3 ms·
> I'm not suggesting anything like that. I'm suggesting that the government look into different solutions in addition to this. OK, then I am happy to withdraw
by jessriedel 10y ago
> I'm not suggesting anything like that. I'm suggesting that the government look into different solutions in addition to this.
OK, then I am happy to withdraw my characterization of your comment. Your comment just adds nothing substantive to the discussion.
> If they're willing to spend money powering jet engines to shoot the smog higher into the atmosphere, why won't they transition to using a cleaner energy source that requires less money to maintain?
Because one is orders of magnitude more expensive than the other. It's as unrelated as bringing up carbon emissions by cars when people are discussing highway safety.
- bradjohnson 10y agoI was saying that if they were making any effort to clean up their energy source, there would be no backlash. You're trying to make this into a dichotomy where either you're for or against the deaths of people from smog. So, if I'm not participating in your flamewar, I'm not adding anything substantive? It is reminiscent of the "clean-coal" marketing scheme that already exists in the United States and that's what most people in this thread are discussing.
- jessriedel 10y agoYou're not adding anything substantive because your reply to my comment introduces a completely distinct issues from what's discussed in my comment, and you do not appear to have a grasp of their relative effect size. You said "This feels like a band-aid fix when they should be amputating the arm." But the ill effect of the smog produced by a given plant in India is dramatically worse, and easier to fix, than the ill effects of the carbon.