Even if it is pre-polluted, you can outsource the pollution to remote areas where the factories and electricity plants are instead of fuming around dense cities where the population lives.
... because winds are static and the greenhouse just affects the area where the pollution is created. And what about the people living there, aren't they entitled to some fresh air? And for the record, the areas are not that remote to local population centers.
The main point about climate change and everything is that you can't play ostrich and if you don't see happening it means you're gonna be ok. If the US pollutes too much (for example's sake) and the ice shelf at the North pole melts, you're gonna feel it all over the world because the water will rise equally.
Negative health effects to large populations of city dwellers PLUS global environment impact or outsourced pollution to remote areas PLUS same global impact?
It does, and it is not only greenhouse gasses but particles like soot, NOx, you don't need to tell me further. Go see how sooty old stone house walls look like in Italy or UK with all the personal diesel cars driving around.
> If the US pollutes too much (for example's sake) and the ice shelf at the North pole melts, you're gonna feel it all over the world because the water will rise equally.
"If the US pollutes too much", droughts and other rare-ish weather events in South America, Africa and South Asia will displace more people and lead to more instability. That's a much more tangible threat in our lifetimes...
