> 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.
CO2 is plant food. It's amazing how the spin has affected so many generations. Much much worse than that for the environment are particulates from incomplete combustion, NOx from poor combustion, et cetera.
I'm not sure the problem is how 'dirty' a source is, whatever you think that means. What's important is how much that source increases the net carbon content in our atmosphere. Unless you're burning wood (which is a vanishingly small proportion of all carbon release) you're releasing carbon that was bound on geological timescales, which is massively changing that balance.
