←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: 0s | 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. bootsmann ◴[07 Sep 25 18:34 UTC] No.45160934{3}[source]▶
Norway and Botswana are good counterpoints here. I think its more about the fact that resource-rich countries naturally have a way for elites to stay in power longer than those without simply because they have enough money to go around to appease the populace they control. (An interesting test of this thesis would be how long Putin can stay in power now that they have to partially ration fuel due to Ukrainian refinery strikes)