The Anthropogenic Salt Cycle
nature.com
nature.com
So, we have people out there driving around year round on bald summer tires, and to make sure they don't kill themselves or cause major issues, turning the roads "black and wet" with loads of salt becomes the solution.
It's totally unsurprising that the salt is harmful to the environment. I imagine that saving people the expense of winter tires in this way may actually be a false economy, given that the salt rapidly accelerates the destruction of cars themselves and the concrete infrastructure it's applied to.
Politicians largely don't want to touch this issue, I think, because they're often the target of blame when the roads are insufficiently cleared and people have trouble getting around.
As an example: several years ago in NYC, a sudden snowstorm caused devastating gridlock around the city and the mayor was dragged over the coals. In response, for the rest of that winter, whenever there was even a hint of a chance of snow, the city would preemptively put down an extraordinary amount of salt. At one point that winter, I stepped out of my office and the street was completely covered thick layer of salt, which was being pulverized by traffic into a dense cloud that looked like heavy fog. Just walking around the air tasted strongly salty. It never snowed, or even rained, so all of that salt just sat there for days.
Moving from Indiana to the Pacific Northwest illustrated an amazing difference between salted roads and not. Indiana: right after you buy your car, take it to a "rust-proofing" place to have tar oil sprayed underneath, and inside door panels. Your Toyota will still rust out, but at least it will take a good ten years.
PNW? "How does that late-70s Datsun B210 not have holes in the quarter panels? What's with all these pristine cars from 20 years ago? They should have rusted to the frame by now." And our going-on-20-years-old Toyota/Scion xB doesn't have a flake of rust on it, despite us not taking the best car of the exterior finish.
Now, granted, it could have been in the intervening time that galvanized coatings or whatever have gotten better. But you'll have a hard time convincing me that it isn't the road salt that makes the difference.
That said, unless it's a particularly snowy or icy winter, the roads themselves are usually clear on any given day (in part due to aggressive plowing and salting during and after storms). So maybe if the difference between consistent precipitation and intermittent big dumpings of snow or freezing rain.
The difference could also be the nearly 30 years since I've lived in Indiana. :-) Most people I knew got their new cars rust-proofed. But, again, it is my understanding that factory body panels have improved. I don't know the exact difference, but I know that new cars get their panels galvanized in some manner. Perhaps old cars didn't get that treatment (and I'd have to go look up whether that's true or not, 'cuz hell if I know). But what I do recall is that if you didn't get your car rust-proofed, there were some cars that would suffer more greatly than others. Chryslers would rust their rear quarter panels until you couldn't put anything in the trunk (though I think that particular issue might have been water intrusion). Japanese cars would just rust to the frame (exaggerated to illustrate the point).
But these guys (https://www.ziebart.com) are still in business, so it's either inertia from old people like me (because that's just what you do) or body panel rust is still an issue. I do notice that when I enter my Washington zip code into the Zeibart "find a local shop" page, it says there aren't any close to me, so make of it what you will.
I also wonder if the brine is more efficient and uses less salt? No knowledge, just anecdata here
Not an expert either :)
We require insurance which is expensive. There's no excuse not to require winter tires, it's a basic safety requirement. Driving without winter tires is just dangerous.
It doesn't matter how much salt they put on the roads. The issue is that winter tires are made of a material that grips better in cold temperatures where ordinary tires don't grip as well when temperatures drop.
I think they don't want to touch this issue because it's really hard to solve.
You can write a law saying all vehicles need winterized tires during that time of year. But how exactly would you enforce it? We already struggle to enforce something as simple as an outdated inspection sticker which can be determined at a glance on the road. How exactly would you enforce something that can't be determined as easily?
Without the ability to enforce this sort of law, reducing or eliminating road salt would result in far more traffic, accidents, injuries, and deaths.
As a matter of fact, Quebec already has one[1].
>But how exactly would you enforce it?
The easiest way is probably similar to inspection sticker enforcement: by having the responding officer check the tires whenever a driver goes off the road, gets in an accident, or is otherwise pulled over. No winter tires? Enjoy a fat fine.
Will some drivers get away with it? Of course. You're never going to get 100% compliance. There are still people who live in states other than New Hampshire that still don't wear their seat belts.
[1]: https://www.quebec.ca/en/transports/traffic-road-safety/driv...
So does Colorado [0], though only on certain roads. It's always in effect from September to May on I-70 west of Denver, and the state police can put it into effect on other roads when needed.
Though it's not great in terms of requirements- 4WD vehicles don't need winter tires, and M+S rated tires are considered sufficient on a 2WD vehicle.
People without that need a place to store 4 bulky, dirty, heavy tires, and a way to get them to/from whomever is going to swap them. People who live in an urban setting would likely find that pretty annoying.
I also drive so little that one set of tires ages out before they wear out. Now, I’d have twice as many tires aging out, which is an economic and ecological problem of its own.
It's bad, I genuinely may have to drive my car back up to Michigan to get work done because the dealers in the south don't understand that my car really isn't so rusty for having been through multiple Detroit winters.
The density of saline water relative to fresh water makes this a somewhat interesting phenomenon (though of course not for the people who depend on fresh water in their aquifer).
https://phys.org/news/2023-10-humans-disrupting-natural-salt...
Gotta teach YOShInOn (my RSS reader and agent) to filter by open access or not.
You move to the Dacks because you are OK with a few feet of snow, and a few days of travel restrictions. Destroying that on the alter of the automobile is such a stupidly American thing to do.
I don't think owning a car should be a luxury item, but there's some midpoint here that we as a society aren't grasping where we not only expect, but nearly enforce, that people too poor to change their oil or have proper tires should still own a car. In societies with good public transport, /everyone/ uses it, not just those of lower economic circumstances, and cars become a less necessary piece of infrastructure that can be treated more as a middle class convenience than a bare necessity, which is basically what it should be.
It regularly blows my mind seeing shit heaps that are clearly unsafe rolling down the highway with paper tags that expired 2 years ago on them, that have clearly never been properly registered or inspected. That should be made untenable in our society, but we cannot do that without also providing a pathway for people to get from where they live to where they work and to community resources. We've painted ourselves into a corner by building car-centric cities, not investing in public transport, and creating a social condition where a small but prevalent portion of society can't maintain what little possession they manage to own.
Salting the roads is only a benefit to folks who don't have a properly maintained vehicle suitable for the environment they are living in. And it's a detriment to everyone else. Salt absolutely destroys cars, it destroys the roads, and it destroys the ecosystem as well.
It is indeed possible and sustainable to stop population growth. The thing is, Capitalist economies in most countries are fueled by the pursuit of "growth" - not of population, but of profits/future-profit-streams. When capital has less possibilities for growth by expansion to new people (or, still today, new markets developing) - there is a tendency to for exploitation to deepen. So the lack of the "safety valve" will make existing social arrangements more tense, or even worse, on average. Of course - that's an issue even without getting to zero-growth, as new markets in developing countries are gradually running out.
(Haven't talked about controlled population reduction, to not run on too much in this comment.)
Your position should be controversial because it is incorrect. The ecosystem dynamics of humans are nothing like that of other animals.
I hate to be so grim, but your position is, "technology has allowed humans to dominate the planet and push up our carry capacity. Externalities are building up as a result of those technologies and they make our enviroment less hospitable. We have yet figured out how to not do that, despite the problem being significantly more difficult now that we are locked in to supporting more people. But we will do it, for sure. "
Is the last part saying that because their are have nots we are fine? You completely ignore the "we don't know how to make basic stuff at the quantities needed in a sustainable way" bit. I don't think banking on the discovery of new technology and having enough coordination as a species to implement that tech in a timely enough fashion is so safe that doubting it should be controversial.
It is possible that the evolution of a fungus that could degrade lignin is what brought about the end of the Carboniferous, with an associated extinction event: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous#Fungi
And, of course, probably the biggest one of the all, the Great Oxidation Event: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event
//
None of this is to downplay humanity's role in our current climate catastrophe. But we are the first of a long line of organisms that have the ability to do something about it, which is not nothing.
...In other words, the problem is the rate of externalities per person. By replacing those systems with sustainable ones, we win.
And we don't do genocide.
Lots of possibilities out there!
Do we limit that to the young, or how else do you actually reduce the population in a meaningful way rapidly?