4 ms·
The problem is that we have to make trade-offs between different types of pollution: https://www.euractiv.com/section/sustainable-dev/news/trade-offs-what-s-goo
by winstonewert 9y ago
The problem is that we have to make trade-offs between different types of pollution: https://www.euractiv.com/section/sustainable-dev/news/trade-offs-what-s-good-for-the-climate-may-not-be-good-for-the-air/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/sustainable-dev/news/trade-...
So, your line of reasoning doesn't really work: if CO2 weren't a threat we would make entirely different pollutant trade-offs then the case where CO2 threatens to end life as we know it.
- biot 9y agoI admit that my reasoning is overly simplistic but, for those who struggle with whether or not global warming is scientifically sound, focusing on the basics will often result in them arriving at similar conclusions as to how to act (eg: using energy from the sun when possible is better than using energy from coal), and that's a good thing rather than arguing over any particular label.