this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2025
50 points (79.8% liked)

Public Health

1097 readers
209 users here now

For issues concerning:

🩺 This community has a broader scope so please feel free to discuss. When it may not be clear, leave a comment talking about why something is important.

Related Communities

See the pinned post in the Medical Community Hub for links and descriptions. link (!medicine@lemmy.world)

Rules

Given the inherent intersection that these topics have with politics, we encourage thoughtful discussions while also adhering to the mander.xyz instance guidelines.

Try to focus on the scientific aspects and refrain from making overly partisan or inflammatory content

Our aim is to foster a respectful environment where we can delve into the scientific foundations of these topics. Thank you!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@mander.xyz
otter@lemmy.ca
50
Inhalers drive carbon emissions equivalent to 530,000 cars each year, study shows (phys.org)
submitted 1 day ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/publichealth@mander.xyz
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Inhalers are the frontline treatment for asthma and COPD, but they come with a steep environmental cost, according to a new UCLA Health study—the largest to date quantifying inhaler-related emissions in the United States.

Researchers found that inhalers have generated over 2 million metric tons of carbon emissions annually over the past decade, equivalent to the emissions of roughly 530,000 gas-powered cars on the road each year.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 0 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

but even then it doesn’t represent one industry to another

Like.. Yes it absolutely does. Thats why we move EVERYTHING to CO2e for papers like this. CO2e is the lingua franca of discussing global warming. Its how we can compare cows to cars to trees to inhalers.

If Carbon Emissions were a Pie then this would be just one incredibly tiny sliver.

So that's a totally different argument, and if it represents more emissions (from vehicles) than 15 US states, I would hardly agree with you.

If Nebraska, or New Mexico, or Idaho, announced "We're going to outlaw all internal combustion vehicles to curb greenhouse gas emissions", would you dismiss that like you are dismissing this?

At the low end, typical northwest forest pulls in almost 6 megagrams per hectare in biomass annually. To just offset just these emissions, we would need to set aside about 321 sq miles of forest. That's hardly a trivial amount.

[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Like.. Yes it absolutely does. Thats why we move EVERYTHING to CO2e for papers like this. CO2e is the lingua franca of discussing global warming. Its how we can compare cows to cars to trees to inhalers.

WE DIDN'T COMPARE CARS TO INHALERS. WE COMPARED ALL INHALERS BEING MADE TOTAL TO SOME ARBITRARY NUMBER OF CARS.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Its not an arbitrary number of cars? Did you just, not read the article (or even the headline for that matter)?

Its a specific number of which equates vehicle emissions to the CO2e of the annual number of inhalers.

The annual rate of prescribed inhalers (1.6 billion) results in about the same CO2e as ~530k annual vehicular emission. Why is this breaking your brain?