![](\"https:\/\/futureearth.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/03\/Colorado_brown-cloud.jpg\")
In other words, in this region and others, the same source of emissions packs a one-two punch. \u201cThese are some of the things that are visible right in our doorstep that people don\u2019t really think about,\u201d says Melamed, Executive Director of International Global Atmospheric Chemistry<\/a> (IGAC), a global research project of Future Earth.<\/p>\n Despite this mix, most environmental policies separate climate change from air pollution \u2013 with one set of laws addressing carbon dioxide and another addressing air pollutants like nitrogen oxides. That\u2019s something that Melamed is trying to change. In a new paper, she and her colleagues argue for a new approach to climate change and air pollution, one that recognises that these two problems are deeply connected. They\u2019re pressing scientists and government officials to ask: How can the same policy affect rising temperatures and the air people breath in mutually beneficial, or maybe contradictory, ways? The researchers published their recommendations<\/a> in December in the journal Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability<\/em>.<\/p>\n Among society at large, \u201cthe role of some of these long-lived greenhouse gases versus some of these air pollutants and where they do overlap is still not clear,\u201d says Erika von Schneidemesser, a research scientist at the Institute of Advanced Sustainability Studies in Potsdam, Germany, and a co-author of the new paper. \u201cIt\u2019s a topic that needs more awareness.\u201d<\/p>\n Overlap<\/strong><\/p>\n In part, that\u2019s because the science and policy realms often address air pollution and climate change in isolation. \u201cI think that the science is catching up slowly,\u201d von Schneidemesser says. But \u201cif you look at a lot of different government departments, whether it’s in the European Commissions or environmental protection agencies, \u2026 they will typically have some department that is focused on climate change and some department that is focused on air pollution.\u201d<\/p>\n But linking the work of those two kinds of departments can be tricky, von Schneidemesser says. Some pollutants, for example, contribute directly to rising temperatures around the globe. They include hydrofluorocarbons, a common set of compounds that are used in air conditioners and refrigerators. They are also potent greenhouse gases that trap heat in the Earth\u2019s atmosphere \u2013 so much so that a number of nations signed an agreement last year<\/a> to phase out their use.<\/p>\n Not every case is so simple, however. Take sulfur dioxide. Coal power plants and other industries expel this compound from their smokestacks. It\u2019s harmful to human health but can also work against climate change. When it gets into the atmosphere, sulfur dioxide forms particles that bounce sunlight back into space, cooling the planet. In this case, any attempt to reduce the sulfur dioxide emissions coming from power plants in China, for example, might cause the region to warm<\/a> by a little bit.<\/p>\n \u201cThere are benefits and tradeoffs,\u201d von Schneidemesser says.<\/p>\n Such contradictions can lead to potentially harmful environmental policies, von Schneidemesser adds. She points to a recent push in Europe to encourage the use of wood burning stoves<\/a> for heating houses. The thinking goes that wood burning generates less carbon dioxide than electric heating.<\/p>\n \u201cBut unless you\u2019re using the most recent, up-to-date model of stove, you\u2019re going to get a lot of particle matter emitted,\u201d she says. \u201cThat has pretty significant consequences for air quality, even though you might get some small gains for carbon dioxide.\u201d<\/p>\n Knowledge<\/strong><\/p>\n To tackle issues like these, Melamed and von Schneidemesser say that it\u2019s critical to address emissions from various sources in a holistic way. They suggest three considerations that policy-makers should think about before drafting new rules. The first is the mix of emissions \u2013 how a policy might affect a wide range of greenhouse gases and pollutants. The second is to consider how long the greenhouse gas or pollutant will last in the atmosphere, which indicates where impacts will be felt \u2013\u00a0 would a policy affect the whole planet or just single region? Finally, there are benefits and tradeoffs \u2013 whether a policy might help in the fight against climate change but harm air quality, or vice versa.<\/p>\n Such an approach could create hard choices, Melamed says, potentially creating a situation in which governments have to choose between improving air quality or combatting climate change.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re not going to preach about which one needs to be done. But you need to be aware when you make a choice what those consequences will be,\u201d Melamed says. \u201cIf improving air quality is your priority, then maybe you end up emitting more greenhouse gases. But just to know that you are making those choices.\u201d<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/futureearth.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/03\/Melamed_etal_2016.png\")