648
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2024
648 points (100.0% liked)
Fuck Cars
9692 readers
1166 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
While there's no doubt tires are bad for the environment, a quarter of all microplastics seems a lot, especially since plastic is everywhere. Gladly there's a source for that claim, a link to tireindustryproject's FAQ... Claiming that this number is a gross overestimation. What the fuck is this article? Is it supposed to be satire or something?
Bear in mind that the denominator is plastic pollution. Most plastic waste does not directly pollute the environment. If it is not recycled then it goes to landfills or incineration. Not ideal, but at least the damage is contained. (The bulk of ocean plastic comes from the rivers of poor countries without proper waste management.)
The issue with tyre microplastics is that it's all but impossible to channel the waste. It's the same with synthetic fabric: just washing it creates pollution that's really hard to control.
This might be true for places nearer to shore, but studies have found the great Pacific patch to be mostly discarded fishing gear by weight.
Yes I've seen this factoid too, but I struggle to see how it could be true. We're comparing theoretically non-disposable kit from individual boats with the output of a large number of massive rivers in countries with populations of hundreds of millions (in particular Indonesia and Philippines) and a terrible habit of dumping trash in waterways. The amount reaching the ocean must by definition be huge.
Of course, the main problem with discarded fishing nets is not that they are plastic but that they destroy the ecosystem by design. Maybe the two harms have been conflated.
So then isn't it 1/4 of a meaningless number? It seems like the specific impacts mentioned in the article (zinc,6PPD) are more relevant.
I've seen a similar number in a lot of proper scientific sources, so this article may be bunk, but the number is correct I think.
For example this article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171003 They claim 27,26% in China.
And this article: https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/2024-0106.pdf They claim 24.88% in the EU and state it's among the biggest if not the biggest contributor to microplastics.
I'm all for debunking stuff, but about a quarter seems to be the currently accepted quantity to the best of our abilities to measure.
There is a bit of confusion between the amount tyres contribute into the ocean, how much into the ocean and waterways and how much in the environment as a whole. A lot of it ends up in the soil, so it doesn't contribute to plastics in the water, but still in the environment.
That was an interesting read. I guess tyre fragments (and industrial pellets) are just way bigger than the other big offenders, which would explain why they represent such a huge portion of the total mass, and why they are filtered out "easily". Overall it seems to me that we really need to categorize the different microplastics better, as the current definition (anything plastic 5mm and under) seems a bit too large, and with all the mix ups, you can always blame something else.