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

131–140 of 172 posts

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

#131

Post by lonelyasacloud »

cbsmith wrote: post #62

I'm kind of stunned that we're just now getting a handle on problems with tire particulates. It's been roughly a century.

I'm not.

Default assumption in the West is if it's not medicine and it doesn't kill immediately it's good to go. Some time later, usually quite a lot, a tiny group of independent scientists end up being interested enough to scientifically prove that bloody obvious scaling problem is a problem. But by that time usually much money and politics is tied up in it. To that mix, then add in legislatures that even when they are independent have processes and bandwidth largely optimised for the pace of change from the age of sail and we end up with an endless stream of doh moments.

One glimmer of hope here is at least it looks like getting it sorted might take slightly less time than lead pipes.

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

#132

Post by dragontamer »

chongli wrote: post #109
capitainenemo wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting idea. Apparently road damage goes up with the 4th power of the weight ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law ) Really trucks are probably not paying their fair share in that regard. I wonder how it would be implemented in practice given how variable vehicle weights are depending on how they are being used. Weigh stations like they use for trucks? It might also be a solution for gas taxes being i…

Yes and so what makes the most sense is to make the tax increase with the 4th power of vehicle weight multiplied by the miles they travel. This way there are no perverse incentives. Everyone pays their fair share according to how much damage they cause.

I love pushing "Tire Taxes".

We all know that tires will emit rubber particles down to the point where the tire tred is 2/32th of an inch (from ~8/32ths of a fresh tire).

So just... tax the tires based on the ~6/32ths of an inch outer-diameter of the tire that turns into microplastic dust. Calculate the microplastic dust weight of the outer diameter + weight of tires and bam. You have a 1-to-1 correlation of tax to exactly the amount of particles emitted.

No weight^4th power required. The tire wear directly correlates to the pollution we care about. So tax / measure the tires directly, don't do anything else that's more indirect.

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

#133

Post by paulryanrogers »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #102
Spooky23 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of ways to adapt to that. For example, you can have localized telework centers or subsidize co-working spaces. The current situation is far worse. People are literally trapped in a cycle of poverty or bad work experience because they cannot get to a suburban office park for want of a car. WFH has lots of limitations. Distribute work geographically and you can lower costs and improve outcomes. Why have…

> subsidize co-working spaces These are called offices. Look, I WFH and I love it. But in the process I probably quintupled my emissions. I might be able to get that down to quadrupling with an EV and full solar array. But the realities of suburban/rural living are simply much harsher on the environment.

Co-working spaces are distinct from traditional offices because they mix workers of so many different employers. Sometimes as granular as to the desk. This can significantly reduce or eliminate commutes.

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

#134

Post by faeriechangling »

michael9423 wrote: post #104
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 need to prioritize driving less." I doubt the majority of the world population wants to be included in your "we".

I’m not so convinced that people are so foolish. Maybe they don’t want to be the first ones to stop driving but I think most people recognize the problems we face as a society.

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

#135

Post by faeriechangling »

MisterTea wrote: post #11
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.

Jealousy politics are indeed an obstacle but the societal insistence that everybody needs to pollute the environment because some people have to pollute the environment is nonsense.

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

#136

Post by thfuran »

faeriechangling wrote: post #130
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?

Does it follow if you don’t commute you’ll live rurally or in the suburbs? If you live urban you can just rid yourself of a vehicle altogether.

As in does working from home require someone to move to the suburbs? No. But many people do choose to move into larger housing in cheaper, less dense areas once they start spending more time at home and aren't tied down by a daily commute.

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

#137

Post by hinkley »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #99
hinkley wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My theory is that WFH will mostly contribute to creating secondary markets for more industries. Professionals will still want the services a city affords you but not want to pay SF or even Seattle prices. So they’ll end up somewhere under two hours from the nearest metropolis. But if you get enough people in one place, you’ll get entrepreneurship.

If you get enough people in one place what you really get is a city.

From a business standpoint that’s not sufficient though. You need a critical mass of people interested in your narrow little niche.

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

#138

Post by Spivak »

jwagenet wrote: post #90
Spivak wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It’s cheaper because not enough city housing is built and there are other costs associated with suburban living. IMO, property taxes should increase as density decreases because those less dense areas will cost a lot more to maintain roads, utilities, etc. down the road.

Look, where I live isn't SF or Vancouver that has the "NIMBYs oppose all new building" problem. If you wanted to build super dense high-rise apartments or skyscrapers both the city and state would throw money at you and give you tax breaks. It's still ludicrously expensive compared to even the closest suburb.

We've gotten more traction building apartment complexes on the edges of the burbs than in the metro area in recent years.

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

#139

Post by NewJazz »

dragontamer wrote: post #132
chongli wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and so what makes the most sense is to make the tax increase with the 4th power of vehicle weight multiplied by the miles they travel. This way there are no perverse incentives. Everyone pays their fair share according to how much damage they cause.

I love pushing "Tire Taxes". We all know that tires will emit rubber particles down to the point where the tire tred is 2/32th of an inch (from ~8/32ths of a fresh tire). So just... tax the tires based on the ~6/32ths of an inch outer-diameter of the tire that turns into microplastic dust. Calculate the microplastic dust weight of the outer diameter + weight of tires and bam. You have a 1-to-1 correlation of tax to e…

Doesn't account for road wear or pedestrian risk, though.

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

#140

Post by digitalsushi »

capitainenemo wrote: post #56
liminal wrote: post #36

I'd like to see a weight tax on vehicles. Lighter vehicles have less tire wear, so less pollution. They also require less energy to move, so less emissions. Plus lighter vehicles would improve pedestrian safety.

Interesting idea. Apparently road damage goes up with the 4th power of the weight ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law ) Really trucks are probably not paying their fair share in that regard. I wonder how it would be implemented in practice given how variable vehicle weights are depending on how they are being used. Weigh stations like they use for trucks? It might also be a solution for gas taxes being i…

a civie engineer told me an overloaded 18 wheeler is about the same as 8,000 passenger vehicles making the same trip on the tar.
Post reply on HN