Tiny flakes of plastic, generated by the wear and tear of normal driving, eventually accumulate in the soil, in rivers and lakes, and even in our food.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I also struggle with it, but the research I’ve seen is that it’s the majority by weight. Microplastics wouldn’t get picked up, so they’d be really hard to be weighed.
Then again, these big pieces will be shedding microplastics all the time so maybe they’re contributing to it as well.
Either way, we’ve got two problems: Plastic runoff from rivers and fishing gear disposal. And both, I think, could be solved by simply providing cash for people who can verifiably dispose of plastics. Check out some nets and floats and line, check in a certain amount and you get money back. Because people are greedy and stupid we need to incentivize cleaning things up.
Yes the washer wastewater should be easy in theory. But to filter the really small particles you’d need an expensive HEPA-equivalent filter that has to be regularly changed. Needless to say, none of this is happening in practice.
Filtering tyre dust is always going to be a haphazard proposition. This interesting contraption notwithstanding.
I’ve read arguments that typical plastic pollution never really wears enough to become micro plastics. Not that it’s ok, just that it stays in macro pieces
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?
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.
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.
I also struggle with it, but the research I’ve seen is that it’s the majority by weight. Microplastics wouldn’t get picked up, so they’d be really hard to be weighed.
Then again, these big pieces will be shedding microplastics all the time so maybe they’re contributing to it as well.
Either way, we’ve got two problems: Plastic runoff from rivers and fishing gear disposal. And both, I think, could be solved by simply providing cash for people who can verifiably dispose of plastics. Check out some nets and floats and line, check in a certain amount and you get money back. Because people are greedy and stupid we need to incentivize cleaning things up.
Agreed. Great idea.
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.
Tyre dust vacuum car, just add HEPA filter:
Filtering clothes washer wastewater is even easier.
Yes the washer wastewater should be easy in theory. But to filter the really small particles you’d need an expensive HEPA-equivalent filter that has to be regularly changed. Needless to say, none of this is happening in practice.
Filtering tyre dust is always going to be a haphazard proposition. This interesting contraption notwithstanding.
I’ve read arguments that typical plastic pollution never really wears enough to become micro plastics. Not that it’s ok, just that it stays in macro pieces