4 ms·
And that $5.2 trillion doesn't include compensation for the 4.2 million people who die every year due to fossil fuel pollution. https://www.who.int/airpollutio
by panarky 7y ago
And that $5.2 trillion doesn't include compensation for the 4.2 million people who die every year due to fossil fuel pollution.
https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/ https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/
- spoiledtechie 7y agoand that 4.2 Million people doesn't include the 7 Billion people in the world that need fossil fuels in order to have power. Cars, buildings etc. Because of fossil fuels, life has been much better for the 7 billion.
- consp 7y agoI would not include all in that equation. Victims of increased heavy precipitation might disagree with that statement, not as a whole but at least in some parts.
- yeahitslikethat 7y agoBy "Need" you actually mean want and "better" than what? We are living in a big house that is burning down. But a big house is better? You're making all this a means to an end, but we haven't gotten to the end yet. The end the means of petroleum created is death. That's neither needed nor better.
- gridlockd 7y agoPeople don't die "due to fossil fuel pollution", but rather "air pollution contributes to their mortality" (according to your source). There's a lot of things that contribute to mortality, sitting in front of a computer screen and writing HN comments being one of them. Attributing these deaths to pollution is a statistical cherrypick.
- panarky 7y agoIf there were no air pollution from fossil fuels, more people would live longer, healthier lives.
- gridlockd 7y agoAs it stands, that statement is obviously untrue. With the introduction of fossil fuels, human life expectancy has gone up massively, as has the population. You implicitly assume some sort of "100% renewable transportation" scenario that is very far into the future, if at all feasible.