I don't see the point of trying to redefine "pollution" to include CO2. We have been discussing climate change for decades, but it was only recently that people tried to shoehorn CO2 into category of "pollution." It just takes a category where society has some consensus and then shoehorns some new disputed idea into existing category. It's an end-run around the process of building consensus around the new thing.
Right, but the 1990 IPCC report doesn’t use the term “pollution” to refer to CO2: <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_full_report.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ipcc_90_92_a...
It uses the term “greenhouse gas” to refer to CO2 and uses the term “air pollution” to refer to what people traditionally think of as air pollution. For example, in one place of says: “Consequences of CO2 enrichment and climate change for natural terrestrial ecosystems could be modified by other environmental factors, both natural and man induced (e.g., by air pollution).” So that’s treating “CO2 enrichment” (emissions) as distinct from “air pollution.”
rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
Rygian · · focus · HN ↗
That page is from 2002.
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenhouse_gas&oldid=2889" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenhouse_gas&ol...
pjc50 · · focus · HN ↗
rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
It uses the term “greenhouse gas” to refer to CO2 and uses the term “air pollution” to refer to what people traditionally think of as air pollution. For example, in one place of says: “Consequences of CO2 enrichment and climate change for natural terrestrial ecosystems could be modified by other environmental factors, both natural and man induced (e.g., by air pollution).” So that’s treating “CO2 enrichment” (emissions) as distinct from “air pollution.”
throwyawayyyy · · focus · HN ↗