• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    62
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    contrary to climate change we actually took that one seriously.

    we humans are very much able to solve all of our (human made) problems perfectly well, no matter how bad things are looking.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      502 months ago

      Eh. The solution to the ozone layer was to replace refrigerant A with refrigerant B. A 1:1 swap that required very little effort from anybody.

      Getting off fossil fuels more or less mandates an entire global paradigm shift in how we do basically everything. The entire global economy of the past 200 years has been built off an unsustainable energy source.

      Sure, we can replace gas with batteries, but every step of the way is going to require small changes in how people do things, and they’re going to be very resistant to that.

      • lime!
        link
        fedilink
        English
        362 months ago

        the key was that the producers had to be forced to take action, as consumers had very little agency in choosing cfcs.

        no ad campaign for individual responsibility there, as there was really nothing you could do.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          32 months ago

          Yeah but consumers already have choices when it comes to fossil fuels and they’re sticking with fossil fuels.

          • lime!
            link
            fedilink
            English
            72 months ago

            my point is that the consumers are not where change starts. it’s cheaper to run ad campaigns than it is to change the production process, but for CFCs they couldn’t do that.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Oh sure. I agree with that. Obviously many people have limited options.

              I just think think it’s a monumentally bigger ask no matter where the change has to be made (policy or individual choice).

              Like our best solution for transportation (in the US at least) is to just keep making larger free ways. Even gas powered buses running on decades old technology could make a significant impact on the climate crisis, but people either don’t want to ride them or cities don’t want to build them.

              Any way, I’m just frustrated with the attitude that we’re going to technology our way out of this hole without needing to change or sacrifice anything (like we pulled off with ozone).

              When it comes to energy use, there’s such a thing induced demand. If it’s cheaper, people will use it more. Hell, look at how much energy it takes to use AI to write an email.

              There’s no induced demand with refrigerants.

              • lime!
                link
                fedilink
                English
                12 months ago

                right, we agree then. legislation is required.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  12 months ago

                  Yeah, but again, try running on a platform of “everything you enjoy will need to be different.”

      • @PenisDuckCuck9001
        link
        English
        12 months ago

        If refrigerant reacts with/eats away at the ozone layer, why is there such a big hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          72 months ago

          Gases we emit into the atmosphere are well mixed over the whole globe in a relatively short time span over a few years or faster. So these refrigerants are in the same concentration over Antarctica as over inhabitated land. However, the ozone depletion effect of the gases is dependent on a lot of factors. One of them are stratospheric clouds, which seem to be one reason for the hole above Antarctica.

    • Daemon Silverstein
      link
      fedilink
      English
      62 months ago

      I’m somewhat pessimistic. Even if humans zeroed every single pollution, it won’t be free on us, there’s a bill to be paid, and Mother Nature will effectively charge us for this debt. And it’ll not be cheap.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        72 months ago

        humans are ingenious and adaptable. but we will have to get up from our collective asses to make any viable solution happen.

        a fire is lit under us and i think its a matter of time, the sooner the better.

        • Daemon Silverstein
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 months ago

          Yeah, yeah, I’m not condemning the action, the action IS needed. Like you said, the sooner the better. What I’m saying is that mankind accumulated environmental charges and felony, from decades of past and ongoing pollution, and these charges won’t be dropped by Mother Nature as the cosmic living judgess: we’ll still face serious consequences (we’re already facing it, with increased temperatures around the globe, intense floods, and other climate disasters) even if we managed to zero pollutions today.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 months ago

            i think we have a long road ahead of us when it comes to figuring out how to undo most of that damage

    • GHiLA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      42 months ago

      meanwhile, the temperature

      put it away, he’s in a good mood.

  • Sibbo
    link
    fedilink
    English
    32 months ago

    Only if it doesn’t get ripped open by satellites burning up at high altitude again.