Dear Editor,
I read Damian Carrington's piece on microplastic and the damage it causes at cell level (The Guardian, 8th December 2021, link below) with the most shocking realisation being that “Once the plastic is in the environment, we can’t really get it out.”
So let's ponder the sources of that microplastic: The majority of ocean- (and presumably also river-) microplastic comes from fibres from our washing of synthetic clothing (35%) with tyre-dust coming a close second (28%, link below). And I would hazard a guess that the majority of air-born microplastic comes from tyre-dust with those particles being repeatedly whipped up by passing vehicles and then being trapped between buildings, floating around ready for us to breathe in.
With that being the case, why don't we simply "kill two birds with one stone": To reduce tyre-dust we would need to massively scale back road-transport with us switching to modest, local economies where goods are predominantly sourced locally and most journeys made on foot, bicycle or public transport (preferably rail-based). If this were to be the case, then we would immediately also be well on track to solve the climate problem as emissions of CO2 would also plummet.
So why not try that? I see it as a missed opportunity!
PS: And, of course, we should be wearing durable clothing made from natural fibres: That would solve the problem of plastic "microfluff" in our oceans. And while we're on the case, surely all fishing nets should be made of natural materials too (e.g. hemp) so that any lost nets rot away in a few months rather than float around for all eternity killing fish.
Regards
