> The more issues that can be shown to affect people directly that can be traced back to emissions the better.
I would have thought that "pollution kills people" was already reason enough.
Or, to look at it from the other side, if a country like China isn't going to reduce its emissions in order to stop killing people right now, why would they bother to do it to reduce some hypothetical effect on climate change over the next century? And if the answer is "well, they say they will", why would we believe them?
