←back to thread

Air pollution directly linked to increased dementia risk

(www.nature.com)
275 points rntn | 1 comments | 07 Sep 25 13:13 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
bamboozled ◴[07 Sep 25 13:58 UTC] No.45158197[source]▶
I've heard the argument made that it's better to stop burning fossil fuel, even if you're a climate change denier for reasons like this.

Even if you think climate change is a hoax, why not reduce pollution anyway?

replies(5): >>45158318 #>>45158490 #>>45159607 #>>45160159 #>>45160626 #
graemep ◴[07 Sep 25 14:15 UTC] No.45158318[source]▶
I agree. It also reduces the world's dependence on unstable regions.

However, some things that are regarded as renewable (e.g. wood burning, such as the notorious Drax power station in the UK) are more polluting than fossil fuels. Personally I doubt they are even effective at CO₂ reduction. What we need is clean energy.

replies(2): >>45158465 #>>45160969 #
FollowingTheDao ◴[07 Sep 25 14:32 UTC] No.45158465[source]▶
> It also reduces the world's dependence on unstable regions.

Do you think the world might have made these regions unstable because they have the oil?

replies(4): >>45158623 #>>45158643 #>>45158687 #>>45160934 #
1. acdha ◴[07 Sep 25 14:46 UTC] No.45158623{3}[source]▶
It’s definitely a combination of both but I think oil wealth is inherently destabilizing because it tends to be concentrated in areas which were not previously rich and densely populated (most of the world by area) and because the way the market works allows a relatively small number of people to be wealthy without much local support compared to, say, high-end manufacturing which require lots of skilled workers and local investment. Norway is basically the only example of a petrostate where the money is invested in the betterment of the entire country.