AQI is highly variable by locale and hour. It averages out in the end, but measuring regional and global emissions is a better way to compare disparate time periods, except for areas at the extremes.
To begin, it does accumulate in the region where it is created, but of course it diffuses over time, so 10 pollution could be 7 locally and 3 globally. The heavy elements (soot) never get very far and naturally fall out of the air. Some elements are broken down by sunlight. Some bind to rain and are washed into the ground. If pollution is constant, you reach an equilibrium in the air quality. Decreasing output slowly lowers that equilibrium and improves the air quality in the end.
Pollution was worse back then, look up smog in the 70s. We’ve introduced catalytic converters, emissions standards, etc. Most people now question why we need clean air laws because we have clean air, much like people thinking we don’t need vaccines because those diseases aren’t around.
There’s significantly less air and water pollution now than the past, with the only exception being microplastics. We haven’t found many short-term impacts from that yet, though
An estimated 7 million people worldwide die prematurely from air pollution each year.
In his final interview before handing over the special rapporteur mandate, Boyd said he struggles to makes sense of the world’s collective indifference to the suffering being caused by preventable environmental harms.
I can’t get people to bat an eyelash. It’s like there’s something wrong with our brains that we can’t understand just how grave this situation is.”
Considering back then they had asbestos, lead, etc, we’re still a lot better off now, I think. A lot of our stuff now is “this increases risk” whreas a lot of stuff then was “this causes literal organ failure”.
Pollution was probably another contributing factor; I’d be surprised if it wasn’t a lot worse in the 60s than it is now: a lot of environmental controls got put in place in the intervening decades. Remember, there was leaded gasoline everywhere, and acid rain scares and the ozone layer depletion in the 80s.
It’s a combination of many factors over time. Diet, sun exposure, smoking. Lots of things we have more information about now than we did then. Medicine is better, genetics, etc.
Sean is always cool, but I wonder how Thomas would look had he been smoking a pack a day for 20 years too.
Is this really it? I thought the non smoking would be compensated by the increased pollution of everything
I’m sure sun exposure also plays a role, everyone wears SPF 8000 sunblock now, while they were putting on tanning oil back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s
I’ll buy that for a dollar!
Calm down, Captain Kirk
Really? I thought sunblock was pretty over the top in Connery’s day.
now that’s a golden tan!
Air pollution was worse in the last century https://ourworldindata.org/outdoor-air-pollution
Thanks for the informative response. I’m a bit confused by the graphs given, that track emissions and not air quality itself. Would you know why?
AQI is highly variable by locale and hour. It averages out in the end, but measuring regional and global emissions is a better way to compare disparate time periods, except for areas at the extremes.
I would expect emissions to cumulatively impact air quality, is that not the case?
To begin, it does accumulate in the region where it is created, but of course it diffuses over time, so 10 pollution could be 7 locally and 3 globally. The heavy elements (soot) never get very far and naturally fall out of the air. Some elements are broken down by sunlight. Some bind to rain and are washed into the ground. If pollution is constant, you reach an equilibrium in the air quality. Decreasing output slowly lowers that equilibrium and improves the air quality in the end.
Thanks, that’s very informative!
Pollution was worse back then, look up smog in the 70s. We’ve introduced catalytic converters, emissions standards, etc. Most people now question why we need clean air laws because we have clean air, much like people thinking we don’t need vaccines because those diseases aren’t around.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States)
Which is funny because those diseases are still around since they flare up when people stop taking vaccines.
There’s significantly less air and water pollution now than the past, with the only exception being microplastics. We haven’t found many short-term impacts from that yet, though
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/07/un-expert-human-rights-climate-crisis-economy
I was thinking of PFAS, pesticides, ultra-processed food and such
Considering back then they had asbestos, lead, etc, we’re still a lot better off now, I think. A lot of our stuff now is “this increases risk” whreas a lot of stuff then was “this causes literal organ failure”.
Pollution was probably another contributing factor; I’d be surprised if it wasn’t a lot worse in the 60s than it is now: a lot of environmental controls got put in place in the intervening decades. Remember, there was leaded gasoline everywhere, and acid rain scares and the ozone layer depletion in the 80s.
Connery also grew in the wake of WW2, that kind of stress ages you early
It’s a combination of many factors over time. Diet, sun exposure, smoking. Lots of things we have more information about now than we did then. Medicine is better, genetics, etc.
Oh ya, because removing lead from the air made it so much worse. /s