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 still haven’t answered the core question. You called the headline “misleading,” but you have not shown:
a) the number is wrong b) the CO2e to cars conversion is wrong c) missing context that would change the conclusion
Your replies keep circling the same move: you dislike that the article points out something bad about inhalers, so you attack the framing. That is an emotional reaction, not a technical critique.
Shifting denominators after the fact, tone policing, and guessing intent, ad hominem about the author or myself: None of that shows a defect in the headline.
If you think it is sensationalist, quote the exact clause that creates a false impression and provide the corrected wording and denominator. If you cannot do that, then you have not supported “misleading.” Dislike is not an argument, which is all you’ve offered so far.
And “in too deep” bit: Bruh. Its like two days later. You can’t have it both ways.