4 ms·
For those in the back, I did explicitly disclaim that as my Single Source of Truth (again I encourage you to look at the totality of work in this area), but con
by schiffern 1y ago
For those in the back, I did explicitly disclaim that as my Single Source of Truth (again I encourage you to look at the totality of work in this area), but conspicuously you never dispute my actual point which is that tire and asphalt and road marking particulates are significant marks against heavier vehicles.
You also hyperfocus on air pollution, but large microplastic particles are major sources of water and soil pollution too. Some tire additives are persistent aquatic toxins, which effects both.
I will accept this as (as closest you can get to) conceding the point.
- ZeroGravitas 1y agoI refer back to my original statement that EVs are clearly better and anyone claiming you can't do two things at once, like remove aquatic toxins from tyres, is at best deluding themselves.
- schiffern 1y agoI wouldn't dispute either statement. Indeed, I was going to point out that the real solutions involve practical mitigations like longer-wearing tire/road compounds and removal of the most ecologically harmful anti-fungal additives used in tires today. Naturally, you would still want to do this regardless of switching to EVs (which I think is inevitable). My point is that the way you're arguing undermines our side's credibility. When you say (rightly IMO) that TFA is dishonest for omitting major emission routes because they're inconvenient toward their EV beliefs, everyone immediately sees how that cuts both ways. Even though we're right, it makes our side look disingenuous (and worse hypocritical) by selectively ignoring downsides while simultaneously accusing others of the exact same. It's weak rhetoric. Please keep fighting the good fight! I only wish my allies to be more effective fighters armed with the most powerful rhetoric. Thanks.