3 ms·
Imagine a Venn diagram with Pollution one circle and Climate Change in another and the intersection is Reducing Emissions. The title being "Intersection affects
by nickbauman 10y ago
Imagine a Venn diagram with Pollution one circle and Climate Change in another and the intersection is Reducing Emissions. The title being "Intersection affects both".
- pdonis 10y agoYes, I understand that reducing pollution by, for example, reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants will also affect climate change (assuming you believe reducing CO2 emissions will do that). That doesn't change the fact that pollution causing people to get sick or die is not the same as climate change causing people to get sick or die. If we want to fight pollution because it kills people, and help with climate change as a side effect, that's one thing; but the post I responded to was basically arguing that we should fight climate change and hope that it reduces pollution as a side effect, based on the fact that pollution kills people. That argument makes no sense.
- nickbauman 10y agoOrly? No sense? The more issues that can be shown to affect people directly that can be traced back to emissions the better.
- pdonis 10y ago> The more issues that can be shown to affect people directly that can be traced back to emissions the better. I would have thought that "pollution kills people" was already reason enough. Or, to look at it from the other side, if a country like China isn't going to reduce its emissions in order to stop killing people right now, why would they bother to do it to reduce some hypothetical effect on climate change over the next century? And if the answer is "well, they say they will", why would we believe them?