Climate change (because people were too stupid to use the phrase "global warming" without making fun of the "warming" part whenever it was remotely cold) encapsulates the need for people to care about pollution with the understanding that it may be future generations will reap the benefits in a way that "reduce pollution" does not.

Pardon? Factories have caused all sorts of problems with discharge, intentional or unintentional. Here's some from the top of my head:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster (mismanagement at a pesticide factory causes an explosion, poisoning many people and permanently contaminating the surrounding landscape).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease (a factory discharged mercury into the sea for years, where it interacted with anaerobic bacteria in the sediment to become incredibly deadly organic mercury and poisoned an entire town)

Keep in mind, these are from the top of my head and I am a nonexpert; we have environmental regulations because people have been hurt or killed by pollution numerous times.

Here's a quote that I hope will emphasize just how powerful pollution can be on an industrial scale:

> Pollution was so heavy at the mouth of the wastewater canal, a figure of 2 kg of mercury per ton of sediment was measured: a level that would be economically viable to mine. Indeed, Chisso did later set up a subsidiary to reclaim and sell the mercury recovered from the sludge.

They literally dumped enough mercury into the river to turn it into a mercury mine. If that doesn't convince you that factories haven't simply been operating with "nothing going wrong", then I don't know what to say.

https://history.com/news/epa-earth-day-cleveland-cuyahoga-ri...

I think climate change works better anyway, as global warming caused other changes, not just a rise in average temperatures

If the general public needs to be convinced of a project to save the planet climate change is not good messaging!

But a direct scientific link to ... well, almost all of those fears is totally acceptable because we love our cars?

The world... is insane.

Perhaps you could suggest a place where the pollution taxation approach has worked and the enforcement has teeth, which you would be happy to see implemented here even though it might come with short-term costs.

Taxing pollution, particularly consumer-facing taxes, has a long history of political failure, whereas subsidising clean technology has a long history of political and technical success.

The consumer should pay, because that will reduce demand.

It’s funny to see a government encourage a carbon tax to reduce fossil fuel use (high gas prices drive consumers to look for alternatives), then turn around this year and either cut gas tax or send out checks to consumers to offset higher gas prices.

Not sure any politician has the Will to follow through with it.

Then they'll be the ones overwhelmingly paying the pollution taxes.

And it doesn't mean the rich will be paying a fair share, just that they will be paying more than the poor.

You ever tried to put the drippy nasty stuff in a paper trash bag?

The cargo ship owning class of wealthy people don’t not care about laws.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-shipping-environment-imo-...