top | item 47165386

(no title)

A necessary (?) part of progress IMO. Environmental hazards have been a thing for a lot longer too. Settlements used to be covered in smog due to coal fires for example.

Part of the environmental/emissions argument from developing countries is about past emissions by developed countries. I think it's a fair argument to say given these sacrifices made by past generations in industrialised countries + the benefit of developed cleaner technologies through that industrialisation is an argument against that.

discuss

harmonics|5 days ago

> Settlements used to be covered in smog due to coal fires for example.

Used to? Lots of them still are. Right now there's 150 µg/m³ of PM2.5 outside my window, and it's a "clean" day. Yesterday's concentrations were up to 900 µg (yes, that's correct), and the highest I've seen this winter were 2000 µg (yes, this is also correct). And it keeps getting worse, recently our so-called president mentioned that coal is our strategic reserve and we won't be phasing it out any time soon.

I'm relatively sure most of the "global south" has bad air quality, even if such extreme values are rare.

Here are some random photos of a typical winter day (winter is 8 months per year):

https://pasteboard.co/d2uZDyCd2gvt.jpg

https://pasteboard.co/F1zT2VPXFPKs.webp

https://pasteboard.co/r2S12bHXxzcI.jpg

https://pasteboard.co/w7CfK2Yfaz2l.webp

https://pasteboard.co/ceSDNcQuD4qL.jpg

https://pasteboard.co/z7XJcpoI6FCv.jpg

ricardo81|5 days ago

I was thinking more localised. When legislation changes happened (here in the UK) the problem disappeared quickly. The UK being an industrialised country in the context of the parent comments.

throwup238|5 days ago

> Settlements used to be covered in smog due to coal fires for example.

London first tried to ban burning coal within the city in 1306 due to the air quality.

ricardo81|5 days ago

That long ago. Surely that helped identify it as a problem even though the science behind it would have been lacking.