The tire industry is similar to many other global industrial schemes in that it shares a common regard for ease of production over environmental cost. From its most basic methods of production to its most technologically impressive, the industry's exploitation of rubber has inflicted significant damage to regional environments the world over. At the behest of a demanding consumer base, these damages are popularly dismissed as necessities; ultimately though, humanity's desire for rubber-intensive automotive transportation and distaste for cancer simply cannot coexist. Likewise, all of the Earth's species will be negatively impacted if the modern cycle of rubber extraction, production, use, and destruction continues.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
The Rubber Tire Industry
Blog Mission Statement:
The tire industry is similar to many other global industrial schemes in that it shares a common regard for ease of production over environmental cost. From its most basic methods of production to its most technologically impressive, the industry's exploitation of rubber has inflicted significant damage to regional environments the world over. At the behest of a demanding consumer base, these damages are popularly dismissed as necessities; ultimately though, humanity's desire for rubber-intensive automotive transportation and distaste for cancer simply cannot coexist. Likewise, all of the Earth's species will be negatively impacted if the modern cycle of rubber extraction, production, use, and destruction continues.
The tire industry is similar to many other global industrial schemes in that it shares a common regard for ease of production over environmental cost. From its most basic methods of production to its most technologically impressive, the industry's exploitation of rubber has inflicted significant damage to regional environments the world over. At the behest of a demanding consumer base, these damages are popularly dismissed as necessities; ultimately though, humanity's desire for rubber-intensive automotive transportation and distaste for cancer simply cannot coexist. Likewise, all of the Earth's species will be negatively impacted if the modern cycle of rubber extraction, production, use, and destruction continues.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Natural vs. Synthetic Rubber - Two Histories
Part I - Natural Rubber
When the race to control the world's supply of rubber gained momentum in the late 19th century, the term "exploitation" covered all facets of its cultivation and production; governments were stripped of endowed resources, corrupt business practices reigned supreme, and laborers were subjected to near-slave wages and pitiful working conditions. Among the most ravaged though, were local ecosystems, subjected to destructive forest-clearing at the hands of corporations and local farmers alike.
This video shows, in considerable detail, the process of draining rubber trees for latex.
Before 1850, latex from rubber trees was a virtually unused asset; it took Charles Goodyear (of Goodyear Tires fame) to, somewhat accidentally, develop a technique termed "vulcanization". Essentially, this process treated the syrupy natural substance, transforming it into the more recognizable rubber still in use today. The demand for vulcanized rubber increased dramatically in the late 18th and early 19th centuries with the dawn of automobile technology. In order to meet this demand, mass production of rubber trees (most notably hevea brasiliensis) became the norm in tropical climates; vast plantations, often owned by proto-globalized Western corporations, covered the equator from Brazil to Sumatra (Tucker 227).
By the 1930's, plantations worldwide were operating at capacity considering the ever-increasing demand for vehicle tires. By 1940, the world was gripped with war; human innovation would soon produce a new reason to fear the production of tires.
Part II - Synthetic Rubber
During World War II, the United States and Allied powers were essentially cut off from the world's largest rubber-growing region, Southeast Asia. Of course, this was problematic from the beginning; by 1930, the US was already using about half of the world's entire natural rubber output. The need for mobile military vehicles increased this demand significantly; the construction of one tank required about 1 ton of rubber; one battleship, over 75 tons. To address the problem, the US government joined capitalist innovators to devise a chemical solution; synthetic rubber was born. The economic effects? In 1941, the US produced about 231 tons of rubber annually. By 1945, it produced about 70,000 tons per month (acs.org). In economic and militaristic terms, the production of synthetic rubber was a massive success. Currently, over 70% of the world's rubber output is synthetic (acs.org). Like many economic achievements, synthetic rubber was touted as a positive innovation simply because it allowed for production at the cheapest possible cost; between wartime demand and increasing civilian automobile demand, little else mattered.
Below, note the difference between synthetic rubber manufacturing and that of natural rubber; synthetic demands heavy industry and mechanics for production, not simple manpower.
During World War II, the United States and Allied powers were essentially cut off from the world's largest rubber-growing region, Southeast Asia. Of course, this was problematic from the beginning; by 1930, the US was already using about half of the world's entire natural rubber output. The need for mobile military vehicles increased this demand significantly; the construction of one tank required about 1 ton of rubber; one battleship, over 75 tons. To address the problem, the US government joined capitalist innovators to devise a chemical solution; synthetic rubber was born. The economic effects? In 1941, the US produced about 231 tons of rubber annually. By 1945, it produced about 70,000 tons per month (acs.org). In economic and militaristic terms, the production of synthetic rubber was a massive success. Currently, over 70% of the world's rubber output is synthetic (acs.org). Like many economic achievements, synthetic rubber was touted as a positive innovation simply because it allowed for production at the cheapest possible cost; between wartime demand and increasing civilian automobile demand, little else mattered.
Below, note the difference between synthetic rubber manufacturing and that of natural rubber; synthetic demands heavy industry and mechanics for production, not simple manpower.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Environmental Costs - Land Clearing
Nearly all natural rubber extraction occurs on large plantations in tropical climates. The creation of these plantations requires clearing of tropical forests, the effects of which are numerous, including loss of habitat for forest fauna and the destruction of all non-rubber trees and plants.
Though natural rubber only counts for between 30-40% (au.gov) of produced rubber in circulation today, the destruction of forest ecosystems remains a pressing issue; for example, the destruction of the Chinese Xishuangbanna forests in favor of higher rubber productions threatens "the richest variety of flora and fauna" in China (reuters.com). As of 2003, about 67% of the region's tropical forests have been lost to rubber farming (reuters.com). Since most extraction of natural rubber occurs in economically underdeveloped states, environmental concerns often give way to economic desires (ex. state-owned rubber plantations in China).
The above video highlights the destruction of Amazon rainforest, in part due to latex extraction from rubber trees, and the consequences of said actions.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Environmental Costs - Industrial
Today's tires represent the revolution in chemical synthesis technology that has occurred since the original introduction of bicycle and auto tires a century ago. While the tires of old generally consisted of natural rubber that wore out quickly and was simply bolted onto car axles with steel, today's include a variety of reinforcing fabrics, age resistors, dyes, and other chemical based products that are attached to vehicles using copper, tin, zinc, and chromium coating (au.gov). Nearly all of the chemicals used to resist age and make tires stronger are made from petrochemicals; petrochemicals are petroleum based; oil is petroleum based; thus, all the environmental challenges posed by petroleum extraction apply to tire production.
Emissions
The fact that the EPA, a reasonably defunct agency under the Bush Administration (despite the pleasant logo), has taken measures to reduce emissions from rubber tire manufacturing underscores the damage resulting from the manufacturing process. The EPA lists the following as areas of interest concerning "air toxics" - 1) operations using solvents and cements at tire production facilities, 2) tire cord production, and 3) puncture sealant applications.
All of these stem from both the creation and destruction of synthetic tires. Since both processes require extreme heat and chemical shifts within the tire's composition, the result is, quite simply, tire petrochemicals in the air.
The US government also admits that the chemical creosote can be heated and then made airborne through the process of burning scrap tires in cement kilns, a very popular method of waste removal. Creosote can cause a variety of negative effects on human health, notably cancer (cdc.gov).
Tire Burning
The act of burning tires as a method of waste removal is popular in both the industrial and public spheres. Industrially, as mentioned briefly above, the act generally occurs in large cement kilns; the EPA has identified countless chemicals (including dioxin, arsenic, lead, cadmium, chromium, chloromethane, etc) deemed harmful to human health within emissions produced by the burning. Of these, the EPA has labeled dioxins as the most harmful. Produced by industrial processes involving chlorine, the EPA website lists dioxin exposure as a major cause of cancer and leukemia in humans.
The act of burning scrap tires has generated widespread condemnation of industrial plants across the US. From Montana (notoxicburning.org) to Vermont (lesspollution.org), with countless states in between, citizens have organized to demand emission caps and policy changes to address the problem. Citing EPA studies on dioxins and creosotes (among others) dating back to 1984, these organizations have achieved limited success. Often, intense public scrutiny and protest lead factories or firms to relocate or adjust burning policies; however, without federal laws governing the practice of burning tires, it is certain to continue.
The graphic above, from the EPA, highlights industrial waste removal as the primary source of dioxin introduction into the atmosphere; then, dioxins spread into crops and other sources of human food, eventually ending up being consumed by people.
EPA Action?
Despite the lack of decisive action taken by the EPA to combat emissions from tire burning, they have addressed the urgency of the situation by offering promulgated rules, or rules that will soon be enacted if legislation passes. To address the previously mentioned "areas of concern", the EPA has declared the following promulgated rules:
- Tire Production Operations - Forced to reduce toxic air emissions by roughly 100%
- Tire Cord Production Operations - Forced to reduce toxic air emissions by 72%
- Puncture Sealant Operations - Forced to reduce toxic air emissions by 86% (existing facilities) and 95% (new facilities)
These measures, if ever enacted, are decent approaches to the problem. However, they reveal a fundamental problem concerning the way the EPA addresses environmental problems: each measure seems to be a compromise between corporate concerns and environmental concerns. When emissions from tire burning should be completely eliminated given their harmful nature towards humans, they are only reduced once over. If not eliminated completely, these measures should be increased. Interestingly, consumers will be the most likely to pay for these measures, not the corporations being "hassled"; even still, the EPA estimates that the total cost to consumers will be less than one cent per tire. Surely, it would be a safe bet to assume the public would pass a referendum that asked them to choose between more expensive tires (5 cent increase) and an elimination of toxic carcinogens from tire burning.
The optimist would suggest that the EPA is only being economically cautious. One can only hope that the EPA truly means to eliminate these emissions entirely in the future, which would suggest that this is only the beginning in a series of measures.
- Tire Production Operations - Forced to reduce toxic air emissions by roughly 100%
- Tire Cord Production Operations - Forced to reduce toxic air emissions by 72%
- Puncture Sealant Operations - Forced to reduce toxic air emissions by 86% (existing facilities) and 95% (new facilities)
These measures, if ever enacted, are decent approaches to the problem. However, they reveal a fundamental problem concerning the way the EPA addresses environmental problems: each measure seems to be a compromise between corporate concerns and environmental concerns. When emissions from tire burning should be completely eliminated given their harmful nature towards humans, they are only reduced once over. If not eliminated completely, these measures should be increased. Interestingly, consumers will be the most likely to pay for these measures, not the corporations being "hassled"; even still, the EPA estimates that the total cost to consumers will be less than one cent per tire. Surely, it would be a safe bet to assume the public would pass a referendum that asked them to choose between more expensive tires (5 cent increase) and an elimination of toxic carcinogens from tire burning.
The optimist would suggest that the EPA is only being economically cautious. One can only hope that the EPA truly means to eliminate these emissions entirely in the future, which would suggest that this is only the beginning in a series of measures.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Environmental Costs - Understated Effects
Concerning the extraction and production of rubber, the hidden costs are significant. The shipment of resources by road, rail, water, or air necessitates very significant petroleum use.
Because of the success of age-resistors and the general strengthening of tire composition, rubber tires are very difficult to dispose of. When they are not burned (either directly into the atmosphere, or in cement kilns), they are usually piled out of sight; while this may seem reasonably harmless, several problems arise; leaching of petrochemicals into soil, create lifeless zones; erosion and the destruction of habitat; provide mosquito and other insect breeding grounds, which could cause health concerns.
Tire piles, as shown above, are no small problem.
Because of the success of age-resistors and the general strengthening of tire composition, rubber tires are very difficult to dispose of. When they are not burned (either directly into the atmosphere, or in cement kilns), they are usually piled out of sight; while this may seem reasonably harmless, several problems arise; leaching of petrochemicals into soil, create lifeless zones; erosion and the destruction of habitat; provide mosquito and other insect breeding grounds, which could cause health concerns.
Tire piles, as shown above, are no small problem.
Monday, November 24, 2008
What Can Be Done?
Organize
Countless organizations exist throughout the country with purposes ranging from tire-burning prevention to land-clearing prevention. South Carolina is particularly ripe for anti-tire burning efforts; according to the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and scbiomass.org, over 45,000 tons of waste tires are burned annually in the state. Of this amount, the International Paper Company's (the same corporation protested in numerous states including Vermont and Montana) plant in Richland County burns over 20,000 tons annually; Harleyville's (just outside of Summerville, very close to Charleston) Blue Circle Cement Waste Tire Processing Facility is the state's second highest tire-burning culprit.
The Blue Circle Facility in Summerville is owned by French cement giant Lafarge. With branches and facilities throughout the world, the company has come under fire regularly from public-sector environmental groups, most of whom seek to curb emissions relating to cement production and waste removal. Though their website, lafargenorthamerica.com, claims that safe environmental practices are of grave concern to them, it is quite obvious that the opposite is true (as it is for nearly all corporations worldwide). The lack of federal legislation concerning tire-burning allows them to operate virtually unchecked. Without action, the Blue Circle plant in Summerville will continue to pump dioxins, creosotes, and other toxic chemicals into the Charleston atmosphere for years to come. In fact, the problem could become worse in the near future; in 1996, Lafarge launched "Project Harleyville 3000", which resulted in a $45 million expansion of the facility.
The Blue Circle plant's Harleyville address is not listed.
Because synthetic tires are popularly viewed as a reasonable environmental alternative to the extraction of natural rubber, it is difficult to find eco-friendly alternatives to using tires. The best possible, though, is surely to seek corporations who recycle tires; while the problem of emissions from melting and re-manufacturing is still a risk, it eliminates the higher-risk problem of burning tires in cement kilns. Also, it encourages a general decrease in the manufacturing of new synthetic or natural tires.
Otherwise, a Charleston consumer's best choice is to go on foot - something without rubber soles, of course!
The Blue Circle plant's Harleyville address is not listed.
Alternatives to Rubber Consumption?
Because synthetic tires are popularly viewed as a reasonable environmental alternative to the extraction of natural rubber, it is difficult to find eco-friendly alternatives to using tires. The best possible, though, is surely to seek corporations who recycle tires; while the problem of emissions from melting and re-manufacturing is still a risk, it eliminates the higher-risk problem of burning tires in cement kilns. Also, it encourages a general decrease in the manufacturing of new synthetic or natural tires.
Otherwise, a Charleston consumer's best choice is to go on foot - something without rubber soles, of course!
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Sources
http://www.lafargenorthamerica.com
http://www.notoxicburning.org
http://www.lesspollution.org
http://www.portaec.net/local/tireburning/dr.html
http://www.epa.gov
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSSHA7974020080407
http://www.energyjustice.net/tires/files/carmandangers.html
http://acswebcontent.acs.org/landmarks/landmarks/rbb/
http://books.google.com/books?id=piAH6GI2h8AC&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=rubber+industry+forest&source=web&ots=a6H_CtMYln&sig=0CxdCWaL1q2Hf3-Ao1YX2sSE8xI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA227,M1
http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/publications/waste/tyres/national-approach/tyres5.html
http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:YSLDphYxl6IJ:www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/tire/tirefactf.pdf+epa+tire+air+toxics&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a
http://www.notoxicburning.org
http://www.lesspollution.org
http://www.portaec.net/local/tireburning/dr.html
http://www.epa.gov
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSSHA7974020080407
http://www.energyjustice.net/tires/files/carmandangers.html
http://acswebcontent.acs.org/landmarks/landmarks/rbb/
http://books.google.com/books?id=piAH6GI2h8AC&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=rubber+industry+forest&source=web&ots=a6H_CtMYln&sig=0CxdCWaL1q2Hf3-Ao1YX2sSE8xI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA227,M1
http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/publications/waste/tyres/national-approach/tyres5.html
http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:YSLDphYxl6IJ:www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/tire/tirefactf.pdf+epa+tire+air+toxics&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)