Everyone has an axe to grind. In this case the "axe" is trying to avoid the lung cancer, reduced immune system efficacy, reduced cognitive development of air po

Everyone has an axe to grind. In this case the "axe" is trying to avoid the lung cancer, reduced immune system efficacy, reduced cognitive development of air pollution, as well as the environmental damage (which resulting forest fires escalate) from ever increasing temperatures. Of all the axes needing grinding, this one should get serviced first. > ... blah blah imperfect data Sure, the data is imprecise but we are all very sure that "air pollution == very bad". What's your suggestion, doing nothing and letting the problem grow just because there might be an percentage error margin in the numbers for how badly we are screwed? Doesn't matter if the real numbers are a quarter or 10 times higher, it's horrible compared to the alternatives regardless - unless you are somehow arguing that solar and wind are unknowingly extremely deadly. (Nuclear is a trickier discussion - the reason it is seen as safer per Wh than even wind despite the horrible incidents is due to the massive power generated by the few hundred reactors in the world, where installing hundreds of thousands of huge windmills make construction and workplace disasters more common and an insignificant cause of death.)