well its cause they didn't produce it
There are a number of reasons why banning pollution is just as bad as not banning it. Pollution is caused by creating and using items people use to survive like cars for example.
New fueling stations that can handle hydrogen would have to be built.
It would cause pollution because it would harm men or animals using the land, and would contaminate food produced on the land. However this is not allowed to happen, nuclear waste is carefully controlled and confined to waste stores designed for the purpose
Hydrogen is the simplest element in the universe. Combining hydrogen and oxygen in a fuel cell would produce energy without pollution.
Yes
We have a freed the lake from pollution
It effects them because when the hydrogen bonds form the pollution will also go into the formation too.
hydrogenA2:Coal is the fuel that produces the least pollution among the choices. Hydrogen would be the least polluting except for the reality that hydrogen is produced by burning coal to produce electricity to electrolyse water. Only if the electricity used to produce the hydrogen were produced by hydro, wind or solar, would hydrogen be less polluting than coal.
if someone knew they would have built it already
If a person could eliminate crime or pollution, they should choose pollution. Pollution in the air can affect the lungs and may cause people to get sick and die.
Adding more hydrogen would cause more acidity thus a lower pH value.
It would cause pollution to sea and the oil would poison fish and sea gulls.