4 ms·

they been saying this for years

noir_lord 11y ago
Given the timescales involved they'll be saying it for many more years and given the consensus amongst scientists the smart move is to work to correct. The worst case is they where wrong and we improved the planet for nothing...oh no.
- refurb 11y ago
  I'd say the worst case is we spend billions of dollars (that could have been spent elsewhere, say improving human health) on something that makes no difference at all.
  - jug 11y ago
    On the other hand, spending billions of dollars on things carrying questionable benefits for humanity would not be news. At least the reason for this would be noble.
    - nickff 11y ago
      People who lose their children to curable or preventable diseases might hold a different view.
  - r0muald 11y ago
    It would seem reducing global air pollution, especially in areas that suffer enormously on a daily basis (China is a prime example), is at least as beneficial to human health as focused efforts in medical research. And that's even without asking how this hypothetical "spending elsewhere" is going to be regulated in your opinion, and that is not a rethorical question. After all, similar complaints are heard every time a robot lands on a planet or satellite in the Solar System.
  - ldom22 11y ago
    the nile isn't just a river in Egypt, and it may well stop being a river if runaway global warming continues
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    Pollution reduction does improve human health.
    - nickff 11y ago
      Reducing particulate emissions and other pollution which harms the human respiratory system is a different objective from reducing CO2 emissions. There are some synergies between the goals, but optimizing for one will negatively impact the other in many instances.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    As r0muald and nitrogen said, reducing pollution definitely is not something that "makes no difference at all". But... The other problem is that "makes no difference at all" is a good outcome. A bad outcome is that we reduce carbon usage drastically, which reduces economic output drastically, which causes many deaths. (This is not hyperbole. Take China, for instance. They're polluting like crazy, but even with all the pollution, people are better off. They're moving to the cities to get out of rural poverty. That poverty shortens life spans more than the pollution does.)

Given the timescales involved they'll be saying it for many more years and given the consensus amongst scientists the smart move is to work to correct. The worst case is they where wrong and we improved the planet for nothing...oh no.

refurb 11y ago
I'd say the worst case is we spend billions of dollars (that could have been spent elsewhere, say improving human health) on something that makes no difference at all.
- jug 11y ago
  On the other hand, spending billions of dollars on things carrying questionable benefits for humanity would not be news. At least the reason for this would be noble.
  - nickff 11y ago
    People who lose their children to curable or preventable diseases might hold a different view.
- r0muald 11y ago
  It would seem reducing global air pollution, especially in areas that suffer enormously on a daily basis (China is a prime example), is at least as beneficial to human health as focused efforts in medical research. And that's even without asking how this hypothetical "spending elsewhere" is going to be regulated in your opinion, and that is not a rethorical question. After all, similar complaints are heard every time a robot lands on a planet or satellite in the Solar System.
- ldom22 11y ago
  the nile isn't just a river in Egypt, and it may well stop being a river if runaway global warming continues
- nitrogen 11y ago
  Pollution reduction does improve human health.
  - nickff 11y ago
    Reducing particulate emissions and other pollution which harms the human respiratory system is a different objective from reducing CO2 emissions. There are some synergies between the goals, but optimizing for one will negatively impact the other in many instances.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  As r0muald and nitrogen said, reducing pollution definitely is not something that "makes no difference at all". But... The other problem is that "makes no difference at all" is a good outcome. A bad outcome is that we reduce carbon usage drastically, which reduces economic output drastically, which causes many deaths. (This is not hyperbole. Take China, for instance. They're polluting like crazy, but even with all the pollution, people are better off. They're moving to the cities to get out of rural poverty. That poverty shortens life spans more than the pollution does.)