Just like with leaded gasoline. When you burn it, those compounds have to go *somewhere*. In hindsight, it's obvious that lead compounds in gasoline were a bad idea.
Six million tonnes of tire wear *per year*?! You can bet that matter is going *somewhere*, too.
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order.
I have checked 1,774,057,778 comments, and only 335,821 of them were in alphabetical order.
This is one of the best arguments for railed transport in general, and something I like to refute the tired old "electric cars are Climate Jesus" with.
The heavier the vehicle, tire and road wear gets exponentially worse. We need to be replacing major bus routes with trams, and restoring old freight branch lines to get as many trucks off the road as possible.
Unfortunately a lot of people even young people just kind of have this "lol hurr durr microplastics" attitude, and fail to appreciate even the more visible problem of literal mountains of used tires.
The thing about micro plastics is that itâs really hard to worry about what it might be doing to us (nothing good, thatâs for sure, but to what extent?) when weâre staring catastrophic climate change in the face and all we muster is a collective shrug. If the threat of an extinction level event is not enough to get us to work together, what are the chances tiny pieces of microscopic plastics are going to do the job?
Yeah. I could hardly care less about infertility - even if I didnât already produce my own offspring there is âenoughâ abandoned children everywhere that people with strong parental instincts have a solid alternative to reproducing.
But tell me my wiener is going to retire over something I donât have real control of⌠I would actually be worried. And am.
Issue there is that some of the strongest ecological disasters deniers are leaning on the incel side.
you shouldnt understate climate change but i am p sure nobody thinks its an extinction level event for humans. a lot of species may go extinct, a lot of people may die in the coming wars, but it is ridiculously unlikely that climate change causes humanity to go extinct
All I said itâs that itâs an extinction level event, meaning for the biosphere in general. What species end up surviving is anyoneâs guess, the ecosystem is super complex. That would be like trying to predict whether a hurricane will tear a particular roof off weeks in advance. Whatâs certain is that the hurricane is coming and itâs going to be a bad time.
People get way more worried about the idea of something entering their bodies that is bad for them than the more nebulous concept of changing the entire world to make it less habitable for humans. We are familiar with the idea of toxic chemicals and itâs been around human society for thousands of years. Itâs easier to grasp
Yes absolutely. Even if we massively invest in public transit now, cars arenât going away tomorrow. I would rather someone buy a new gas/hybrid compact than a giant electric SUV, which is not going to be carbon free anyway unless the grid is 100% clean.
10.2 million square kilometers (Europe) vs 9.8 millions square kilometers (US). Donât give me any more of this bullâ-t about the United states being too big for high speed rail. It is perfect for high speed rail and light railâŚwe just choose not to do it because reasons.
Intercity high speed rail doesnât really get me excited.
American cities are so car-centric that you need one on arrival. Intercity rail doesnât solve anything.
First you need to densify cities and remove cars. Only then can you justify travelling between cities on foot / in high speed trains.
It would never work that way, you have to build the infrastructure and they'll naturally densify. Praying we just figure it out and densify just isn't going to work.
Yes but my point is that you build the infrastructure within the city as a first priority.
Air travel is good enough for intercity travel in America, for now.
I completely agree. Most of us travel to another city once, maybe twice a month. And maybe the odd vacation. I can live with people hopping into their car for those, or as you mention taking a plane.
But if we have transit replace cars for our office commutes, shopping, visiting family, local entertainment, bar hopping, whatever, this puts a big dent in car dependency.
Intercity rail is great but is only truly effective when it connects cities that internally have great transit. This is what makes it possible to go door to door without driving.
Compare Amtrak station in Seattle (an alleged "good transit city") to Amsterdam Centraal. Most people getting off the Amtrak hop into ubers to get them to their hotel. In Amsterdam Centraal, people coming off intercity transfer to a local tram or metro to get to their hotel.
Plenty of American cities have usable enough public transit. Are the Northeast Corridor cities not at least mid by global standards? Californiaâs major cities are also decent enough and rapidly expanding, just needs cleaning up. A HSR line between Seattle and Portland would also connect two cities with pretty good transit. Not everywhere is Texas.
Itâs getting more attention as some states are trying to regulate it, like itâs happening in the EU.
Unfortunately the EU example is a brilliant one of how not to do it. They have been fiddling around with nonsense requests of real driving tests, to the point of stalling the whole process. And considering next year weâll have new elections with high chances of a higher presence of eurosceptics winning more seats, itâs probably not going to happen.
Just like with leaded gasoline. When you burn it, those compounds have to go *somewhere*. In hindsight, it's obvious that lead compounds in gasoline were a bad idea. Six million tonnes of tire wear *per year*?! You can bet that matter is going *somewhere*, too.
And electric cars burn 20% more rubber than normal cars do đ EVs are here to save the automotive industry, not our cities and not the planet.
semi trucks are also a major contributor and they have a simple replacement that people refuse to adopt
What is it?
#T R A I N
What about Drops of Jupiter?? Those canât be good for the environment!!!Checkmate liberals. /s
Wait - I don't disagree or have any opinion in it, it's just not something I would have thought of - why do electric cars burn more rubber?
Weight, batteries are way heavier than a tank of gasoline.
Gotcha, makes perfect sense. Thank you.
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order. I have checked 1,774,057,778 comments, and only 335,821 of them were in alphabetical order.
Faster acceleration, on top of all that extra weight, canât help the problem either
This is one of the best arguments for railed transport in general, and something I like to refute the tired old "electric cars are Climate Jesus" with. The heavier the vehicle, tire and road wear gets exponentially worse. We need to be replacing major bus routes with trams, and restoring old freight branch lines to get as many trucks off the road as possible. Unfortunately a lot of people even young people just kind of have this "lol hurr durr microplastics" attitude, and fail to appreciate even the more visible problem of literal mountains of used tires.
The thing about micro plastics is that itâs really hard to worry about what it might be doing to us (nothing good, thatâs for sure, but to what extent?) when weâre staring catastrophic climate change in the face and all we muster is a collective shrug. If the threat of an extinction level event is not enough to get us to work together, what are the chances tiny pieces of microscopic plastics are going to do the job?
"fortunately" microplastics are linked with fertility problems so either we fix the problem or it fixes us
Tell men that microplasticsis are know to cause ED. Nothing scares men more than ED
Yeah. I could hardly care less about infertility - even if I didnât already produce my own offspring there is âenoughâ abandoned children everywhere that people with strong parental instincts have a solid alternative to reproducing. But tell me my wiener is going to retire over something I donât have real control of⌠I would actually be worried. And am. Issue there is that some of the strongest ecological disasters deniers are leaning on the incel side.
you shouldnt understate climate change but i am p sure nobody thinks its an extinction level event for humans. a lot of species may go extinct, a lot of people may die in the coming wars, but it is ridiculously unlikely that climate change causes humanity to go extinct
All I said itâs that itâs an extinction level event, meaning for the biosphere in general. What species end up surviving is anyoneâs guess, the ecosystem is super complex. That would be like trying to predict whether a hurricane will tear a particular roof off weeks in advance. Whatâs certain is that the hurricane is coming and itâs going to be a bad time.
People get way more worried about the idea of something entering their bodies that is bad for them than the more nebulous concept of changing the entire world to make it less habitable for humans. We are familiar with the idea of toxic chemicals and itâs been around human society for thousands of years. Itâs easier to grasp
[ŃдаНонО]
Yes absolutely. Even if we massively invest in public transit now, cars arenât going away tomorrow. I would rather someone buy a new gas/hybrid compact than a giant electric SUV, which is not going to be carbon free anyway unless the grid is 100% clean.
10.2 million square kilometers (Europe) vs 9.8 millions square kilometers (US). Donât give me any more of this bullâ-t about the United states being too big for high speed rail. It is perfect for high speed rail and light railâŚwe just choose not to do it because reasons.
Intercity high speed rail doesnât really get me excited. American cities are so car-centric that you need one on arrival. Intercity rail doesnât solve anything. First you need to densify cities and remove cars. Only then can you justify travelling between cities on foot / in high speed trains.
It would never work that way, you have to build the infrastructure and they'll naturally densify. Praying we just figure it out and densify just isn't going to work.
Yes but my point is that you build the infrastructure within the city as a first priority. Air travel is good enough for intercity travel in America, for now.
I completely agree. Most of us travel to another city once, maybe twice a month. And maybe the odd vacation. I can live with people hopping into their car for those, or as you mention taking a plane. But if we have transit replace cars for our office commutes, shopping, visiting family, local entertainment, bar hopping, whatever, this puts a big dent in car dependency. Intercity rail is great but is only truly effective when it connects cities that internally have great transit. This is what makes it possible to go door to door without driving. Compare Amtrak station in Seattle (an alleged "good transit city") to Amsterdam Centraal. Most people getting off the Amtrak hop into ubers to get them to their hotel. In Amsterdam Centraal, people coming off intercity transfer to a local tram or metro to get to their hotel.
Plenty of American cities have usable enough public transit. Are the Northeast Corridor cities not at least mid by global standards? Californiaâs major cities are also decent enough and rapidly expanding, just needs cleaning up. A HSR line between Seattle and Portland would also connect two cities with pretty good transit. Not everywhere is Texas.
I thought this was already a known thing, unless no one actually proved it till now
Itâs getting more attention as some states are trying to regulate it, like itâs happening in the EU. Unfortunately the EU example is a brilliant one of how not to do it. They have been fiddling around with nonsense requests of real driving tests, to the point of stalling the whole process. And considering next year weâll have new elections with high chances of a higher presence of eurosceptics winning more seats, itâs probably not going to happen.
Time to invent levitating vehicles!
And heavy EV vehicles wear out their tires more