https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/03/car-tyre...
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/06/14/air-pollution-takes-2-ye...
> Air pollution, which is primarily the result of burning fossil fuels, takes 2.2 years of the global life expectancy for each person, according to a new report out Tuesday from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago (EPIC).
> For comparison, that's a smidge more the decline in average life expectancy caused by smoking, more than three times that of alcohol use and unsafe water, six times that of HIV/AIDS, and 89 times that of conflict and terrorism.
Light vehicles aren’t going away (although more mass transit and cycling infra is always welcome), so requiring them be EVs is an improvement. We can then continue on to solve for tire pollution.
https://jalopnik.com/tire-dust-is-the-ddt-of-our-generation-...
That's true that taking a vehicle and replacing it with an EV makes a lot of sense and would reduce pollution, but to me that depends on them being equal weights. Usually EVs are substantially heavier than equivalent ICE cars, so this would mean we trade one form of emissions (less tailpipe emissions) for another (more tire dust). I'm not sure if that would pencil out to be overall better, considering the tailpipe emissions from a modern (last 25 years we will call it) are responsible for so little of the particulate pollution to begin with, and adding on another 1000lbs to a given car frame represents a massive proportional increase in weight. I wonder if larger cars mean wider or larger tires, and what that might do for particulate generation as well?
Maybe one solution is to have "urban cars" running off of powered catenaries and very small batteries, rather than larger and heavier battery packs, almost like a trollybus.
And super torquey cars! 0-60 in 2 seconds!
Do you work for Big Unreliable Energy & Big Luxury Only Unaffordable EV?