Call it "pollution" vs climate change

[Equinox Moon]

I am beginning to think that the term "climate change" was crafted by the deniers. The general public can wrap their head around "pollution" as something caused by human activity. That is something no one can deny.

Whenever the topic of climate change does make it into the media, the word 'pollution' is never used in conjunction with it. Not even in the progressive media (that I have noticed).

I remember as a child the word 'pollution' was used and taught in schools. Water pollution, air pollution, noise pollution... we saw pictures of it.

We have a meme problem that needs correcting.

[el_bryanto]

1. It's problematic

Nobody is in favor of trash or pollution where they live, but in many parts of the country the public services are, well, segregated. If you live in a wealthy neighborhood you will get good service in trash removal (and a lot of other things, frankly). If you live in a poor neighborhood your trash won't be picked up as often.

Against this backdrop consider - your county wants to put up a trash incinerator - yes, there will be safeguards, but there's no getting around the fact that it will create a certain amount of air pollution. Where are they more likely to put this incinerator - in a well off neighborhood or a struggling neighborhood? We know the answer there. So when you focus on trash and local sources of pollution, you might well be able to motivate and mobilize people in that community (of course it helps if they have a certain lee way to attend meetings, to protest, and take other actions which, lets face it, wealthy and upper middle class folks have an easier time carving out time to do that compared to the working poor.

Finally it kind of ignores pollution problems that aren't easily sourced; we know what scientists are telling us about climate change effects everybody, but by focusing on concrete examples of it . . . well, a lot of those are harder to see (when I listened to Rush Limbaugh it always aggravated me how every cold day was proof that global warming was a myth, as if that were the argument people were making).

So while this approach might be beneficial in some areas, I don't think it works for a national strategy.

Bryant

[Equinox Moon]

2. My point is, "pollution" needs to be 'part' of the meme-topic.

Yes, it is problematic.

I think people don't understand "climate change". It is not mentioned enough in the news and especially with full reporting to explain it. Since we are a world of headline news and sounds bites; I am suggesting the topic of climate change needs to include the word/concept of pollution. Even air pollution from cars is something people can understand.

Oohhh, I see what I did there. The thread is about pollution VERSES climate change. Well, I guess I mean it needs to be PART of it.

[HoneyBadger]

3. Climate change is not pollution

It is a byproduct of human development. As we as a species evolve, we live closer together and consume more power. Power consumption directly correlates to climate change. What we need to do is consume less everything. That means depopulating and deindustrialization. Negative population growth will solve most of the world's problems.

[Equinox Moon]

5. Yet, pollution is related to climate change

The pollution from coal burn, car exhaust, Tide dryer sheets exhaust...

The concept "climate change" is not reaching the populous as a scary concept. It needs more qualifiers so people understand in a short headline. IMO

[Blue Shoes]

6. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

While I think anyone reasonable know human population growth isn't sustainable, this doesn't mean that human progress isn't.

Industrialization and mechanization have drastically improved people lives, the solution is to improve them not throw them away. We have a myriad of ways to power industrialization that don't pollute or emit green house gasses. Lets not give up all the good things we've gotten simple because we bungled up one aspect of them.

[Calculating]

7. Industrialization is fine

The current human population growth is NOT fine. If the world only had 500 million people it could easily support a modern first world lifestyle for all of them without significant problems. Climate change wouldn't be nearly as big of an issue, and scarcity of resources would be unheard of.

[libtodeath]

4. I would simply make it truer by saying catastrophic climate change.

That is what is happening but until people get that part they wont worry much.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. People generally think they know what pollution is

Normally, it'll be something visible, or that you can smell. With carbon dioxide being neither, and something that is naturally in the atmosphere but at a lower amount, you really have to understand how it causes warming to accept it as 'pollution' (and with other greenhouse gases, you might get them to think of them as pollution - methane being flammable probably helps - but their amounts are small, and that means further difficulty in getting them seen as a problem). So I'm not sure that just using the word would make much difference to people's understanding or willingness to act.