The world has probably passed "peak air pollution"(ourworldindata.org)
ourworldindata.org
The world has probably passed "peak air pollution"
https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/the-world-has-probably-passed-peak-air-pollution
17 comments
Although left out, I would definitely count CO2 as pollution. It may not be toxic, but it certainly is on track to be the most deadly.
We've probably hit peak emissions for CO2 as well.
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/11/peak-energy-emission...
Hitting peak emissions is a significant step in the fight against CO2, but CO2 in the atmosphere is still increasing annually because CO2 stays in the atmosphere for ~1000 years.
> most deadly
Smog is estimated to kill ~7 million people annually. Climate change is predicted to kill 250,000 people annually.
It's a much different story for non-human species who are less impacted by local pollution (aka smog) vs global pollution (aka CO2).
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/11/peak-energy-emission...
Hitting peak emissions is a significant step in the fight against CO2, but CO2 in the atmosphere is still increasing annually because CO2 stays in the atmosphere for ~1000 years.
> most deadly
Smog is estimated to kill ~7 million people annually. Climate change is predicted to kill 250,000 people annually.
It's a much different story for non-human species who are less impacted by local pollution (aka smog) vs global pollution (aka CO2).
The technological advancements are impressive. With the imminence of "peak population", hopefully unsustainable resource consumption will all hit their peaks.
This is a great thing for people who enjoy the amazing abundance and splendor of the natural world. It's unfortunate that the advance of civilization erased so much of the variety in the process.
This is a great thing for people who enjoy the amazing abundance and splendor of the natural world. It's unfortunate that the advance of civilization erased so much of the variety in the process.
Why should they be unsustainable? Lots of people do not have the energy (ie. heat in Western Europe, for example), food, goods and transportation options they desire.
And we certainly can have 10x the current energy usage on earth without destroying the planet. Just because we haven't historically doesn't mean it can't be done, or that we won't (in fact we will, since we will run out of fossil fuels a lot sooner than we'll run out of people). It will take some technological advancement, and finding something else for the middle east and Russia to do, but surely we can do better than reducing the human population?
I feel like taking a "just outlaw it" approach is definitely going to make many people suffer, and it's not necessary. We should discuss other options, and research them.
And we certainly can have 10x the current energy usage on earth without destroying the planet. Just because we haven't historically doesn't mean it can't be done, or that we won't (in fact we will, since we will run out of fossil fuels a lot sooner than we'll run out of people). It will take some technological advancement, and finding something else for the middle east and Russia to do, but surely we can do better than reducing the human population?
I feel like taking a "just outlaw it" approach is definitely going to make many people suffer, and it's not necessary. We should discuss other options, and research them.
In a few years or more, we will notice a correlation of the world passing peak air pollution linked dementia too.
Isn’t the most interesting pollutant, CO2, missing here? Wikipedia at least counts CO2 as an air pollutant.
Yup. Traditionally, there was a lot of political resistance to classifying CO2 as a pollutant, but outside the context of politics in oil-producing countries, it seems faintly absurd _not_ to consider it one.
Cool, let’s work on plastics!
Don't worry, the Trump admin will "fix" that with their intent to push ICE vehicles over electric [0] and coal power over wind/solar [1].
[0] https://www.npr.org/2025/01/30/nx-s1-5272749/donald-trump-ev...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/03/trump-war-on...
[0] https://www.npr.org/2025/01/30/nx-s1-5272749/donald-trump-ev...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/03/trump-war-on...
The first article you posted doesn’t say the new admin will push combustion vehicles over electric vehicles. It says that Trump wants consumers to buy the kind of vehicle of their choice.
You're locking in on one throwaway line.
Follow the money.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4961820-oil-bi...
PS: I'm honored you made an account just to reply to me. I'm touched, truly.
Follow the money.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4961820-oil-bi...
PS: I'm honored you made an account just to reply to me. I'm touched, truly.
That article doesn’t say that the new admin intends to push combustion vehicles over electric vehicles, either.
I thought that Musk, the electric vehicle guy, is in charge now, which would be positive for the environment.
When's the last time you heard Musk saying/doing anything about Tesla, anyhoo?
He's practically forgotten that company. Which makes that whole stock bonus thing hilarious.
He's practically forgotten that company. Which makes that whole stock bonus thing hilarious.
Not true. Every so often he chimes in to give another unrealistic ship date for "full" "self" "driving": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...
Including last week: "We're going to be launching unsupervised Full Self-Driving as a paid service in Austin in June"
Including last week: "We're going to be launching unsupervised Full Self-Driving as a paid service in Austin in June"
[deleted]
[deleted]