3 ms·
This is a misleading title here, there are as much as 70% fewer pollinators in circumstances where specific pollutants are present: "Scientists studying air po
by JamisonM 5y ago
This is a misleading title here, there are as much as 70% fewer pollinators in circumstances where specific pollutants are present:
"Scientists studying air pollutants from both urban and rural environments found that there are up to 70% fewer pollinators, up to 90% less flower visits, and an overall 31% in pollination reduction in test plants when there were several common ground-level air pollutants present – including diesel exhaust pollutants and ozone."
That's just not going to be the most common interpretation of "Scientists find there are 70% fewer pollinators, due to air pollution" as a title.
Anyhoo, air pollution is very bad and governments should be laser focused on selling the benefits of reducing fossil fuel burning for transportation as a personal health benefit more so than as a climate change mitigation strategy.
- halpert 5y agoThis comment is misleading. As you quoted "when there were several common ground-level air pollutants present." Sure, the exact number may not be 70%, but this decrease is a common occurrence.
- JamisonM 5y agoSorry, what?
- stjohnswarts 5y agoIt is an awful title. "Scientists find 70% fewer pollinators in Heavily Polluted areas" or something similar would have been a lot better. The title implies that it's everywhere.
- pvaldes 5y agoAny title that starts with "scientists say that" or "scientists did something" is clickbait by default.
- asdff 5y agoPeople wouldn't even wear a mask as a personal health benefit, they also haven't quit soda or cigarettes. I don't think personal health is going to be the most effective PR strategy with the public today.
- JamisonM 5y agoLead mitigation is pretty popular!
- complexmango 5y agoAnd guess what has ZERO effect on pollinators? CO2. The only ‘pollutant’ ESG scores and activists harp about. Why? To distract from real polluting chemicals that cost a lot more to remove from our environment. Don’t even get me started on microplastics and its impact on the endocrine system of every animal, not just humans. Its fascinating to observe people believing that mega-corporation and paid-politician promoted value systems are looking out for the interests of you and me.
- JamisonM 5y agoI think ESG scores and activists are concerned about greenhouse gases because they are inadequately regulated by the government and private initiatives are necessary to take action on them. It is unfortunate that the previous US administration was rolling back air and water pollution standards and I agree with you that it should get more press, along with the dangers of microplastics - but I really don't think this is about "mega-corporation promoted value systems".