Post by BNC Moderator on Apr 30, 2012 16:41:10 GMT 9.5
Populations worldwide suffer from pollution induced illnesses but efforts to reduce pollution may result in greater and faster warming of the world's climate.Has such a conundrum made taking action on pollution in the environment easier for politician's to ignore? Which would be better for the health of the planet and its people - less pollution or less warming?
Pollution masked warming in eastern US in 20th century
Climate scientists at Harvard found that particulate pollution in the late 20th century allowed the effects of global warming in the region to be masked.
I suspect we'd be better off with less pollution, at least if you've got the money to pay to adapt to global warming.
I doubt it's made taking action on global warming all that much different from a political point of view (though the possibility of global cooling looked at decades ago but dismissed (rather quickly too when it was shown it that warming would be what would happen) is still bought up by denialists who don't understand it or that science is based on evidence).