Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

euph_22 t1_iu7o4m4 wrote

On the one hand, a win is a win. Cleaner air is great.

On the other, is there any data that shows the was a greater improvement in cities with monitors than those without? Of course if it is just a broader trend that everyone's air is getting better, that is even more reason to celebrate. It just means this particular relationship is pure coincidence.

7

mfb- t1_iu87kno wrote

> is there any data that shows the was a greater improvement in cities with monitors than those without?

Yes, the article discusses that:

> To study this, they used satellite data to look at air pollution in 466 cities in 136 countries, of which 50 cities across 36 countries received the air-quality monitors by 2020. They looked at the air pollution in all of these cities in the years before and after the monitors were installed, using the years prior to installation and the cities that did not receive monitors as controls.

> [...] compared to their air quality before getting the monitor and to other similar cities that do not have a monitor.

11

likeforreddit t1_iu7q0dv wrote

Tons of data is collected without monitors.

Trust me bro

0

euph_22 t1_iu7vufc wrote

You can put an air quality monitor on a building that is not a US Embassy. You can even put them away from any building at all.

The data is out there, it's just not mentioned at all in the article.

1

bilateralrope t1_iu9s1bz wrote

>You can put an air quality monitor on a building that is not a US Embassy.

Yes, you can.

​

But it's also an issue of trust. Who can be trusted to release accurate data about air quality if the government of the country prefers to ignore the problem ?

Pressuring an embassy, especially a US embassy, to alter their data before releasing it will only attract more attention.

0