[throwaway05294]

Unfortunately the consumer is the only one who can influence the manufacturers by choosing alternatives. Large companies rarely actually care about the environmental effects when they have a cheaper alternative.

I think many underestimate the influence consumers can have on the manufacturers. In some product categories, they have an option to choose a better alternative. If more did that, the manufacturers in other industries would see that there is a first mover advantage where they can grow their market share by reducing plastic usage. More R&D would be spent finding alternatives and the world as a whole would be improved.

But it all starts with us choosing alternatives whenever possible. If enough consumers do that, the other manufacturers will improve because it impacts their revenue.

[jcynix]

A large part of microplastics found in aquatic environments is abraison from car tires. So which alternative do you suggest?

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/car-tires-and-brake-pads...

https://theconversation.com/how-your-car-sheds-microplastics...

https://microplastics.springeropen.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s43...

[throwaway05294]

As I mentioned, the manufacturers will need to spend money on R&D to develop alternatives. Right now the tire manufacturers don't have any incentive because there's no financial benefit.

Even though consumers don't have a choice when they buy tires today, other products have cleaner alternatives. If I was a manufacturer of tires and saw consumers consistently choosing cleaner products when possible, I would have an incentive to see if I could reduce the pollution, because I would gain market share. The first manufacturer would sell more tires and others would need to follow. Not enough consumers make this choice today to make up the cost of new technologies.

[scrollaway]

Cycling and metros?

[pietervdvn]

Bullshit. Regulation is what has a bogger influence.

Within the group of consumers, there will always be only a small (if not neglible) fraction that does care and has the means for a boycott.

A bit of organized activism can force regulation and will have a way bigger impact.

[throwaway05294]

In a well functioning country, regulation is one of the best ways to control this.

Better regulation would force the manufacturers to spend R&D on alternatives and push down the prices so that the rest of the world can also afford a cleaner alternative. Even if that takes time, we would at least have a huge reduction until we have the right tech at an affordable price for the developing world.

The world is a huge place and many countries will never have good regulations due to corruption/lobbyists and continue to pollute. The only way I see regulations would work is if the first world governments, which are the largest consumers, were willing to impose import restrictions, but that would go against the ideology behind the global market. It would also risk retaliation where the affected country could block exports of rare earth minerals and other critical resources.

The US market is one of the largest influencers, and would need to get on board. I'm not an American, but given the political climate in the US right now I doubt they could regulate it effectively.