• robot_dog_with_gun [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    i’ve always been a bit skeptical of the hyperfocus on CO₂ emissions as a proxy for pollution but

    more particle pollution by mass

    is suspiciously specific. No i will not click on the article.

    • sawne128 [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      CO2 isn’t pollution* fyi.

      Edit: I think I misread your comment, but to expand on what I mean, some people use CO2 emissions as a way to slam measures to reduce pollution that is toxic to nature, such as catalytic converters and plastic tax. I think this is possible because people confuse the concepts of “We shouldn’t poison nature” and “We should stop climate change”, which are both technically issues of pollution.

    • RNAi [he/him]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes it’s a nitpicked measure, obviously the most environmental damage comes from all the fuel being burned.