4 ms·
I find this title highly misleading “peak emission” would be much more accurate. “Peak pollution” sounds like the amount of pollution in the environment will
by illiac786 2y ago
I find this title highly misleading “peak emission” would be much more accurate.
“Peak pollution” sounds like the amount of pollution in the environment will actually _decrease_ going forward.
That is simply not true, it will continue to increase, just slightly less fast.
Sorry if I don’t feel euphoric right now.
- tmvphil 2y agoFor e.g NOx with a high half-life, you are probably right that we are still increasing pollution. For short half-life pollutants like SO2 and CO, I would expect this means the actual atmospheric levels are decreasing.
- marcosdumay 2y ago> For e.g NOx with a high half-life Their half-life is shorter than a day. On the same magnitude of SO2. The one of CO is indeed much smaller.
- mycall 2y agoI thought greenhouse gasses will increase in concentration as the feedback loop of polar region is forcing trapped gasses out of the ground.
- gavindean90 2y agoI thinks that’s been predicted but not observed thus far.
- graeme 2y agoWe have on a small scale. Methane is escaping as the permafrost thaws. Boreal forests are also burning down as their climate warms. Reduction in polar ice changes the albedo of the earth to reflect less heat. At a certain point sufficient warming could trigger a cascade. So far we haven't done that, but it's incorrect to say there's been no release of stored CO2.
- adrianN 2y agoEarthworms are moving north and accelerate the breakdown of organic matter in arctic regions too.
- david-gpu 2y agoOn the other hand, once it is observed it will be too late to reverse.
- MostlyStable 2y agoImportantly, this article is not primarily about greenhouse gasses.
- NewJazz 2y agoIsn't the concept of pollution highly subjective?
- tsimionescu 2y agoIt's really not, for most things. What exactly would you call an oil spill or leaded gas fumes if not pollution?
- NewJazz 2y agoCertain substances are certainly clear cut. But consider, I dunno, salt? A little built of salt in the environment is normal. But a whole lot of it is pollution.
- ceejayoz 2y agoThat's more a quibble over dosage, though, than any subjective disagreement on "can too much salt be a pollutant?"
- crent 2y agoI’m no climate scientist but I would think it’s similar to toxicity/poisoning. You can die from water intoxication but certainly you need it to live as well. So no, I don’t think it’s subjective. It seems to me that if something is capable of causing harm in a certain amount, it’s poisonous/pollution/toxic.
- 2y ago
- akira2501 2y ago> will actually _decrease_ going forward. The ratio of (pollution/living person) will decrease. Unless you want to start unaliving people then this is a fixed fact of the world we live on.
- dissuade 2y ago[flagged]
- akira2501 2y agoYes, we should change the units to have a more rational approach, that doesn't boil down to a new version of first world colonialism that tells the undeveloped world they missed the boat and now can't catch up because we've already wrecked the environment on their behalf. So, if you want to care about the environment, and the state of the developed world, you're going to need to allow for compromise to exist. If you refuse this compromise, yes, you are incidentally approaching the same outcome the eugenicists want.
- jajko 2y agoThere is 1 single earth, its not getting bigger nor smaller. Dont know about you but I couldnt care less about some pollution per capita or similar. What about pollution per km2, or m3 of water? Nobody is stating goal is 0 or we failed. Not sure why you try to divert discussion that way, its too obvious and not working.
- dissuade 2y ago[flagged]
- dissuade 2y ago[dead]
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago> that doesn't boil down to a new version of first world colonialism that tells the undeveloped world they missed the boat and now can't catch up because we've already wrecked the environment on their behalf. When the first world started burning oil and coal, solar panels and nuclear reactors didn't exist. Now they do, and undeveloped countries don't have to invent them again in order to use them. This is cheaper than what first world countries have to do because they don't have to pay to build a coal-fired power plant only to shut it down while it's still functional and build a solar farm to replace it. They can just start with the solar farm.
- consf 2y agoThe idea of having passed peak pollution could suggest that we are beginning to see positive changes...
- illiac786 2y agoAgree, but it’s like hurling toward a brick wall at 100mph instead of previously 110mph and saying “we’ve reached peak risk”. Sounds a lot better than “we’re braking but currently we are still going to hit the wall and life expectancy of passengers still currently is measured in second”, but what we need is to push people to brake more, not sugar coat the situation.
- mad0 2y agoSo a more accurate statement would be that a derivative of pollution has peaked.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]