Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tire toxicity faces fresh scrutiny after salmon die-offs

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 172 posts

Re: Tire toxicity faces fresh scrutiny after salmon die-offs

#11

Post by MisterTea »

LarryDarrell wrote: post #6

Perhaps tires can be made less toxic, but over all, we need to prioritize driving less. WFH means I put barely 3000 miles per year on my car. It's absurd we are not aggressively promoting WFH or hybrid WFH at the national level. It's the easiest win for the environment and it's right there for the taking.

> It's absurd we are not aggressively promoting WFH or hybrid WFH at the national level.

It's absurd that tech people seem to think that WFH is applicable to everyone. I'm in a shop right now and have to touch machinery on a daily basis. So do the rest of the workers.

Re: Tire toxicity faces fresh scrutiny after salmon die-offs

#12

Post by thfuran »

LarryDarrell wrote: post #6

Perhaps tires can be made less toxic, but over all, we need to prioritize driving less. WFH means I put barely 3000 miles per year on my car. It's absurd we are not aggressively promoting WFH or hybrid WFH at the national level. It's the easiest win for the environment and it's right there for the taking.

Is it actually a win for the environment? Sure, not commuting is, but what about more people deciding to live in less dense areas?

Re: Tire toxicity faces fresh scrutiny after salmon die-offs

#13

Post by kps »

thfuran wrote: post #12
LarryDarrell wrote: post #6

Perhaps tires can be made less toxic, but over all, we need to prioritize driving less. WFH means I put barely 3000 miles per year on my car. It's absurd we are not aggressively promoting WFH or hybrid WFH at the national level. It's the easiest win for the environment and it's right there for the taking.

Is it actually a win for the environment? Sure, not commuting is, but what about more people deciding to live in less dense areas?

A house can be approximately net zero from solar panels. Much denser housing can't be.

Re: Tire toxicity faces fresh scrutiny after salmon die-offs

#14

Post by kylebenzle »

LarryDarrell wrote: post #6

Perhaps tires can be made less toxic, but over all, we need to prioritize driving less. WFH means I put barely 3000 miles per year on my car. It's absurd we are not aggressively promoting WFH or hybrid WFH at the national level. It's the easiest win for the environment and it's right there for the taking.

We could replace all the synthetic rubber with home grown natural rubber right now. It would last longer and be of much higher quality but it would double prices or more, so instead we burn oil and dump pulverized plastics into our waterways, because its a little cheaper.

Re: Tire toxicity faces fresh scrutiny after salmon die-offs

#15

Post by c0nfused »

matsemann wrote: post #10
LarryDarrell wrote: post #6

Perhaps tires can be made less toxic, but over all, we need to prioritize driving less. WFH means I put barely 3000 miles per year on my car. It's absurd we are not aggressively promoting WFH or hybrid WFH at the national level. It's the easiest win for the environment and it's right there for the taking.

Yeah, the big focus on exhausts from cars has hidden lots of other problems they lead to. EVs don't solve most of these problems. The cars are heavier, hence their tires spread even more micro plastic.

While micro plastics are a problem climate change is the train coming down the tracks at civilization as a whole.

I agree the EVs don't fix everything they are in theory buying us time to make the choices that get rid of cars in the long term.

Re: Tire toxicity faces fresh scrutiny after salmon die-offs

#16

Post by matsemann »

c0nfused wrote: post #15
matsemann wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the big focus on exhausts from cars has hidden lots of other problems they lead to. EVs don't solve most of these problems. The cars are heavier, hence their tires spread even more micro plastic.

While micro plastics are a problem climate change is the train coming down the tracks at civilization as a whole. I agree the EVs don't fix everything they are in theory buying us time to make the choices that get rid of cars in the long term.

I just wish the 4 billion we subsidize EVs with every year here in Norway were put to other use instead. Could habe built a new metro line every year for that amount of money. Which would have had a much larger long term effect.

Re: Tire toxicity faces fresh scrutiny after salmon die-offs

#17

Post by epistasis »

thfuran wrote: post #12
LarryDarrell wrote: post #6

Perhaps tires can be made less toxic, but over all, we need to prioritize driving less. WFH means I put barely 3000 miles per year on my car. It's absurd we are not aggressively promoting WFH or hybrid WFH at the national level. It's the easiest win for the environment and it's right there for the taking.

Is it actually a win for the environment? Sure, not commuting is, but what about more people deciding to live in less dense areas?

One of the biggest environmental impacts is driving, so the real key is to have mixed uses near by.

If you have a family and still need to drive your kids to school everyday, because schools are too far away to walk and there's no bus (typical in California), if you need to drive to go to the grocery store, if you need to drive to do everything in your life, then working from home in a less dense area might still involve a very similar amount of driving.

Once vehicle miles travelled is subtracted out, the biggest impact from living in less dense areas is deforestation, reduction of large fauna in ecosystems, etc. A classic example of that is the Santa Cruz Mountains, highly populated by low-density living, but getting in and out is so arduous that most people do not commute much, or even leave their houses for much. A good life for hermits, but it's not for everyone.

Re: Tire toxicity faces fresh scrutiny after salmon die-offs

#18

Post by epistasis »

kps wrote: post #13
thfuran wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it actually a win for the environment? Sure, not commuting is, but what about more people deciding to live in less dense areas?

A house can be approximately net zero from solar panels. Much denser housing can't be.

Denser housing can easily be net zero from nearby solar panels. Additionally, denser housing is much more energy efficient, requiring less overall energy, but this is kind of a minor impact. Once we get to solar + batteries powering most of our energy needs, cutting space heating energy needs by 20%-50% doesn't matter much.

Re: Tire toxicity faces fresh scrutiny after salmon die-offs

#19

Post by kylebenzle »

kps wrote: post #13
thfuran wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it actually a win for the environment? Sure, not commuting is, but what about more people deciding to live in less dense areas?

A house can be approximately net zero from solar panels. Much denser housing can't be.

The denser the housing the more efficient in almost every way. Even if we had the money the world already doesn't have enough resources for everyone to get a single family home with solar panels, batteries, a tesla and a well, most will have to live in dense cities to survive.

Re: Tire toxicity faces fresh scrutiny after salmon die-offs

#20

Post by SoftTalker »

epistasis wrote: post #17
thfuran wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it actually a win for the environment? Sure, not commuting is, but what about more people deciding to live in less dense areas?

One of the biggest environmental impacts is driving, so the real key is to have mixed uses near by. If you have a family and still need to drive your kids to school everyday, because schools are too far away to walk and there's no bus (typical in California), if you need to drive to go to the grocery store, if you need to drive to do everything in your life, then working from home in a less dense area might still inv…

I think it would still involve less driving. You don't get groceries every day if you drive to get them. You buy a few days or a week's worth of supplies at a time.

School may be hard to avoid driving if there's no bus or good walking/biking routes, but maybe you can carpool with neighbors who have kids in the same school.

But I think fundamentally a lot of people are just not accustomed to sitting at home. They feel cooped up, and bored. That's not me -- I'd rarely leave the house if I could get away with it. But I know a lot of people feel that way, if they didn't have to go to work they'd go drive somewhere just to be somewhere different for a while.

Post reply on HN