> CO2 is not inherently "dirty", so I'd argue that if the headline is advocacy minded, it's probably working against itself.
This derailing tactic is working against us all. You're trying to nitpick how a term is used, without acknowledging that the term is imprecise as is. It's not relevant whether we call carbondioxide "dirty" or not; man-made emissions of it are a huge problem.
I think the parent has a valid point. What's the big deal with simply stating the facts?
When I think about dirty industry I don't think of CO2, I think of Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxide, etc. For example a Natural Gas plant that emits CO2 is not even remotely "dirty" the way that a Coal plant is. When you trivialize the issue you're training people to stop caring about pollution that actually causes acute and immediate health consequences to the people around it.
> For example a Natural Gas plant that emits CO2 is not even remotely "dirty" the way that a Coal plant is.
Wait, are you saying that because there is more than one way to be dirty (I agree, there is), then something that is (far) less dirty by being dirty in fewer of those ways can't possibly be called dirty at all? I really struggle with this logic.
This derailing tactic is working against us all. You're trying to nitpick how a term is used, without acknowledging that the term is imprecise as is. It's not relevant whether we call carbondioxide "dirty" or not; man-made emissions of it are a huge problem.