[LarryDarrell]

Perhaps tires can be made less toxic, but over all, we need to prioritize driving less.

WFH means I put barely 3000 miles per year on my car. It's absurd we are not aggressively promoting WFH or hybrid WFH at the national level. It's the easiest win for the environment and it's right there for the taking.

[tristor]

Same here, been WFH since 2015, however I did do a lot of driving for other reasons previously. Since 2022 however I drive less than 7000 miles a year, and that includes a family road trip each year for the holidays that is ~2500 miles round-trip. One thing that bothers me is that insurance is getting extremely expensive where I live, even though I hardly drive and my car is garaged year-round due to the greatly increasing amounts of vehicle theft. I've considered a few times just not having a car and renting a car regularly, but services like ZipCar have pretty much died out and I don't live in a city center where they still sometimes exist. I drive on average just once per week, if I could that for a fully-laden cost of less than $500/mo it would be cheaper to rent than buy, but it doesn't seem like there's anyone that's captured this market.

[LeifCarrotson]

I can call my insurance agent and take a vehicle (seldom-used winter beater truck in the summer, or seldom-used summer car in the winter) on or off the road at a whim, prorating my premium appropriately.

That sucks for usability, but I wonder if there exists a market for 'smart insurance' where I can log into a webpage or use an app to put it on or off a car.

But the real answer, I think, is getting a quote for your actual mileage. You're driving 7000 miles a year and being lumped into a risk group with people who are driving two or three times as much:

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm

Unfortunately, I've found that mileage doesn't have a big impact on my premiums.

[njarboe]

Do you have full coverage on your car? You should consider dropping that. Vehicle theft should not be increasing liability costs that much.

[thfuran]

Is it actually a win for the environment? Sure, not commuting is, but what about more people deciding to live in less dense areas?

[epistasis]

One of the biggest environmental impacts is driving, so the real key is to have mixed uses near by.

If you have a family and still need to drive your kids to school everyday, because schools are too far away to walk and there's no bus (typical in California), if you need to drive to go to the grocery store, if you need to drive to do everything in your life, then working from home in a less dense area might still involve a very similar amount of driving.

Once vehicle miles travelled is subtracted out, the biggest impact from living in less dense areas is deforestation, reduction of large fauna in ecosystems, etc. A classic example of that is the Santa Cruz Mountains, highly populated by low-density living, but getting in and out is so arduous that most people do not commute much, or even leave their houses for much. A good life for hermits, but it's not for everyone.

[hinkley]

My theory is that WFH will mostly contribute to creating secondary markets for more industries. Professionals will still want the services a city affords you but not want to pay SF or even Seattle prices. So they’ll end up somewhere under two hours from the nearest metropolis.

But if you get enough people in one place, you’ll get entrepreneurship.

[LarryDarrell]

At some point one has to consider costs, scale and political expediency.

WFH and H-WFH would be broadly popular among the electorate and could probably take off with just some changes to the tax code.

Presuming everyone does want to live in a dense area (I do not), building housing and infrastructure is expensive and at the end of the day it has to be profitable to build. We don't really have the framework to zone municipalities at the Federal level. So now you are talking about leaving it to the individual states... and I think you can see where that goes.

Given all that, yes, fewer miles driven in aggregate is a good and easy win for the environment. Less gasoline consumed, fewer tires and brake pads consumed, less work clothes bought, less meals purchased at lunch, etc.

[faeriechangling]

Does it follow if you don’t commute you’ll live rurally or in the suburbs? If you live urban you can just rid yourself of a vehicle altogether.

[kps]

A house can be approximately net zero from solar panels. Much denser housing can't be.

[MisterTea]

> It's absurd we are not aggressively promoting WFH or hybrid WFH at the national level.

It's absurd that tech people seem to think that WFH is applicable to everyone. I'm in a shop right now and have to touch machinery on a daily basis. So do the rest of the workers.

[omginternets]

Surely the OP's point is that a significant proportion of the workforce can WFH, and that this would have a significant environmental impact...

[faeriechangling]

Jealousy politics are indeed an obstacle but the societal insistence that everybody needs to pollute the environment because some people have to pollute the environment is nonsense.

[Neil44]

As long as aggressively promoting WFH doesn't penalise people for whom this is not an option.

[lm28469]

OK but then how many people are penalised by having to own a car?

[r00fus]

I'd say the same for the reverse. Except that has been the history of office work for generations except we have the technology and economy where that isn't required.

[stonogo]

It not only already does, it always will.

[matsemann]

Yeah, the big focus on exhausts from cars has hidden lots of other problems they lead to.

EVs don't solve most of these problems. The cars are heavier, hence their tires spread even more micro plastic.

[c0nfused]

While micro plastics are a problem climate change is the train coming down the tracks at civilization as a whole.

I agree the EVs don't fix everything they are in theory buying us time to make the choices that get rid of cars in the long term.

[renewiltord]

That's 3000 miles too many. Consider cutting that down to zero. I suggest an e-bike, a normal bike, or just walking. Think about how many tire particles you put into the environment, especially if you didn't just stick to controlled city environments and went to the woods. Our plant and animal life will thank you.

[UniverseHacker]

Consider all of the shoe tread debris you create by walking or riding bicycles. Consider only walking barefoot, or just stay in one place and stop moving your body around. Judgemental strangers on the internet will thank you.

[pfdietz]

Indeed, we need personal aircars!

[michael9423]

"we need to prioritize driving less."

I doubt the majority of the world population wants to be included in your "we".

[faeriechangling]

I’m not so convinced that people are so foolish. Maybe they don’t want to be the first ones to stop driving but I think most people recognize the problems we face as a society.

[bilsbie]

I say we let adults make their own decisions on how much they want to drive.

[p_j_w]

As long as they're willing to pay the actual costs borne by the rest of us for their decisions, sure, why not? The problem is they're generally not, and when you suggest that they need to, they have a very not adult-like temper tantrum.

[pie420]

Let’s not control others. If people want to use lead paint, let them. Let’s not control others. If people want to use leaded gasoline, let them. Let’s not control others. If people want to build with asbestos, let them. Let’s not control others. If people want to cook with trans fats, let them. Let’s not control others. If people want to do fentanyl, let them.

the entire basis of society and progress is controlling others for the prosperity of the human race.

[polygamous_bat]

Does your libertarian attitude extend to your neighbors burning tires in their backyards?

Individual actions can incur communal costs. “Freedom” doesn’t mean “freedom from the consequence of your actions.”

[kylebenzle]

We could replace all the synthetic rubber with home grown natural rubber right now. It would last longer and be of much higher quality but it would double prices or more, so instead we burn oil and dump pulverized plastics into our waterways, because its a little cheaper.

[Nasrudith]

Unfortunately there are all sorts of other material properties to worry about beyond raw durability/'quality'. Natural rubber tires react quite poorly to hydrocarbons and greases, let alone traction issues. And that is putting aside the logistical issues with getting sufficient natural rubber.

There may be some sort of "compromise" material that could be developed that would lack the toxicity or microplastics issues without compromising safety, but I'm going to defer to experts in that field.

[SoftTalker]

Then the obvious answer is to price those externalities into the cost of the synthetic rubber tires.

Of course then you'll have a lot of lower-income folks driving around on dangerously worn-out tires because they can't afford new ones.

By the way I thought it was the synthetic rubber tires that lasted longer, but certainly possible that I'm mistaken.

[bennyhill]

Interesting, but wouldn't using only natural rubber result in a huge amount of land clearing and then a monoculture, similar to the environmental issues of palm oil?

[njarboe]

Driving is an amazing. It allows everyone huge amounts of freedom in what they do and who they spend time with. Having lots of shops and workplaces near your home is great and should be encouraged, but we should try and find ways to keep the freedom of personal transportation and reduce the impact it has. Lots and lots of tunnels, better tires, electric cars use brakes much less and could get to almost zero, etc.

[ramblenode]

That's basically how driving was sold to the American public in the 1950s. The reality is that transportation is a network, and driving is only efficient for the individual driver at a relatively low level of density. The bigger the population and the more people who drive, the less efficient the network. If you try to keep the network efficient, then driving acts as a constraint on the rest of societal development and you end up with sprawl and long transit times. Driving doesn't scale beyond a certain point (as you know, by suggesting expensive tunnels).

As for the freedom aspect, to get anywhere in an American suburb-styled society you are required to own and maintain a car, a major personal expense. When you travel somewhere, you have to find a place to safely park your car, and your person is tethered to where you park your car, usually needing to return there in a reasonable amount of time the same day, or else paying for long-term parking. You have to have a license from the government to use the only practical source of transportation, and if you don't have that license, you are effectively shut off from any autonomy. Cars certainly do increase the freedom to move and experience the world in some ways, but that is at the cost of other freedoms.

[lm28469]

> freedom

It's also stupidly expensive for most people, and made us develop a car centric approach to a lot of things, a lot of problems it solves are problems we wouldn't have if we designed our cities in other ways

Replacing the current 2b vehicles on earth by electric vehicles will buy us a few years at best but it won't solve the deeper issues

[mitchbob]

> freedom

Including the freedom to spend the equivalent of weeks every year stuck in traffic:

https://thecitypaperbogota.com/bogota/bogota-tops-tomtoms-gl...

[marcosdumay]

> Driving is an amazing.

As long as everyone isn't forced to do it at the same place at the same time.

Driving less goes a long way into making it more amazing.

[persnickety]

> keep the freedom of personal transportation and reduce the impact it has

We've had the answer for longer than we've had cars. Put on the helmet and pedal away!

[NewJazz]

Driving is an amazing.

Your car brain got so excited about driving that it forgot basic grammar.

(It's okay, it happens to me too sometimes).

[latortuga]

Yes, please may I have some more of the unmitigated freedom to pay a ballooning portion of household income toward a depreciating asset; the absolute pleasure of having to buy government-mandated insurance; the utter relief of participating in one of the most dangerous daily activities; the free choice of being able to salt the earth with CO2 emissions and tire particulate matter; and who can forget the ~socialized~ capitalist federal- and state-built roadways that cities are going bankrupt trying to keep up with funding.

[alamortsubite]

> Driving is an amazing. It allows everyone huge amounts of freedom

Your definition of "everyone" excludes children, many seniors, people who can't afford a personal vehicle, and those who can't drive due to disabilities or health conditions. You're also naively ignoring that just the infrastructure needed to support cars on its own often greatly impinges on these groups' freedom of movement.

[trgn]

It is definitely and/and.

Cars are best for the stuff they show on the commercials; driving to the weekend cabin, hauling a thing, impressing a date, going on the family trip.

So yeah, keep the driving, but for the one-off things where they are great at. That's really the only time when a car represents freedom. They are not freedom when it's the only option to get a loaf of bread or get to your office.

[avidphantasm]

Cars are our worst invention, second only to agriculture.