Epicentre - (formal) the central point of something
edit: spelling
The epicenter is not the center; it's a point above the center. It's from seismology. An earthquake's origin is beneath the earth's surface. The epicenter is the point on the surface that's directly above the origin point.
Yes, it is used like that. However, not just in english, but in many languages, epicentre is sometimes used with the meaning of "centre of something".
People in here seem to question why it's not the North, being responsible for the vast majority of emissions.
Rich countries have factories and cars, but also a technological standard and environmental regulations. Both limit the amount of air pollution (think dust particles) while greenhouse gases (like CO~2~) are something else.
Now think of a poor country with low regulations and old technology. People in slums burn literal dirt in their ovens. While they contribute almost nothing to climate change, air quality reflects the quality of fuels, ovens, engines and regulations. It's poor.
This is just a general take. I opened the article, but immediately closed it due to popups and eyesore.
You see it with everything from food quality, cigarettes, fuel. The standards set in the West prevent so much random shit we never acknowledge.
What's the global south? I'm looking at a map and it seems that the global north is the epicenter of poor air quality.
From the article, they are mentioning the Northern countries of India and Bangladesh and the equatorial country of the Congo (DRC)
I expected a bit more Argentina, South Africa and Australia if we're gonna be talking about the south.
But I guess they mean the third world countries, but that headline has been repeated too much already. And someone harked back to the cold war period and discovered global south used to be a synonym for the third world. (Because the third world had a lower average latitude than the first and second world).
It's a socio-economic term rather than a directional term, it's similar to "developing country" and is meant to be an alternative to "third world."
And it’s absolutely fucking stupid.
I still don't understand why not USA / Canada, where cars are very common
Non-CO2 pollutants are side products of combustion. A cleaner combustion reduces their amount. Cleaner combustion occurs in healthy, well engineered engines with the help of clean catalytic converters. It means that new and expansive cars are less pollutant.
That's why. Usa and Canada have better cars
This is what happens when you continue to burn coal to help lift people from poverty. There has to be a better way.
There is, but coal is cheap, when you only look at what it costs before you set it on fire.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Epicentre - (formal) the central point of something
edit: spelling
The epicenter is not the center; it's a point above the center. It's from seismology. An earthquake's origin is beneath the earth's surface. The epicenter is the point on the surface that's directly above the origin point.
Yes, it is used like that. However, not just in english, but in many languages, epicentre is sometimes used with the meaning of "centre of something".
People in here seem to question why it's not the North, being responsible for the vast majority of emissions.
Rich countries have factories and cars, but also a technological standard and environmental regulations. Both limit the amount of air pollution (think dust particles) while greenhouse gases (like CO~2~) are something else.
Now think of a poor country with low regulations and old technology. People in slums burn literal dirt in their ovens. While they contribute almost nothing to climate change, air quality reflects the quality of fuels, ovens, engines and regulations. It's poor.
This is just a general take. I opened the article, but immediately closed it due to popups and eyesore.
You see it with everything from food quality, cigarettes, fuel. The standards set in the West prevent so much random shit we never acknowledge.
What's the global south? I'm looking at a map and it seems that the global north is the epicenter of poor air quality.
From the article, they are mentioning the Northern countries of India and Bangladesh and the equatorial country of the Congo (DRC)
I expected a bit more Argentina, South Africa and Australia if we're gonna be talking about the south.
But I guess they mean the third world countries, but that headline has been repeated too much already. And someone harked back to the cold war period and discovered global south used to be a synonym for the third world. (Because the third world had a lower average latitude than the first and second world).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_North_and_Global_South
It's a socio-economic term rather than a directional term, it's similar to "developing country" and is meant to be an alternative to "third world."
And it’s absolutely fucking stupid.
I still don't understand why not USA / Canada, where cars are very common
Non-CO2 pollutants are side products of combustion. A cleaner combustion reduces their amount. Cleaner combustion occurs in healthy, well engineered engines with the help of clean catalytic converters. It means that new and expansive cars are less pollutant.
That's why. Usa and Canada have better cars
This is what happens when you continue to burn coal to help lift people from poverty. There has to be a better way.
There is, but coal is cheap, when you only look at what it costs before you set it on fire.