Seems like they improved a lot in the air quality in Beijing recently. So they may be migrating to more conscious production as well.

Everything gets toxic, even Oxygen, it all comes down to it's particular concentration levels, so no. It's not just "opinion".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity

That is more to do with healthcare than improved environments though.

I swear you ignored the evidence I provided earlier.
The sea levels rise by about 2.3mm per year and sometimes it will increase by up-to 11.6mm a year.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

40% of the worlds population lives in coastal areas.

NASA has seen an accelerated increase in sea-levels rise. (Basic thermodynamics come into play, the greater the warming, the more a liquid expands.)
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating/

3.2mm increase over a 30 year period is 3.77 inches.
That is actually significant.

12 island nations are under threat as we speak:
http://www.climatedata.info/impacts/sea-levels/pacific-islands/

We have lost 5 solomon islands already.
http://theconversation.com/sea-level-rise-has-claimed-five-whole-islands-in-the-pacific-first-scientific-evidence-58511

By 2090 it is expected that sea levels will have increased by 45-82cm over 1986 levels.
https://coastadapt.com.au/climate-change-and-sea-level-rise-australian-region

Here is some good mapping data on areas that will be significantly impacted within the next 50 years....
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/ng-interactive/2017/nov/03/three-degree-world-cities-drowned-global-warming

If 10's of millions of people being displaced is something you are willing to downplay... Wow.

We can only expect water treatment to happen in developed nations that can afford such expensive approaches.

But the issue is with us today with or without water treatment.

India has 80% of it's surface water currently polluted.
https://www.kent.co.in/blog/the-most-polluted-rivers-of-india/

Even in places like Australia, shit management of our river systems, increases in toxins and lack of water flows are resulting in river systems under strain.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/18/the-darling-will-die-scientists-say-mass-fish-kill-due-to-over-extraction-and-drought

Even something like the Mississippi River in the USA is pretty grotty.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ae3gj8/the-mississippi-river-was-a-toxic-mess-long-before-the-oil-spill

Less than 5% of water in Beijing is drinkable, which supports 15~ million people.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/jun/02/china-water-dangerous-pollution-greenpeace

Clearly those water treatment facilities you promote are doing fuck all.

I did provide evidence about the extent of deaths from pollution prior. But if you are going to demand evidence for my claims, I am going to expect it from you going forth.

https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/

I never once stated we need less industrialization.

And are you seriously asking for more pollution as a solution to our problems? Are you nuts?

It's not about the "compassion" of mother nature. (Such a thing doesn't exist anyway.)

Erm... Green energy can be cheaper and more reliable anyway.

I.E. Geothermal, Nuclear, Hydro, Solar Thermal can provide really good base-load power generation rather than more intermittent sources like wind, wave and photovoltaic solar.

So there ain't no issue with keeping the lights on.

Here we have ample supplies of wind generation as we have the trade winds from the west, we capture that energy to create hydrogen, which we then store for when the wind stops blowing to generate energy.
We also have the worlds largest battery to level the grid in times of energy production drops. (As it takes time to spin up a coal/diesel/gas plant.)

- As as a Hazmat technician I am required to be educated on the various "hazards" that get shipped around as I am the first responder to clean it up.

Besides, being "green" doesn't mean getting rid of coal, diesel or gas power generation anyway, I think that is ultimately the part you don't understand, being green does not and has not ever meant getting rid of all industrialization.

The budget will balance out in the long term. - The Health System here is universal, so the Taxpayer picks up the tab, healthier environments, less healthcare costs.

Some plants here have planted man-made forests as carbon-capture devices, installed filters on their smoke stacks to capture the carbon and then used that carbon for other commercial/industrial means or stored it underground.
http://www.ccsassociation.org/what-is-ccs/

Some plastics and cements get CO2 added into it's mixture to improve it for example.

Nah.

The term you're looking for here I believe is "lethal concentration" and we're far away from that ... (CO2 is only starts being problematic at concentrations above 2000 ppm and we're currently only just over 400 ppm) 

I tackled the idea of pollution being harmful from both a legal and a medical perspective so what's next ? 

Industrialization leads to improved healthcare and there's a very high correlation between how industrialized a nation is and the quality of their healthcare ... 

I didn't ignore the evidence you provided, I argued your concerns behind it ... 

The sea level rise over time isn't all that significant. We're pretty much headed for a rise of ~0.5-0.83m by the end of this century which is OVER 80 YEARS away ... 

Also as far as 10's of millions of people been displaced why do you assume that the people who live on those places most at risk currently will stay at the same place for over 80 years ? They'll have decades to create new settlements ...

@Bold On the contrary I'd argue otherwise according to WHO data. The amount of drinkable water is not a good measure of water quality. You'd want to take a look at waterborne illnesses ... 

There's a strong positive correlation between industrialization and per capita waterborne illnesses. While China may not be perfect in it's drinking water, their treatment facilities do make a real difference in keeping their citizen's drinking water safe as much as possible while South Asia and Africa by comparison have vastly higher waterborne related illnesses per capita ... 

It's why India should model themselves after China if they want their people to contract waterborne illnesses ~38x less likely than they do now ... 

It should be noted that WHO data regarding "death from air pollution" is mostly 'extrapolated' data in this case rather than 'reported' data ... 

When we look at the DALYs attributable to ambient air pollution, it's nowhere scary as you would put it. If we take China for an example they have a DALY of 1830 years per 100000 people and they have a life expectancy of 76.25 years. If they had no air pollution then it get's increased to a whopping 76.27 years which doesn't matter all that much! 

For comparison China had a life expectancy of under 45 years in the 1960s which was just before they started mass industrializing. That's 30 additional years of life expectancy they've gained due to industrialization even if we factor in the air pollution as well! 

@Bold If more pollution leads to a payoff in more industrialization then sure why not ? The numbers are at my side ... 

Geothermal and hydropower are at near maximum capacity. Solar thermal energy may need consistent supply of water and there's distribution issues since the power transferred over long lines are lost. Nuclear power is high maintenance and has very long lead times so what's stopping them from truly proliferating is the fact that current reactor designs needs active water cooling which is very high pressure currently ... 

At most from these sources which are geothermal, hydro, nuclear, and wind you could optimistically meet roughly 50% of the energy demands among the public so it's not worth getting on the bad side of an electric company ...

CCS isn't a silver bullet. Not all plants can be located close to a storage location so for many out there CCS isn't an option ... 

Given all that has happened so far the industrialists remains unconvinced with the solutions proposed by the greens thus they should "split up" and seek "their own idea of progress" ... 

Industrialization at the expense of more pollution is the prevailing view of the world in the foreseeable future and has been for over a hundred years ...