of the tire, all you do is increase fuel consumption. balancing that out is difficult. rubber is always a
by permo-w 3y ago
the main issue is that if you reduce the effectiveness of the tire, all you do is increase fuel consumption. balancing that out is difficult. rubber is always a less-toxic option, but it's expensive, and probably still somewhat toxic at high-temperatures anyway
- galangalalgol 3y agoFor EVs with regenerative braking, tire mass becomes less of an impact to efficiency. So some airless wheel thing has fewer constraints. But having a high coefficient of friction while not destroying roads is enough of a constraint already.
- doctorpangloss 3y agoWhile you’re right, another complexity is that the salmon are just a canary for broader toxicity we cannot observe. Nobody, clearly, gives a shit about insects, although the environmental concern should be much higher for pesticides - they even were historically - even though pesticides also make yields on food higher and presumably let you use less land. The thing is we have never used less land, and we have never used less fuel, you’re falling directly into a paradox of that kind of thinking. So while you’re right, honestly that line of thinking of yours has been totally co-opted. This is coming from someone who used to do “Green revolution blah blah,” but I’m not in high school anymore, we all have more wisdom, we don’t have to say stuff that sounds smart anymore. We can obey what the most passionate and expert opinions are - reduce toxins everywhere, even at the cost of efficiency - and only good things will happen in our day to day lives.
- permo-w 3y agolook, I'm one of the bigger toxin-opponents out there, but if reducing one toxin means increasing another, then that needs to be taken into account. the transition to EVs and green energy helps though