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.
i’ve always been a bit skeptical of the hyperfocus on CO₂ emissions as a proxy for pollution but
is suspiciously specific. No i will not click on the article.
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.
deleted by creator
Ok, I see there are different definitions of pollution. I should say that CO2 is a very different kind of pollution from tyre particles.
Edit: There might be a language barrier here. I’m sorry if it was upsetting.
deleted by creator
NP, I can see how I sounded like a flat earther.
deleted by creator
Yes it’s a nitpicked measure, obviously the most environmental damage comes from all the fuel being burned.