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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah but consumers already have choices when it comes to fossil fuels and they’re sticking with fossil fuels.
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.
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.
right, we agree then. legislation is required.
Yeah, but again, try running on a platform of “everything you enjoy will need to be different.”
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.
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.
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.
i think we have a long road ahead of us when it comes to figuring out how to undo most of that damage
put it away, he’s in a good mood.