Is the pollution debate centering around carbon dioxide as a bait and switch to ignore

Arcanum Noctis

New member
real toxic chemicals? Current trends in politics want to cut down on pollution because of global warming, basically climate change caused by an increase in cardon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is about as toxic as water, meaning its not toxic.

Why isn't the issue with real toxic chemicals being emitted by pollution and should be the primary reason for wanting to cut down on pollution? If carbon dioxide emitted is reduced, but toxic chemicals haven't been mitigated, then nothing really has been done.

By reducing the toxic chemicals released by pollution, we will at least know for a fact that we can achieve preventing something harmful, which the environment will benefit, and we can see a healthy population as tangible proof. When it comes to carbon dioxide emissions creating climate change, we just don't know if we can prevent climate change because there are other things that function on a grander scale such as the sun etc., meaning we could see little to no effect from our efforts.


Shouldn't negating toxic chemicals be the primary concern when it comes to reducing pollution, while negating carbon dioxide emissions being a secondary concern?
 
Back
Top