3 ms·
Which is nonsense. There's plenty of pollution that's been diluted as much as it possibly can be and is still problematic. CO2 is an obvious example. Or conside
by wat10000 3mo ago
Which is nonsense. There's plenty of pollution that's been diluted as much as it possibly can be and is still problematic. CO2 is an obvious example. Or consider leaded gasoline or mercury. You have to be careful not to eat too much fish or you'll have trouble with the mercury in it. That's been diluted by the entire ocean and that didn't solve it.
- lazide 3mo agouh, that’s nonsense. co2 is problematic because of concentration - the sheer volume. leaded gas and mercury are a problem because of bio-concentration. dilution still helps!
- forestrywat 3mo agoOf course it helps, but where are you going to dilute more co2 these days?
- lazide 3mo agothat is exactly the issue. still worse 6” from the tailpipe.
- NooneAtAll3 3mo agobulk volume is a different problem from concentration when people suffocate in the fire from CO2 - that's concentration and dilution helps people to not literally die from that global warming due to CO2 levels everywhere is entirely different problem. (and if we could dilute CO2 into the space, it would also be solved, lol)
- wat10000 3mo agoThe quip doesn't say "dilution helps." It says "the solution to pollution is dilution." Dilution solves the problem. And not only that, but it's the solution, not merely a solution. This is just not true, and you seem to agree with that. Yes, CO2 is problematic because of the sheer volume. The sheer volume means that dilution does not solve the problem. Leaded gas and mercury are a problem because of bio-concentration. Which means that dilution does not solve the problem.
- deepsun 3mo agoThey meant "to not get caught, we just dilute".
- khimaros 3mo ago*someone in the energy sector also, i don't necessarily mean to endorse this worldview in terms of its potential impact on policy, though there may be some truth to it, technically speaking.