• HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Particulates are bad, sure, but they’re not what’s causing climate collapse.

      • FlyingCircus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Climate collapse should more accurately be called global ecological collapse. Emissions are only one part of the problem, and the hyper focus on emissions allows other problems like plastics or habitat destruction to go unsolved. They’re all connected though. Our ability to fight climate change is intricately connected to how healthy the global ecology is.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          19 minutes ago

          Deforestation, as a going public concern, has fallen entirely off the radar.

          Nobody (in national leadership in Western states) seems concerned with the role desertification is having on the carbon cycle. Nevermind the massive ecological destruction in the oceans and the feedback loop that creates

    • MajesticElevator@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      That’s a problem, but small/micro particles aren’t the only metric. The gases released by exhaust are also a real problem for people that walk nearby cars, and they’re in a big quantity in certain cars.

      But yea, balancing all of this is complicated.

      Does having heavier electric cars with no exhaust but more tire usage (because heavier cars) so more particles in the air beneficial? I don’t believe we have serious studies about this, but it could change the meta.

      • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Hear me out here, less cars regardless of their enegry source will reduce both exhaust and microplastics. We don’t have to trade one for the other when we can build alternatives that don’t produce either.

        • MajesticElevator@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          Yea, sure, but cars are still needed in many areas outside of cities

          In rural areas or in small villages, it’s basically the only real good option, or for someone in a city to reach those areas in a timely manner

          I do believe that public transport should be way more developed in cities, to the point where it becomes more worth it to go by public transport than in a car (ex: Paris)

          And alternatives will always cause some sort of pollution. Way way less, but not zero.

          • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            56 minutes ago

            Those areas don’t have nearly as high a concentration of these pollutants as a busy, 6 lane road the center of the city. Thats where improving air quality can matter the most, especially because that road is likely to have more pedestrians breathing the pollutants than a rural road.