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

61–70 of 172 posts

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

#61

Post by crazygringo »

lm28469 wrote: post #51
Neil44 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as aggressively promoting WFH doesn't penalise people for whom this is not an option.

OK but then how many people are penalised by having to own a car?

A lot of people simply can't work from home due to lack of space, noise and interruptions, etc.

It's a lot easier to buy a cheap used car than uproot your entire living situation to a new home where you can WFH, which you also might not be able to afford.

Not to mention you probably already own your car for other things like getting groceries.

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

#63

Post by stonogo »

Neil44 wrote: post #21
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.

As long as aggressively promoting WFH doesn't penalise people for whom this is not an option.

It not only already does, it always will.

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

#65

Post by soperj »

Spivak wrote: post #60
mitchbob wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> freedom Including the freedom to spend the equivalent of weeks every year stuck in traffic: https://thecitypaperbogota.com/bogota/bogota-tops-tomtoms-gl...

Travel time is travel time, you would have a similar tally on the train/bus/walking. This isn't really the best argument against cars because people buy cars because it's a massive improvement on "waiting for the bus time."

It's really not. You can actually do stuff waiting for the bus, or riding the bus. You can't really do much while driving. Walking is incredibly good for you, unlike driving.

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

#66

Post by trgn »

njarboe wrote: post #42
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.

Driving is an amazing. It allows everyone huge amounts of freedom in what they do and who they spend time with. Having lots of shops and workplaces near your home is great and should be encouraged, but we should try and find ways to keep the freedom of personal transportation and reduce the impact it has. Lots and lots of tunnels, better tires, electric cars use brakes much less and could get to almost zero, etc.

It is definitely and/and.

Cars are best for the stuff they show on the commercials; driving to the weekend cabin, hauling a thing, impressing a date, going on the family trip.

So yeah, keep the driving, but for the one-off things where they are great at. That's really the only time when a car represents freedom. They are not freedom when it's the only option to get a loaf of bread or get to your office.

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

#67

Post by trgn »

marcosdumay wrote: post #59
njarboe wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Driving is an amazing. It allows everyone huge amounts of freedom in what they do and who they spend time with. Having lots of shops and workplaces near your home is great and should be encouraged, but we should try and find ways to keep the freedom of personal transportation and reduce the impact it has. Lots and lots of tunnels, better tires, electric cars use brakes much less and could get to almost zero, etc.

> Driving is an amazing. As long as everyone isn't forced to do it at the same place at the same time. Driving less goes a long way into making it more amazing.

Driving is great for the one-offs and other people aren't doing it. It's awful anytime else.

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

#68

Post by b800h »

I'm similarly concerned about the horrible tiny rubber pellets used in latest-generation astroturf pitches. IIRC they used to be made from used tyres but now aren't - does that just mean they're processed? Where does the rubber come from and where does it go afterwards?

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

#69

Post by blueflow »

crazygringo wrote: post #61
lm28469 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK but then how many people are penalised by having to own a car?

A lot of people simply can't work from home due to lack of space, noise and interruptions, etc. It's a lot easier to buy a cheap used car than uproot your entire living situation to a new home where you can WFH, which you also might not be able to afford. Not to mention you probably already own your car for other things like getting groceries.

Blue collar jobs usually cannot be done from home...

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

#70

Post by Spivak »

david-gpu wrote: post #31
LarryDarrell wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some point one has to consider costs, scale and political expediency. WFH and H-WFH would be broadly popular among the electorate and could probably take off with just some changes to the tax code. Presuming everyone does want to live in a dense area (I do not), building housing and infrastructure is expensive and at the end of the day it has to be profitable to build. We don't really have the framework to zone mu…

> Presuming everyone does want to live in a dense area (I do not) I wish we stopped subsidizing wealthy folks choosing to live in low density areas. It is intrinsically regressive that poorer people living in sustainable denser areas are subsidizing the infrastructure of the low density suburbs where richer people live. Low density suburbs do not raise enough taxes to support their own infrastructure, from roads, to…

> wealthy folks choosing to live in low density areas

There's no way you're saying this with a straight face, right? People move out of the city because it's significantly cheaper. Rent in a nice two bedroom "downtown" is $3500. You move 15 minutes out of there and you can get 3 bedroom house for an $1800 mortgage that'll never go up.

Source: I did that. I got tired of paying such a huge chunk of my income for living.

Post reply on HN