Yes indeed, but it becomes a fixed idea that there are no penalties to pay for altering the chemical balance of our atmosphere. I only studied Physics and Chemistry up to Highers level (Scottish), but learned enough to understand that there is no such thing as a one-sided alteration to the status quo: every action brings about a reaction.
That pumping zillions of tons of car exhaust (just one source of pollutant) into the air is not going to have a reaction on that air/atmosphere is cloud cuckoo land. It surprises me that otherwise brilliant people can force themselves to believe that the world can continue doing this without it having any effect. Because nature has given us volcanic eruptions and other natural disasters is not a valid reason to continue happily on our dangerous way; if anything, those events should be seen as what they are: natural disasters, not as some sort of benign contribution to the finer quality of life. We have seen only too clearly what recent eruptions have done to the world. Those eruptions subside, and after a while the solids come back down to Earth, but what about the lighter than air particles and gasses? Imagining that our own contributions to the mess, on a daily basis and with little appetite to desist, can do anything but increase the damage beggars belief. Yet, it's what they argue.
I, for one, could not make that up.
Rob
You certainly have made it up, Rob. Either that, or you're very confused about the whole issue.
I've never had a conversation with anyone who believes that it's okay to pump zillions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere. Toxic waste from industrial activities, plastic waste and general rubbish discarded randomly into the landscape, smog in the atmosphere consisting of particulate carbon from coal-fired power plants and vehicles with inadequate emission controls, and other pollutants from cars, such as Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbons, and various Nitrogen Oxides, need to be controlled and significantly reduced. No sensible person would argue against that.
The latest 'state-of-the-art' emission controls reduce these pollutants from coal-fired power plants and vehicles to insignificant levels, especially when the 'state-of-the-art' emission controls are combined with the more efficient Ultra-Supercritical coal power plants.
Unfortunately, some of the Ultra-Supercritical plants are not combined with the latest emission controls, because of the additional construction and maintenance costs.
From the United States Environmental Protection Agency:
https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/progress-cleaning-air-and-improving-peoples-health#cars "Compared to 1970 vehicle models, new cars, SUVs and pickup trucks are roughly 99 percent cleaner for common pollutants (hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particle emissions), while Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled has dramatically increased." Refer attached graph.
The confusion lies in the misrepresentation of CO2 as a pollutant. I bought a new car last year which I'm very pleased with. However, I wish it had been an electric car at a similar price because they are potentially more efficient, and no matter how effective the emission controls are in the latest petrol-driven vehicles, they still produce
noise pollution.
Unfortunately, the electric vehicle has been rather slow in development partly because of the conflict between their perceived benefit in reducing all CO2 emissions and the necessity of having a reliable electricity supply for recharging, which requires a continuation and even a growth of fossil fuel power plants which emit the non-polluting CO2.
Imagine a million people in a large city attempting to recharge their electric vehicles at the same time, after returning from the day's work. Solar and Wind power, even with back-up gasoline generators, wouldn't be able to handle it.