13 ms·
> Particulates issued from tailpipes can aggravate asthma and heart disease and increase the risk of lung cancer and heart attack. Globally, they are a leading
by lkbm 10mo ago
> Particulates issued from tailpipes can aggravate asthma and heart disease and increase the risk of lung cancer and heart attack. Globally, they are a leading risk factor for premature death.
Minor nitpick, but tailpipes aren't the primary source of emissions. The study is about PM2.5[0]. which will chiefly be tires and brake pads. Modern gasoline engines are relatively clean, outside of CO2, though diesel engines spit out a bunch of bad stuff.
[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s44407-025-00037-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s44407-025-00037-2
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- throwawaypath 10mo agoHow do EVs fare in this regard? Brakes are used significantly less, but the additional weight from the batteries chews through tires faster.
- kyleee 10mo agoAnd unfortunately there is some nasty stuff in tires
- HPsquared 10mo agoThere never seems to be much discussion on reducing the harm from tire (and I suppose road surface) particulates. Maybe that's the next frontier?
- ceejayoz 10mo agoThere's quite a bit of materials science work in that direction. For example, I have Michelin's CrossClimate tires, which are all-weather tires that do better in snow but don't break down as fast as dedicated winter tires do in warm weather.
- selimthegrim 10mo agoHow would you recommend them based on winter performance?
- ceejayoz 10mo agoI live in a snowy area and am quite happy with them.
- selimthegrim 10mo agoI believe they are directional tires so it would make it hard to operate with a full size spare otherwise I’ll definitely consider them
- HPsquared 10mo agoI was thinking more from the perspective "make them out of materials that aren't too bad to inhale/ingest"
- ceejayoz 10mo agoSure, that's great too. But the rubber lasting longer means less of those bad things to inhale floating around at any given time.
- mrguyorama 10mo agoWhat material is strong, malleable, dirt fucking cheap, has a high coefficient of friction, easy to work with, amenable to additives, meets all the suspension properties we expect out of a tire, etc, and isn't bad to breathe a lot of the dust of? Modern tires are works of material science miracle, working with dirt cheap inputs. Even iron dust from steel on steel friction like with trains is bad for your health. The human lungs just have bad filtration.
- HPsquared 10mo agoIf nobody asks the question, nobody will try and look for one.
- potato3732842 10mo agoBecause a hard long wearing tire is a low grip tire and the direct tradeoff between safety and the environment is not something either crowd wants to deal with because there's so much overlap.
- ZeroGravitas 10mo agoEU is introducing particulate regulation roughly now-ish (proposed 2022): https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/automotive-industry/environmental-protection/emissions-automotive-sector_en https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/automotiv... > Euro 7 will also regulate emissions from tyres and brakes for the first time worldwide.
- jgeada 10mo agoWhy does everyone immediately pivot to EVs on this subject, instead of (looks around) gargantuan SUVs and trucks everywhere, due to peculiarities of US policies regulating SUVs more leniently than cars on fuel efficiency?
- Angostura 10mo agoBecause a lot if EV buyers are interested in the environmental impact of their purchase?
- ceejayoz 10mo agoAlternatively: Because fossil fuel companies have a long, long history of astroturfing public opinion to benefit their business. Same trick with solar farms: https://www.npr.org/2023/02/18/1154867064/solar-power-misinformation-activists-rural-america https://www.npr.org/2023/02/18/1154867064/solar-power-misinf... And wind: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-and-gas-industry-is-behind-offshore-wind-misinformation/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-and-gas-ind...
- bpt3 10mo agoI see this argument almost exclusively from the fuckcars crowd, because their existing environmental arguments against ICE vehicles don't apply to EVs. If you're claiming that the oil and gas lobby is facilitating their criticism of any automobile, I hope you're right because that would be hilarious.
- ceejayoz 10mo ago> I see this argument almost exclusively from the fuckcars crowd... That's not shocking to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_the_Earth_(US) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_the_Earth_(US) > Friends of the Earth U.S. was founded in California in 1969 by environmentalist David Brower after he left the Sierra Club. The organization was launched with the help of Donald Aitken, Jerry Mander and a $200,000 donation from the personal funds of Robert O. Anderson. One of its first major campaigns was the protest of nuclear power, particularly in California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Orville_Anderson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Orville_Anderson > Robert Orville Anderson (April 12, 1917 – December 2, 2007) was an American businessman, art collector, and philanthropist who founded [the United States' sixth-largest oil company] Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO).
- lkbm 10mo agoI'm not sure, and I assume it will vary a lot by speed. EVs do also have higher torque, so that may increase tire-based particles, but you're right that it avoids the brake pads for the most part. Fewer cars in general is the win from congestion pricing, though.
- tart-lemonade 10mo ago>Fewer cars in general is the win from congestion pricing, though. And lower VMTs (vehicle miles traveled) is also a win for the planet, it's probably the best weapon the average person has access to in the fight against climate change. Transit usage begets transit usage; more fares paid to the agency enables better frequencies and more routes, leading to more people opting to take transit instead of driving... In a well-run system, it's a positive feedback loop (and the inverse, where people stop taking transit, can also lead to a death spiral, as happened across America in the mid-20th century).
- oasisbob 10mo agoIf we're speaking about individual actions, isn't avoiding air travel more effective than any other form of individual vehicle travel choice?
- treyd 10mo agoYes, and the northeast has the best rail transit in the US, which NYC sits right in the middle of.
- bluGill 10mo agoRail transit in the north east is the best in the US. But it is terrible in many ways. As someone who lives in an area that would be marginal for rail even in the great rail countries of Europe of Asia I really need the north east to develop great rail - only by bringing great rail to places where it is easy can we possibly get it good enough that it would be worth bringing to me. Instead I just get examples of why we shouldn't bother with transit at all here: when all we can see is the stupid things New York is constantly doing to transit (where the density is so high they can get by with it) there isn't an example I can point to of that would be worth doing here.
- littlestymaar 10mo agoA bit worse on tires because they are heavier (for comparable vehicle size, but obviously not if you compare a small EV with a ICE truck), and much better on brakes because of regenerative braking. Overall they are better.
- nabla9 10mo agoWith EV's this gets relatively worse because they are heavier. EV SUV worse than gas SUV.
- a_paddy 10mo agoTire wear on EVs has more to do with the weight of your right foot than the curb weight of the vehicle. The high torque of EVs results in frequent wheel slippage for those eager to pull away from traffic lights quickly. Just like with high BHP ICE vehincles, smooth and gentle acceleration/deceleration will result in long tire life.
- PunchyHamster 10mo agoI'd gonna guess "worse" Brake dust is mostly some iron, carbon, silica. Not great to ingest but very much recyclable by the environment, unlike rubber. And possibly much easier to greatly reduce (just build some shielding around the brake to catch most of the dust) than the tyre
- coryrc 10mo agoUnfortunately it's also copper and asbestos :(. (Yes, they're banned, but nobody is checking aftermarket brake pads...) But tire dust is definitely now the worst of the two, by far. 6-PPD alone.
- potato3732842 10mo ago>Yes, they're banned, but nobody is checking aftermarket brake pads.. On one hand you've got the people who insisted on regulating all of our manufacturing out of the country on environmental and safety grounds. On the other hand you've got the people who want to band asbestos and lead and all manner of other dangerous chemicals in consumer products. Both these people are dressed like Spiderman and they're pointing at each other. <facepalm>
- bryanlarsen 10mo agoEV's produce 38% less tire & brake dust than ICE vehicles. https://electrek.co/2025/05/27/another-way-electric-cars-clean-the-air-study-says-brake-dust-reduced-by-83/ https://electrek.co/2025/05/27/another-way-electric-cars-cle... non-exhaust emissions on an ICE vehicle are roughly 1/3 brake dust, 1/3 tire dust and 1/3 road dust. EV's have almost no impact on road dust, 83% lest brake dust and 20% more tire dust.
- throwawaypath 10mo agoThank you for sourcing an answer!
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- mikestew 10mo ago“Additional weight”? What additional weight? In comparison to America’s best-selling vehicle, the Ford F-150? Where was all this hand-wringing about weight and brake and tire dust ten years ago? I guess those narratives aren’t going to support themselves.
- biophysboy 10mo agoIs that true for slower moving vehicles? I can't imagine there's a lot of brake dust generated by stopping & starting in the 0-10 mph range.
- nabla9 10mo agoTires and brakes. With EV's this gets relatively worse because they are heavier.
- nonethewiser 10mo agoWhoops
- ceejayoz 10mo agoBut the tires are individually controlled - less slippage - and the brakes are regenerative. As a bonus, NYC is pretty much best-case scenario for the latter.
- entropicdrifter 10mo agoWhile this is generally true, tire wear is known to be generally faster on EVs due to their weight and instantaneous torque when accelerating. Which, as an EV owner, feels like an "oh no, my steak is too buttery" kind of problem to have.
- ceejayoz 10mo agoThe instant torque also comes with better control over it, though. I don't doubt it's a thing, but I do doubt it outweighs all the other environmental benefits.
- Aurornis 10mo agoIt’s the forces that accelerate the wear. Significant wheel speed is a rare occurrence in normal driving, but acceleration, cornering, and braking forces are ever present.
- oersted 10mo agoAnd besides, even if lung cancer and heart attack may be the most common means of premature death, it does not entail that air pollution is the primary cause of them. I thought that smoking and bad dietary/exercise habits were the main factors. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'd like to know.
- cenamus 10mo agoAir pollution is pretty clearly correlated with reduced life expectancy, even if you don't directly die from it
- maerF0x0 10mo agoAlso noise pollution, and above ground trains are hella loud. (Or at least CalTrain and BART are...)
- hamdingers 10mo agoThis is a widely debunked bad faith NIMBY talking point. A train, even at high frequencies, is less noise pollution than a highway or major road.
- maerF0x0 10mo agoIn the house I lived it was not debunked. It was fact. The caltrain blasted it's horn hourly (or more) 24/7 within earshot of my house. I could not sleep with my window open and often slept with ear plugs even with the window closed. I get you might be tempted to spout generic statistics, but I can tell you without a doubt it was ear blistering loud up close, and sleep disturbing even 2 blocks away. Also for what it's worth you have no idea if it's good or bad faith.
- hamdingers 10mo agoSo you would have preferred a roughly 12 lane freeway 2 blocks from your house to move the same number of people?
- aurareturn 10mo agoMinor nitpick, but tailpipes aren't the primary source of emissions. Spend some time in Hanoi or Ho Chi Minh City or a very dense city in Asia and then come back here. Let me know if you change your mind.
- lkbm 10mo agoI won't change my mind about emissions in NYC. NYC is full of modern, western cars. Two-stroke engines are terrible, classic automobiles are terrible, cars with no emission regulations will tend to be terrible. Cars in NYC will have catalytic converters and other technologies to reduce tailpipe emissions.
- fsckboy 10mo agowestern? what is this less polluting non-western car you are advocating?
- fullstop 10mo agoThey probably mean two stroke motorcycles.
- lkbm 10mo agoPretty much any new car sold in the US, Canada, Mexico, and most of Europe. "Western" typically refers to "countries rich/developed enough to [in this case] add emissions regulations". It's a luxury that many countries haven't gotten to yet, but is widespread in North America and Europe. The good news is that I believe Ho Chi Minh City is about to start, so hopefully they'll have much cleaner air in a couple years.
- macNchz 10mo agoThe notable source of bad tailpipe emissions in NYC are heavy diesel trucks, which, to my understanding, produce a large proportion of tailpipe particulates (and NOx) in the US, despite being a small fraction of overall vehicles on the road. There are strong correlations with heavy truck traffic and asthma rates.
- fortran77 10mo agoThis is actually a major nitpick. If this "study" is this sloppy, what else isn't quite true?
- lkbm 10mo agoThe study doesn't mention tailpipes (afiact). This press release/article does. Don't dismiss scientists because journalists reporting their findings incorrectly.
- theurerjohn3 10mo agoI am a little confused, why would sloppiness in the media release (the article that uses the word tailpipe), have anything to do with sloppiness in the study, which the above comment clearly highlights is about PM2.5, not specifically tailpipe emissions? Are Yale's media releases typically done by the people who do the study?
- acdha 10mo agoThe study isn’t sloppy, and I would highly suggest reading it before casting aspersions at the authors: https://www.nature.com/articles/s44407-025-00037-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s44407-025-00037-2
- scythe 10mo agoCongestion leads to more use of the brakes, which can have nonlinear effects. Also, I thought tire particles tend to be larger.
- MLgulabio 10mo agoco2, co, NO. Nothing i would breath in a garage. Nothing i like to breath in while i'm driving.
- Aurornis 10mo ago> though diesel engines spit out a bunch of bad stuff. Exactly. The noxious tailpipe emissions in a city are usually from diesel trucks, small vehicles like motorcycles (small or absent catalytic converters), modified vehicles (catalytic converter removed or diesel reprogrammed to smoke), but not modern gasoline ICE vehicles. The love for diesel engines in many European countries was always confusing to me. PM2.5 is also a broad category of particulates that come from many sources. The PM2.5 levels in the air depend on many sources, with wind being a major factor in changing PM2.5 levels. It’s hard to draw conclusions when a number depends on the weather and a lot of other inputs.
- stetrain 10mo agoDiesel looks good if you are focusing primarily on fuel economy (mpg / L/100km), and when companies cheat the tests on other emissions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal When you remove the cheating and give adequate weight to those emissions, diesel for passenger vehicles makes a lot less sense.
- cool_dude85 10mo agoDiesel is less fuel efficient than regular gasoline except when you measure by volume. It gets fewer miles per unit of energy in the fuel.
- stetrain 10mo agoYes, but measuring miles per volume of fuel and setting increasing targets was a big focus of reducing petroleum dependency since the 70s. The focus has more recently shifted to reducing overall emissions of CO2 and other harmful gases and particulates, which makes diesel much less appealing.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- SECProto 10mo ago
- Jon_Lowtek 10mo ago"relatively clean" means 85% of PM2.5 is from non-exhaust sources, and 15% is from exhaust after catalytic conversion. In New York EV and ICE are pretty much on par when it comes to this category of pollution, as the additional weight increases non exhaust sources. Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S135223101630187X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13522... It is different in Africa, where catalytic converters are harvested for precious metals and cars are driven without them.
- bryanlarsen 10mo agoThat source is Europe, not New York. It claims EV's are 24% heavier than ICE vehicles. That might be true in Europe but definitely not the case in the US where the average ICE vehicle is a 6000 pound truck and the average EV is a 4000 pound Tesla. It also assumes they're using the same tires. EV owners put on EV tires, which are formulated to have a lower rolling resistance, quieter and last longer. All 3 of those correlate with lower dust.
- awongh 10mo agoBut a 6000 pound truck doesn't get replaced with an EV sedan. Or vice versa. As things move to EV I don't know why the proportion of car body types (whatever you call this) wouldn't stay the same.
- bryanlarsen 10mo agoYes, but that 24% increase in Europe is partly due to increase in vehicle size. Vehicle size is increasing over time in Europe, and the average EV is newer. Also, cars designed as pure EV's are a lot lighter than EV's built on an ICE chassis. A Telsa 3 is about 2% heavier than a BMW 3 whereas a Ford Lightning is 20% heavier than the comparable F-150.
- Jon_Lowtek 10mo agothe 24% increase has nothing to do with car size over time in europa. Table 2 in the paper lists which cars where compared, and that 24% numbers is an average from comparing models where manufacturers offer EV and ICE variants.
- bryanlarsen 10mo agoIt's true that brake dust is the primary PM2.5 emission from vehicles in an urban environment. However the PM2.5 component from tail pipes are still very significant, higher than the contribution from tires. The order is: 1. brake dust 2. road dust 3. engine emissions 4. tire dust https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653519305831 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00456... https://electrek.co/2025/05/27/another-way-electric-cars-clean-the-air-study-says-brake-dust-reduced-by-83/ https://electrek.co/2025/05/27/another-way-electric-cars-cle...
- somewhereoutth 10mo agoand would it be true to say that regenerative braking on electric cars reduces significantly this dust?
- thmsths 10mo agoI recall a discussion on HN explaining that while true, this might be offset by the higher average weight of EVs, leading to more dust from the tires and the road. Again, no easy solution unfortunately, just trade offs.
- iambateman 10mo agoIf that were true of tires, you would expect an EV’s tires to get substantially less range before wearing out…which I don’t believe is the case.
- pif 10mo agoIt is actually the case! That's why your choice of tires on online sites gets so smaller as soon as you tuck the "electric/hybrid vehicle" case!
- t_tsonev 10mo agoSpecialized EV tires are also optimized for drag and noise, wear is just a factor. Anecdotally speaking I'm at over 80k km on a set of EV tires with at least 20k more to go. The issue has more to do with driving style and engine power than any other factors.
- zeristor 10mo agoThere’s also ammonia from farmland, it reacts to form secondary PM25
- rconti 10mo agoIt always surprises me when people want stop signs in their neighborhood for traffic calming. The last thing I want is all of the noise and pollution of vehicles stopping and starting over and over again; surely various piece of road furniture like bulb-outs, roundabouts, etc, do a better job with fewer drawbacks. Other than cost, of course.
- cosmic_cheese 10mo agoMy assumption is that stop signs act somewhat as a way to enforce the lower speed limits in residential areas. There's several stretches without stops in my suburb where I've seen drivers whizzing by very obviously above the 25mph speed limit, which is bad enough on its own but becomes a serious hazard when combined with the massive blind spots that come from curbs on both directions being filled to the brim with parked cars. A better solution would probably be radar-based speed signs with printed threats of fines, though.
- recursive 10mo ago> A better solution would probably be radar-based speed signs with printed threats of fines, though. I don't think people respond to those as much as they do to "traffic calming" like speed bumps, roundabouts, and narrow choke points.
- cosmic_cheese 10mo agoProbably true, but all of those are significantly more involved installations or modifications. To be clear, I'm all in favor of reworking neighborhood roads to be more friendly to pedestrians, but I think things like signs have a significantly better chance of actually being implemented in most circumstances.
- rconti 10mo agoOf course, drivers respond to speed bumps the same way they respond to other poor road surfaces: 3-ton SUVs.
- cameronh90 10mo agoThere are some early tyre and brake dust collection systems which might help, but that won't do much for the road dust. I've been wondering whether, theoretically, if self driving cars become widely usable and deployed in cities, will they be able to safely operate with harder tyre compounds and harder road surfaces that shed less but don't grip as well? If nothing else, less aggressive driving should lead to less shedding.
- seg_lol 10mo agoI wonder if it is the `congestion` itself that causes the PM2.5 spike. More stop and go traffic, more brake dust, more tire dust?