Once you know that, you can approach regulators who will have to weight between the interests of the fish industry and the interests of the tires industry.
This bothers me. It's not about the 'fish industry' it's about weighting the interests of the tire industry against the life in the Puget sound ecosystem.
https://wildsalmoncenter.org/why-protect-salmon/
>Few animals have been as central to the Pacific human experience as salmon. Their annual migrations are a miracle of nature. They feed us and their presence tells us that our rivers are still healthy. From grizzly bears to orca whales, at least 137 different species depend on the marine-rich nutrients that wild salmon provide
>Salmon and freshwater ecosystems are inextricably linked by feedbacks between salmon runs, food webs, and riparian forests. Salmon runs function as enormous pumps that push vast amounts of marine nutrients from the ocean to the headwaters of otherwise low productivity rivers. For example, sockeye salmon runs in southwest Alaska contribute up to 170 tons of phosphorous per year to Lake Illiamna. These nutrients are incorporated into food webs in rivers and surrounding landscapes by a host of over 50 species of mammals, birds, and fish that forage on salmon eggs, juveniles, and adults in freshwater. Predators, such as brown bears, disperse these marine nutrients into surrounding forests, enhancing the growth of stream-side trees that shade and protect stream banks from excessive erosion
Sure it would not be perfect, because you would still have out-of-state vehicles using the roads, but it would be an improvement that could probably get done a lot faster and it might be enough.
Is it just salmon affected by this chemical?
It looks like Kentucky has both cutthroat and rainbow trout. Both of which are actually species of salmon in the genus Oncorhynchus, which are true salmon.
Would they be affected by the chemical?
How about other species of fish?
That's the thing about this kind of stuff, it's not necessarily localized. There's a lot we don't know about ecosystems and the long term effects of chemicals like this. Chances are though, if it affects one area in such a negative way, it'll have other negative effects.
A lot of environmnental regulation got its start with regulation in California that spread from there. It's easier to get something passed locally than to get national support from day one.
That probably says more about environment research funding in Kentucky than it does their fish.
Washington is one of the most pro-science states in the US, the Puget Sound area has one of the greatest concentration of environmentally focused people, and salmon are historically deeply ingrained in Washington culture. If it took all of that to garner enough resources to discover this problem, imagine all of the other environmental disasters out there that we're simply oblivious to.
It probably affects other species, too. Now that we know the chemical responsible it will be easier to test that.
Apparently, 6-PPD is there to scavenge ozone. If that ozone doesn't have anything harmless to react with, it reacts with the rubber, which makes it brittle. Ozone scavengers prolong the life of the tire, and make it safer.
Companies don't do things because they are James Bond villains, either.
Shareholder value is the sole driver of corporate decision making. Civic duty in particular has no role.
Once the compound is readily available across the industry, then we can rest assured that new tires will be "safe". But tires have a usable life of 2-5 years depending on the type of tire. So it will take many more years before people with "non-safe" tires purchase new ones that are "salmon-safe". Remember also that some people (generally as a result of financial concern) may drag tire use out to 8 or even 10 years.
This puts a timeline for "safe tires" at 10-20 years from now! I hate to shout "doomsday", but the Salmon may not have that long. Salmon only live 2-3 years on average before spawning. According to this article, 90% of them are dying due to this chemical during their trip up Puget Sound urban rivers to spawn. Salmon are already operating at low population rates. So we may not have decades to sit and figure this out.
As a more immediate alternative, I would like to see if there is a way to neutralize or catch this 6PPD chemical with some type of "filter" in the road runoff pipes or a road-coating that could be installed in critical areas. This would seem like a more immediate solution that wouldn't require global or national "buy-in" from tire manufacturers.
And of course all this assumes that tire manufacturers care enough to save the salmon. This is the type of thing that regulation is useful for instead of relying on tire manufacturers to "do the right thing".
No, it puts a maximum end date for 100% removal at 10-20 years. Incremental progress can happen much sooner. What you describe is basically the speed that most large-scale changes occur at. It's just how it goes.
> I hate to shout "doomsday", but the Salmon may not have that long. Salmon only live 2-3 years on average before spawning.
The salmon will bounce back. It is a real concern and problem that we need to fix, but we are not on the brink of extinction and don't need to panic.
> According to this article, 90% of them are dying due to this chemical during their trip up Puget Sound urban rivers to spawn.
90% in some streams. That's the worst case number, but there are many streams in Washington, many of which are not in urban areas.
That way you could get the results in 2-3 years with a minimal extra cost because only a small part of the US and Canada have to renew their tires earlier.
It seems to me that trying to figure out if that chemical can be replaced with something else, and if that something else is safe would be priority one. Priority two would be trying to filter the urban runoff somehow (which is probably a positive for many other pollutants). Getting people to switch their tires a little sooner seems like too much effort for too little gain; tires are going to wear out or get too old and be replaced anyway, and there's a lot of cars from out of the area.
Maybe, you could do a rebate program to encourage people in the area to update a little sooner.
Ok, wow, that's so unexpected. In Germany we have mandatory safety and emissions inspections every two years.
That also explains why there were so many parts of tires on roads in WA, last time I was there.
>Maybe, you could do a rebate program to encourage people in the area to update a little sooner.
That would probably get us 80% of the way there, especially if you tell people why they should switch.
There is every expectation that other salmon would be similarly affected given similar exposure.
It's silly to expect consumers to verify safety upfront. if products are shown to be toxic and alternatives exist, then you can start expecting consumers to choose the less toxic version.
This approach, if successful, will be way faster than starting with regulation.
Note that they said this affects every tire on the market, so this isn’t a case of reporting a few manufacturers. This is going to result in an industry-wide change.
They do if it gives them a market advantage. If Goodyear can market tires that are more "sustainable" or "eco-friendly" than their rivals that will resonate with consumers who focus on such things (many of them, particularly millenials and younger).
We saw this with trans-fats in food. They aren't prohibited by the FDA, but most producers have eliminated them and have "Zero Trans Fats" emblazoned across the package labeling, because it sells better. Seeing this effect also with high-fructose corn syrup.
People running the corporations who decide to be "socially responsible" are "being nice." The reason they do it is because their customers want/will pay for "social responsibility." If nobody wants social responsibility, why would it fall on corporations to do it anyway? Why do they get demonized and everyone else gets off the hook?
They get demonized because there is nothing stopping them from simply undoing all those policies once the bottom line dictates otherwise. The public cannot trust corporations who act in that way, and when they inevitably do, they get valid criticism for it. They are using language in sinister and misleading ways, and for most people that is equivalent to lying.