|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
How particulate pollution from tires is worse than from tailpipes, and why this matters.
by Rob Roper
In my recent “Cage Match Conversation” with fellow WDEV radio host Kevin Ellis (Great debate, check out the podcast!), the subject of electric vehicles and the recent decision by Congress to end the EPA’s ability to regulate tailpipe CO2 emissions as pollutants came up. I pointed out the reason for this policy change is that CO2 isn’t a health hazard to humans the way particulate pollution is – the stuff responsible for smog, etc. I also mentioned in passing that data shows that the particulate pollution coming from tire wear is now worse than that coming out of tailpipes, and EV’s, because they are 30 percent heavier than comparable ICE vehicles, have more tire wear, and are thus worse polluters. At least in regard to their impact on human health.
Kevin’s eyebrows raised, and he said he wanted to see the data. And I thought you might like too as well!
A good study comes from the UK based Emissions Analytics, an organization dedicated to emissions reduction. When the first claims about EV’s being the bigger polluters due to tire wear surfaced, Emissions Analytics was just as skeptical as Kevin. However, they did their due diligence and conducted their own research. The title of their report sums up their findings, “Gaining traction, losing tread Pollution from tire wear now 1800 times worse than exhaust emissions.” They explain,
The fundamental trends that drive this ratio are: tailpipe particulate emissions are much lower on new cars, and tire wear emissions increase with vehicle mass and aggressiveness of driving style. Tailpipe emissions are falling over time, as exhaust filters become more efficient… while tire wear emissions are rising as vehicles become heavier and added power and torque is placed at the driver’s disposal….
…Half a tonne of battery weight can result in tire emissions that are almost 400 more times greater than real-world tailpipe emissions, everything else being equal.
In regard to human health impacts, Emissions Analytics reports,
An important difference between tire and tailpipe particle emissions is that most of the former is understood to go straight to soil and water, whereas most of the latter is suspended in air for a period, and therefore negatively affects air quality…. [But] the airborne tire emissions are… still more than 400 times higher than tailpipe emissions….
Growing scientific evidence suggests that these ultrafine particles more easily enter the human bloodstream and lungs, and cross into the brain….
And, to reiterate, EV’s because of their additional weight create more tire wear than ICE vehicles.
For those who choose to disbelieve the source, here’s what the radical lefties over at the Sierra Club have to say on the subject:
One of the potential unintended consequences of the transition to electric vehicles could be more microplastics. When rubber meets road, tires shed small synthetic polymers less than five millimeters in diameter. Electric vehicles, often presented as the best ways to reduce carbon emissions and the key to addressing climate change, shed more particles than traditional internal combustion engine vehicles…. Once in the environment, tire particles threaten human and wildlife health through countless pathways.
Of course, none of this considers the environmental damage caused by the mining necessary for EV batteries (or the child and/or slave labor used to do that mining in many cases), or that the amount of electricity generated to power the EV’s is in many cases provided by fossil fuel power plants, creating a double whammy.
Why is this important to the climate policy debate here in Vermont? Because all other arguments in favor of implementing Global Warming Solutions Act policies having failed – “We’re saving the planet!” Nope. “We’re doing our part!” Nope. “We’re helping the poor!” Nope. – the latest and perhaps last fallback position is, “It’s a healthcare issue.” And, sad trombone slide, it’s not. The opposite. The policy to push for EVs makes human, animal, and ecological health worse. And all of us poorer, because governments have blown an awful lot of our money on this toxic boondoggle.
So, all you environmentally pious EV drivers who bought into the baloney that you were somehow saving humanity with your choice of vehicle, get off your high horse and, if you’re serious about reducing emissions, onto a real one. A much more earth friendly choice for getting around. As for the politicians wasting money subsidizing this amazingly bad policy, stop trying to help. You’re not good at it.
Rob Roper is a freelance writer who has been involved with Vermont politics and policy for over 20 years. This article reprinted with permission from Behind the Lines: Rob Roper on Vermont Politics, robertroper.substack.com
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, Environment, Transportation
Any pneumatic tire used on any implement, from a bicycle or wheelbarrow up to 18 wheel semi-trailers all wear out eventually and few ponder on where that missing “rubber” in the form of synthetic phenyl resin all ends up. It ends up in the ground and water. Few organisms are able to break that stuff down. Yes, even bicycles and wheelchairs contribute, so no one is really above responsibility. Thanks for presenting this inconvenient truth, Mr. Roper.
There are three EVs in my immediate family. And no, I don’t own one of them. I drive a 17-year-old Volvo wagon with almost a quarter million miles on it. But I digress.
Our EVs weren’t purchased because of the environment. They are great automobiles. Four-wheel drive. Very little maintenance. Faster than greased lightning. And they are ‘relatively’ efficient… you don’t have to find a gas or charging station if you stay within 300 or so miles of our houses.
Does their production hurt the environment? Well, yes. But doesn’t the manufacturing of everything affect the environment to some degree? Take tires, for example.
What I do agree with is that all government subsidies should be eliminated… for gas, diesel and EV vehicles. Get rid of the Global Warming Solutions Act and everything related to it.
Unfortunately, when the author says “…get off your high horse and, if you’re serious about reducing emissions, [get] onto a real one. A much more earth friendly choice for getting around”, … he doesn’t mention what that choice might be. So, let me take a shot at it.
On one hand, for cars at least, EVs seem to work well enough to compete with gas and diesel cars. There are pros and cons. And, yes, CO2 emissions are a red herring.
But keep this in mind: Battery power and battery longevity are the snakes in the grass. A seven-pound lithium-ion battery can store about 2% of the energy in the equivalent weight of 7 pounds of diesel fuel. No current or near-future battery technology can match the energy content of diesel fuel at the same weight. You’d need a battery weighing ~143 kg (315 lb) to store 37.94 kWh at 265 Wh/kg, about 45 times diesel’s weight. So, forget big trucks and heavy equipment.
Technology is changing faster than even the most intelligent of our legislators can comprehend. And given that most of those legislators are dumber than posts, there’s not a chance of any reasonable management programs coming from them as a group. So, what’s the solution?
“Sad trombone slide”…. let the unsubsidized free market decide.
I have had Diesel (pick-up) trucks many years and wouldn’t buy anything else. F250 & F350, biggies. Can haul a lot and my 5th wheeler RV’s some 55 times from VT to Pensacola areas. Both had / has very little maintenance and the engines International 7.3’s. People are surprised I get great mileage over 20MPH and they not much better in their dinkies. These trucks offer far better protection (the F350 crew cab weighs close to 9000 Lbs empty, a dully, 4X drive-been helpful). Have driven both (one still going-sold the other) close to 300K and still going. These engines are highly respected for longevity. It’s hard to find these trucks on the market and they hold good value. Bought one in Coon Rapids MN on the internet, flew out and drove back across Canada to VT. I read about diesels and the material leaned to Ford and the engine / transmission, so stayed with them.
Had an uncle who owned a Volkswagen Diesel. Got 50MPH with it and was dependable. Diesel cars are still being manufactured.
Just why is Diesel higher cost, is cheaper to manufacture. States tax the hell out of it, perhaps the trucking industry uses Diesel more. OR are we paying a carbon tax? There was a biodiesel push at one time, breaking down veg oil to biodiesel for very low cost. Restaurants sold it from their waste dumpsters and it was highly competitive to get it. Bio labs were set up in garages etc.
In no way would I have a EV or Hybrid. Heard too much about the dangerous Lith Batts, high energy to produce, explosive, costly to replace, weighty and little mileage. I have seen many black spots on the highway, perhaps where vehicle lith batts sell-destructed, more so now than any previous time.
I traveled all 49 Continental states, 9 Canadian Providences, some 2 million miles since 1956. And I can service my vehicles, climb under the hood even. Given the devices to reduce emissions, don’t see what the problem is. I’ve pulled quite a few out of ditches. Hats off to Diesel.
That doesn’t pass the sniff test even… EV’s go through tires faster than ICE cars but not 400x quicker. By weight, my truck goes through 5000-6000lbs of fuel per year but less than one set of tires per year, roughly 100lbs.
Again, we’re comissurating over more unrestrained state intrusion into the lives of the citizenry. It’s the pervasive cultural standard. It’s so pervasive and commonplace that we hardly notice it til someone like Rob steps up and tells us, once again, that they are screwing around with us…pay attention they’re lighting our hair on fire.
Very true Vincent, can’t see the forest because of the trees
So it isn’t the emissions but the tire rubber. Well, it makes some sense. I seem to remember a news article, I think it was 60 Minutes, that related soccer players playing on artificial turf being diagnosed with cancer as the turf has crumb rubber holding it all together. So, I did a little digging.
I found this from a 2009 study in Washington State: https://doh.wa.gov/community-and-environment/schools/synthetic-turf
It seems that there is a correlation.
I also found this: https://cleanwater.org/2024/09/16/turf-artificial-harm-very-real.
There are many more. Now I’m not going to stop buying tires but I feel better knowing that I still use a 2004 Volvo that looks brand new as my everyday driver that burns gas.
Well, guess I’ve been vindicated with my 17 years of driving Mini Coopers, great gas mileage, lighter than many other ICEs and EVs, and thus less rubber wear over the long term, and fixing them myself, running them long (my first 14 years with 296K) I’m not contributing as often to the new car buying craze…and SO much fun to drive! Small but significant, compact and capable!!!