41–50 of 127 posts
If only we could get such swift global action on greenhouse emissions. Both problems are essentially the same yet the difference in action couldn't be wider.
Tacking climate change is asking everyone to stop using energy (as we know it) which is fundamentally existential.
They're not in the same category of proportional impact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How much CFC production was accounted for in the models that predicted the O3 layer healing? I thought ozone layer density (is that the right term?) was directly measurable? https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-scienc...
Yes, and it is not even that hard. But we cannot measure the future, thus we use models to predict, and those need inputs (such as emitted CFCs) which can be wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You would think China with all that control over businesses and their population could prevent people from polluting their rivers with plastic and spewing it into the Pacific Ocean!
Systemic corruption makes the rule of law "difficult" to enforce. And by difficult I mean this is a feature not a bug for the huge interconnected web of power that actually runs the country. PS: The fact China is not a democracy which has some unpleasant results: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does he have data to back up those claims?
I guess I'm more looking for a response to "yes CFCs can destroy ozone even though they are heavier than air," and "here is a graph of the size of the ozone vs space shuttle reentries" that shows a non-correlation.
If only we could get such swift global action on greenhouse emissions. Both problems are essentially the same yet the difference in action couldn't be wider.
Even if you fully accept that regulating CO2 is a good idea, the beneficial effects of that action will barely be noticeable for decades.
If only we could get such swift global action on greenhouse emissions. Both problems are essentially the same yet the difference in action couldn't be wider.
They are not really the same: eliminate the accidental release of niche refrigerant substances for which substitutes are available, versus the mass spewage of CO2 and hydrocarbons. Note that refrigerants can be substituted without changing the refrigeration hardware at all. No infrastructure changes are required. There is no "tech stack disruption" at all.
I know this because I tried several of newest quietest models before discovering ammonia absorption cooling.
But the BBC reported earlier this year that somebody is cheating and making CFC-11 - banned by the Montreal Protocol. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44138984
CFC-11 boils at 24C. CFC-12 boils at -30C.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Systemic corruption makes the rule of law "difficult" to enforce. And by difficult I mean this is a feature not a bug for the huge interconnected web of power that actually runs the country. PS: The fact China is not a democracy which has some unpleasant results: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
All it takes is one party member (out of 80M) lodging a complaint with the central committee.
Quick, do a good job and renovate everything, hide or move anything annoying or embarrassing while the boss is here is part of Chinese management everywhere from Xi Jinping on down. Supervision and management are hard, especially when your subordinates are constantly shading the truth and covering things up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is another major difference: Fossil fuels contribute a lot of energy to the needs of people and organizations. Solar and wind will take time to take over the infrastructure. CFCs on the other hand could be much more easily replaced.
That's the key part. What CPC case teaches us, is that if we could find a good alternative to Fossil fuels, we could likely eliminate their use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You would think China with all that control over businesses and their population could prevent people from polluting their rivers with plastic and spewing it into the Pacific Ocean!
Systemic corruption makes the rule of law "difficult" to enforce. And by difficult I mean this is a feature not a bug for the huge interconnected web of power that actually runs the country. PS: The fact China is not a democracy which has some unpleasant results: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
Funny thing is, people say one party system is not a democracy. What about USA's two party system? Both of them have representatives elected by people (baring the violence).
But in both, people can't realistically get a new party in government, let alone run the country. Yet new parties get elected in other parts of the world, even if they don't run the government as a majority.