EV Tires Causing Increased Pollution

[MellowJohnny]

I read this article yesterday and came away a bit confused.

The real thrust of the article seems to be that hybrids are better than BEVs:

She uses a study comparing a Tesla Model Y to a Kia Niro hybrid to make her case: "From a CO2 perspective, the Tesla is better, but not significantly so. You have to weigh the extra CO2 reduction against the increased tire emissions, said Molden." Why? Microplastics are bad, but they are not the same as CO2 emissions - we are trying to address climate change with BEVs, not specifically reduce overall "pollution". This comparison completely misses the point of a BEV.

The over-all tone and choice of words is very anti-EV. She points out "Yet, not all automakers are onboard with the electric vehicle push. Last week, leading automakers criticized President Joe Biden's plan, which aims for two-thirds of new vehicle sales to be electric by 2032, calling it "overly optimistic." Source?

There is just no balance in the article - no mention of the work tire manufacturers are doing to reduce pollution. It's not journalism...there seems to be a hidden agenda here.

Maybe earth.com is legit, but this article doesn't pass the sniff test for me.

Sponsored

 

[mkhuffman]

Not sure what that means. Is that good?
I bought the MME because it's fun and high tech. Got to have fun in my old age.

It was a joke. And I agree with you. I purchased mine because it is fun, and I hate changing oil and all the other maintenance stuff ICE vehicles need. Now at over 30,000 miles and just realized I forgot to change the cabin air filter. That is the only maintenance item required. If I had an ICE vehicle, I would have been through multiple oil changes already.

It is a great car, isn't it!

 

[MellowJohnny]

A liberal news person who writes for earth.com and MSNBC, writes an article that's likely true, but some people don't like it (not toeing the line) so she gets thrown under the bus on this forum. I think I said that happens last night in another post and I had someone disagree with me and say that doesn't happen around here.

Per earth.com:

"Earth.com is the premier internet destination for those who care about our planet and environment and want to make a difference ... Earth.com is for people who care about the Earth and have an interest in nature, the environment, and science. It’s for those who care about our planet and want to make a difference."

It doesn't take big brains to figure out that a heavier vehicle will go through tires faster and also deteriorate our roads faster. Cement is the #3 cause for greenhouse gases on this planet, ya know, the stuff we drive on. My R1T weighs 9000 lbs. A comparably sized Chevy Colorado weighs 4200, less than 1/2. So, logically 1 of my trucks is = to two of those trucks. A MachE weighs 4900 lbs vs an ICE mustang at 3500 lbs.

All her article is talking about is tires ... not the entire EV. She says that 20% more emissions come from EV tires. I think that any reasonable person could probably agree in part with her assessment. I don't think "Big Oil" is paying earth.com liberal authors. Is it that hard to say "this could be somewhat true"?

I don't disagree Todd, but the article is not balanced - no mention of the work tire manufactures are (or maybe are not) doing to address the microplastics issue, a generic "leading automakers" quote critical of Biden's efforts attributed to nobody, and the final thrust of the article - "Hybrids Have Great Potential". That in my opinion is the real goal of the article - hybrids are the answer, not BEVs.

 

[Mach1E]

- we are trying to address climate change with BEVs, not specifically reduce overall "pollution".

Why?

Why is one form of pollution more important than another?

I actually applaud earth.com for taking total impact in consideration. Why? Because it matters.

Ignore the means just because you like the ends. Total impact matters.

 

[MellowJohnny]

Why?

Why is one form of pollution more important than another?

I actually applaud earth.com for taking total impact in consideration. Why? Because it matters.

Ignore the means just because you like the ends. Total impact matters.

Except the article is using the argument that BEVs produce more micro plastic & particulate pollution to write a anti-BEV article.

If it's Sophie's Choice, I'll morally trade 20% more tire pollution for significantly less co2 emissions any day of the week. Climate change is a bigger threat than some other kinds of pollution. It's all bad, but they are not all equal in terms of impact on the planet. Microplastic is not contributing to climate change, and climate change is what we are ostensibly addressing with the switch to BEVs.

 

[Guss-E 2021]

In my humble opinion, you cannot cherry pick points of emission and pollution. If you have to look at the "cradle to grave" cycle for a BEV next to a comparable ICEV. By all accounts, the BEV comes out ahead on lower emissions, even when charge from coal fired electricity (which is becoming increasingly rare).

I've read enough information and watched enough really well informed YouTube content (all sources referenced, etc.) to know driving electric is a great step towards lowering one's carbon footprint. It is by no means a silver bullet because there simply isn't one. It is a tool in the toolbox. Enjoy your EV ride!

 

[IMDIDOC]

I read this article yesterday and came away a bit confused.

The real thrust of the article seems to be that hybrids are better than BEVs:

She uses a study comparing a Tesla Model Y to a Kia Niro hybrid to make her case: "From a CO2 perspective, the Tesla is better, but not significantly so. You have to weigh the extra CO2 reduction against the increased tire emissions, said Molden." Why? Microplastics are bad, but they are not the same as CO2 emissions - we are trying to address climate change with BEVs, not specifically reduce overall "pollution". This comparison completely misses the point of a BEV.

The over-all tone and choice of words is very anti-EV. She points out "Yet, not all automakers are onboard with the electric vehicle push. Last week, leading automakers criticized President Joe Biden's plan, which aims for two-thirds of new vehicle sales to be electric by 2032, calling it "overly optimistic." Source?

There is just no balance in the article - no mention of the work tire manufacturers are doing to reduce pollution. It's not journalism...there seems to be a hidden agenda here.

Maybe earth.com is legit, but this article doesn't pass the sniff test for me.

There is an old saying: There are lies, damn lies and statistics. One case years ago, for example, a study was done of number of churches and juvenile delinquency and found high number of churches in cities with high delinquency rates. Therefore, churches cause juvenile delinquency.

In most articles, there is a reference to some well accepted fact. That tends to provide credibility to the rest of the article. "Well if that's true, then the rest must be true too."

 

[Mach1E]

Except the article is using the argument that BEVs produce more micro plastic & particulate pollution to write a anti-BEV article.

If it's Sophie's Choice, I'll morally trade 20% more tire pollution for significantly less co2 emissions any day of the week. Climate change is a bigger threat than some other kinds of pollution. It's all bad, but they are not all equal in terms of impact on the planet. Microplastic is not contributing to climate change, and climate change is what we are ostensibly addressing with the switch to BEVs.

I read the article and it doesn’t seem to say that at all.

In fact it says that BEVs still pollute the least, but it is taking all pollution (including the tires) into account.

What’s wrong with that?

You’re just labeling it “anti-BEV,” when you can’t point to a single false statement in the article.

Here are the conclusions from the article:

““From a CO2 perspective, the Tesla is better, but not significantly so. You have to weigh the extra CO2 reduction against the increased tire emissions,” said Molden.

“
If we genuinely want to address the environmental problem, the intuitive way of doing it is to make smaller, lighter vehicles, rather than bigger and heavier ones.”

Do you disagree with these conclusions?

 

[Mach1E]

In my humble opinion, you cannot cherry pick points of emission and pollution. If you have to look at the "cradle to grave" cycle for a BEV next to a comparable ICEV. By all accounts, the BEV comes out ahead on lower emissions, even when charge from coal fired electricity (which is becoming increasingly rare).

I've read enough information and watched enough really well informed YouTube content (all sources referenced, etc.) to know driving electric is a great step towards lowering one's carbon footprint. It is by no means a silver bullet because there simply isn't one. It is a tool in the toolbox. Enjoy your EV ride!

Isn’t that what the article is doing? Trying to take into account all forms of pollution?

Basically it’s pointing out a previously ignored factor- the effect added weight has on tire wear and pollution.

They also come to the same conclusion that many similar environmental articles have- PHEVs are probably the better solution for environmental impact.

 

[Guss-E 2021]

Isn’t that what the article is doing? Trying to take into account all forms of pollution?

Basically it’s pointing out a previously ignored factor- the effect added weight has on tire wear and pollution.

They also come to the same conclusion that many similar environmental articles have- PHEVs are probably the better solution for environmental impact.

I was suggesting owners should account for all forms of pollution. Based on my research, I disagree about PHEVs being better for the environment than a pure BEV. But even there, there are variables that can sway the numbers. Suffice to say, if 50% of the vehicles on the road were BEV and 50% were PHEV, we'd certainly be if much better shape environmentally. I just hate the F out of personally dealing with gasoline in any way, shape or form. My choice to drive a fully electric car is largely driven by that. No pun intended

 

[MellowJohnny]

I read the article and it doesn’t seem to say that at all.

In fact it says that BEVs still pollute the least, but it is taking all pollution (including the tires) into account.

What’s wrong with that?

You’re just labeling it “anti-BEV,” when you can’t point to a single false statement in the article.

Here are the conclusions from the article:

““From a CO2 perspective, the Tesla is better, but not significantly so. You have to weigh the extra CO2 reduction against the increased tire emissions,” said Molden.

“
If we genuinely want to address the environmental problem, the intuitive way of doing it is to make smaller, lighter vehicles, rather than bigger and heavier ones.”

Do you disagree with these conclusions?

This statement is absolutely anti-BEV, and is not attributed to anyone - that's poor journalism. How do I know it's not made up? Tell me, which automakers are not "on-board" when billions of dollars are being invested by Ford, GM, Stelantis, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Volkswagen, not to mention the new players. Who did I leave out? Toyota - look up recent news stories and tell me if they are "on-board" with the BEV transition...

Yet, not all automakers are onboard with the electric vehicle push. Last week, leading automakers criticized President Joe Biden's plan, which aims for two-thirds of new vehicle sales to be electric by 2032, calling it "overly optimistic." The criticism focused on the inadequate charging infrastructure and the high cost of EVs to consumers.

This next statement is well-worn, well-known, and being addressed with new battery chemistries. But she adds it to the anti-BEV tone of the article anyway. That's also poor journalism - she fails to point out that lots of smart people are working on solving this issue with LFP etc. She's cherry-picked her facts by not mentioning that not all batteries are LiOn:

Tire emissions are not the only environmental concern tied to electric vehicles. Critics also point to the eco-impact of lithium-ion batteries, which require rare metals and significant energy to manufacture.

THIS is the thrust of the article - is the last thought she leaves us with, so clearly that's the point she is trying to make. This is not exactly supportive of BEVs:
Hybrids have great potential

Despite these challenges, Molden remains optimistic about the potential of hybrid vehicles, which he describes as a "no-brainer" in addressing environmental problems.

"Hybrids are hardly heavier than normal vehicles and they deliver a significant reduction in CO2 emissions. If we genuinely want to address the environmental problem, the intuitive way of doing it is to make smaller, lighter vehicles, rather than bigger and heavier ones."

There are studies out there disputing just how much hybrids reduce CO2 emissions in the real-world: https://theicct.org/publication/rea...nsumption-electric-driving-and-co2-emissions/. Not everyone agrees that they "significantly" reduce CO2 emissions.

You don't need false statements to write an article with an anti-BEV tone, and a distinctly pro-hybrid slant. Don't buy a BEV, buy a hybrid, it's a "no brainer".

 

[Jtbuster]

A liberal news person who writes for earth.com and MSNBC, writes an article that's likely true, but some people don't like it (not toeing the line) so she gets thrown under the bus on this forum. I think I said that happens last night in another post and I had someone disagree with me and say that doesn't happen around here.

Per earth.com:

"Earth.com is the premier internet destination for those who care about our planet and environment and want to make a difference ... Earth.com is for people who care about the Earth and have an interest in nature, the environment, and science. It’s for those who care about our planet and want to make a difference."

It doesn't take big brains to figure out that a heavier vehicle will go through tires faster and also deteriorate our roads faster. Additionally, cement is the #3 cause for greenhouse gases on this planet, ya know, the stuff we drive on. My R1T weighs 9000 lbs. A comparably sized Chevy Colorado weighs 4200, less than 1/2. So, logically 1 of my trucks is = to two of those trucks. A MachE weighs 4900 lbs vs an ICE mustang at 3500 lbs.

All her article is talking about is tires ... not the entire EV. She says that 20% more pollutants come from EV tires. I think that any reasonable person could probably agree in part with her assessment. I don't think "Big Oil" is paying earth.com liberal authors. Is it that hard to say "this could be somewhat true"?

Todd, I care about you not blowing a fuse ?

 

[kltye]

Or how about getting a job closer to where you live (or moving closer to work)?

Or move out of a big city (big city = worse traffic, longer commutes and thus more pollution).

But instead? Many people do the opposite.

What? First time I've heard that moving out of a big city improves on pollution ?. A well-designed big city allows you to walk/bike to places rather than driving a several thousand pound grocery getter. Also, guess where most of the jobs are? Longer commutes (in terms of time) in an EV, btw, most probably won't generate more pollution since idling engines and slower speeds aren't the enemies of EV efficiency.

 

[nvabill]

Damn, some of you guys are pretty sensitive when an article comes out you don’t like, lighten up there Shirley! ?

 

[superdave80]

Why is one form of pollution more important than another?

Because one type of pollution leaves extra bits of rubber on the ground. The other could potentially boil our entire planet. Which one would you consider more important to address?

Sponsored