&gt;Is it an analogous dynamic if the cure for almost all of the emergencies in the basket is reduction in harmful levels of pollution including inefficient farming&#x2F;manufacturing&#x2F;transport methods, noting the associated benefits such as food security that comes with unpolluted waterways in poor villages, not acidifying oceans, not tainting arable land with heavy metals etc? Belief in a certain God among many seems more variable than reduce pollution, aim for zero.<p>But what you really want is a method of weighing the harm of a given amount of pollution against the benefit.  &quot;Reduce it&quot; doesn&#x27;t translate into a heuristic for deciding which uses should be targeted first, and regresses to the original problem of &quot;for which crisis is it okay to emit an additional unit of pollution to emit in service of fighting?&quot;