> I am sure that the associate director of science at NASA never visited a chemical plant. /s You haven't read the text attentively. "Visiting a chemical plant

> I am sure that the associate director of science at NASA never visited a chemical plant. /s You haven't read the text attentively. "Visiting a chemical plant" is different from "taking a stroll nearby" it, that is, seeing the effects of it in the environment. > We pollute the environment by just living. After you eat a meal and digest it, you take a crap. After you drink some water you take a piss. That is pollution, but it is low level. This is radically disconnected to what's being done to the environment now, which is not just a matter of overpopulation. Currently, as a popoluation, we are: - wasting massive amount of resources (to observe two simple examples, just go to a restaurant, or notice huge cars in tiny towns) - producing unmanageable amounts of waste in general (especially as consequence of the previous point) - most importantly, producing unmanageable types of pollutants (read HN more attentively, and you'll find recent talks of microplastics) Cleaning up after polluting is at best considerably more expensive, at worst, impossible to perform, than not polluting in the first place. And keep in mind that I'm talking about regulating (that is, at least reducing) pollution, not abolishing it (that is, going Amish).