81–90 of 232 posts
Interesting, considering just a few decades ago bundling old tires and sinking them into the ocean was considered an environmentally-friendly disposal method. It was believed that the tires would create reefs, encouraging sea life, and at the same time take care of on ongoing tire disposal problem that occasionally led to catastrophic fires. I wonder what other modern "environmentally friendly" things we're doing now…
On the front page of HN at the exact same time, we have two different articles on this topic. One says that most ocean plastic comes from ships, the other says car tires. Clearly they're both accurate.
Imagine all the problems that would be solved if someone invented a car with metal wheels, maybe one that can hold hundreds of people, goes really fast, is quiet and efficient....
Interesting, considering just a few decades ago bundling old tires and sinking them into the ocean was considered an environmentally-friendly disposal method. It was believed that the tires would create reefs, encouraging sea life, and at the same time take care of on ongoing tire disposal problem that occasionally led to catastrophic fires. I wonder what other modern "environmentally friendly" things we're doing now…
Imagine all the problems that would be solved if someone invented a car with metal wheels, maybe one that can hold hundreds of people, goes really fast, is quiet and efficient....
I don’t know about the “quiet and efficient” but the rest of that describes a large armored personnel carrier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armored_personnel_carrier
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the last mile problem can be solved in a million different ways: bikes, taxis, uber, walking, buses... Eliminating car culture is non optional if we want to save the planet.
bikes, taxis, uber, walking, buses Three of those four fail to address the tire issue, which is at the root of this problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easy to say "use trains" when you live in a highly dense area. But America-the-continent is massive and not very dense on average. I'm not convinced trains would be viable economically like they are in Japan.
They would be if the negative externalities of autos were priced in; trains aren't viable in America because autos are subsidized via substantial non-internalized negative externalities.
Trains are far more heavily subsidized than autos, for example, on a per-passenger mile basis. Studies that account for the full bore of taxes which apply to personal vehicles (sales tax, excise tax, gas tax, registration fees) show that cars provide significant net income to government far exceeding infrastructure outlays.
I think that trains being less fuel efficient than cars with 2 occupants also is a good reason why “non-internalized negative externalities” have a hard time helping trains catch up in the final accounting.
If you can cite a study which supports your claim I would be very interested to read it. However, I don’t think the science of accounting for PM2.5 tire and brake dust is at the point where we can calculate the economic cost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there evidence that Tupperware breaks down and gets into food that you store inside it?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222987/ > Most Plastic Products Release Estrogenic Chemicals: A Potential Health Problem That Can Be Solved > Results: Almost all commercially available plastic products we sampled—independent of the type of resin, product, or retail source—leached chemicals having reliably detectable EA, including those advertised as BPA free. In some cases, BPA-free products released ch…
For instance, I'd like to know if my hard-plastic Camelbak water container is now basically safe considering I've had it for about 4 years and refill it about 2/3 times a day, or if it's leaching at essentially the same rate as when it was new.
Imagine all the problems that would be solved if someone invented a car with metal wheels, maybe one that can hold hundreds of people, goes really fast, is quiet and efficient....
The effectiveness of trains is directly related to the distance between stops, and California (and much of the USA) is too spread out for current combination of technologies and politics.
We're doing a fine job of emptying the rural areas, heh, so I see no reason this isn't possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easy to say "use trains" when you live in a highly dense area. But America-the-continent is massive and not very dense on average. I'm not convinced trains would be viable economically like they are in Japan.
Nobody is arguing that there needs to be a subway with hourly service between Denver and Boise. There is no excuse for the coasts, south, and midwest not to have better train service. If you exclude Alaska and the Mountain States, the US has the same population density as Europe.