New line of attack from the Cult of Climastrology, or a one off that actually kind of makes sense?
Enough About Climate Change. Air Pollution Is Killing Us Now.
Mr. Appelbaum is a member of the editorial board.
In the early weeks of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, doctors noticed a surprising silver lining: Americans were having fewer heart attacks.
One likely reason, according to an analysis published last month by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, is that people were inhaling less air pollution.
Millions of workers were staying home instead of driving to work. Americans were suddenly burning a lot less gas. And across the country, the researchers found that regions with larger drops in pollution also had larger drops in heart attacks.
I mean, Applebaum does rather have a point. Remember how clear the air was during those early days? Especially if you lived in a city? Even Raleigh, which is pretty spread out, had much cleaner air. You could tell. And, then, when things started opening up you could see the smog come back.
The low quality of the air that we breathe should be regarded as a crisis. It also presents an opportunity. The existential threat of climate change has come to dominate debates about environmental regulation. Proposals to curb emissions, once presented as public health measures, are now billed as efforts to limit global warming.
The solution to both threats is the same: We need to stop burning fossil fuels, preferably yesterday. But there is cause to wonder whether a greater focus on the immediate dangers posed by air pollution, rather than the more distant specter of global warming, might help to muster the necessary support for changes that are going to be expensive and disruptive.
Like I’ve said, I’m not against EVs, I’m against forcing citizens to purchase them, especially when they really aren’t affordable nor reliable for most. But, weaning ourselves from fossil fuels would be a good thing from an environmental point of view. It’s not the cleanest of energy sources, right? Will the climate cultists go with this argument? I doubt it. They’ve become beyond reasonable over the years. Perhaps 15 years ago they might have gone with this in order to dupe people. Not now.
There are practical reasons, too, why it may be easier to curb emissions in the name of public health than in the name of climate change. The laws authorizing environmental regulation, including the Clean Air Act of 1963, were written as public health measures. Conservative federal judges are seeking to use that history to limit the government’s ability to address climate change. When the Supreme Court in February heard arguments in a case challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, several members of the court’s conservative majority were openly skeptical that the agency has the legal authority to require the kinds of sweeping changes necessary to slow global warming.
It would be a big mistake to attempt to force this on people via executive action. They do not care, because, even this is about more governmental power over citizens. Shame. But, not unexpected.
Read: NY Times: Stop Yapping About ‘Climate Change’, Talk About Air Pollution »