Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Levels of banned CFCs rising

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 181 posts

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#31

Post by nemo44x »

anonym29 wrote: post #12
brianwawok wrote: post #3

Why can it not be countries that don't care just using CFCs still?

China is mentioned as having been a likely culprit in the past. I don't understand why Westerners are so keen to make major sacrifices to quality of life in the name of fighting climate change when nothing we do will make a statistically significant impact in the long run with major population centers like China, India, and Nigeria continuing to grow more wealthy with rapidly increasing demand for reliable, 24/7 ener…

We just need to convince all the people in poor and up and coming countries to stay poor.

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#32

Post by Robotbeat »

hammock wrote: post #26
ryanblakeley wrote: post #2

> The collective annual warming effect of these five chemicals on the planet is equivalent to the emissions produced by a small country like Switzerland. > When CFCs were phased out, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) were brought in as substitutes. But CFCs can crop up as unintended by-products during HFC manufacture. > The appearance of CFC-13 is much more baffling. “We really have no clue” where the emissions are coming fr…

>The collective annual warming effect of these five chemicals on the planet is equivalent to the emissions produced by a small country like Switzerland. Why is warming effect what matters here? During the original CFC crisis, it was the hole in the ozone layer we were more worried about.

They both matter, and the ozone hole has started to heal whereas global warming is getting much worse. 40 years ago, the CO2 level was also only 345ppm or so compared to 420ppm today and rising much more rapidly than in the 80s, so overall warming is becoming more acute.

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#33

Post by babypuncher »

anonym29 wrote: post #12
brianwawok wrote: post #3

Why can it not be countries that don't care just using CFCs still?

China is mentioned as having been a likely culprit in the past. I don't understand why Westerners are so keen to make major sacrifices to quality of life in the name of fighting climate change when nothing we do will make a statistically significant impact in the long run with major population centers like China, India, and Nigeria continuing to grow more wealthy with rapidly increasing demand for reliable, 24/7 ener…

The ban on CFCs has been a huge success and likely prevented an awful lot of melanoma.

It's a similar story with leaded gasoline.

I'll never understand this argument. "Why should we care about our health if {insert poor country here} doesn't care about theirs"? It's just a convenient excuse to keep making the problem worse and worse. The correct solution here is to find the culprits and pressure them into complying with international goals, not just give up and turn the Earth into an inhospitable furnace.

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#34

Post by rcme »

nluken wrote: post #18
anonym29 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is mentioned as having been a likely culprit in the past. I don't understand why Westerners are so keen to make major sacrifices to quality of life in the name of fighting climate change when nothing we do will make a statistically significant impact in the long run with major population centers like China, India, and Nigeria continuing to grow more wealthy with rapidly increasing demand for reliable, 24/7 ener…

I mean what do you propose western nations do? Nothing? Yeah stupid measures like removing straws from restaurants make 0 difference, but pushing for more fuel efficient vehicles and cleaner sources of electricity seems like a worthwhile effort without much QoL sacrifice. Green infrastructure (i.e. reducing car dependence) also seems to improve quality of life in many places, so I would argue we should be trying to d…

I think it's pretty clear that the only two outcomes of this scenario are societal destruction via climate catastrophe or we find a way to cleanly 1000x our energy production.

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#35

Post by Leary »

anonym29 wrote: post #12
brianwawok wrote: post #3

Why can it not be countries that don't care just using CFCs still?

China is mentioned as having been a likely culprit in the past. I don't understand why Westerners are so keen to make major sacrifices to quality of life in the name of fighting climate change when nothing we do will make a statistically significant impact in the long run with major population centers like China, India, and Nigeria continuing to grow more wealthy with rapidly increasing demand for reliable, 24/7 ener…

If you look at cumulative historical emissions, whether CO2 or HFCs, it is the West that produced the majority of the pollutants that is currently in the atmosphere. The west, therefore should bare the majority of the responsibility for their actions since they produced this tremendous externality when they were industrializing.

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#36

Post by smoldesu »

hammock wrote: post #27
nluken wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean what do you propose western nations do? Nothing? Yeah stupid measures like removing straws from restaurants make 0 difference, but pushing for more fuel efficient vehicles and cleaner sources of electricity seems like a worthwhile effort without much QoL sacrifice. Green infrastructure (i.e. reducing car dependence) also seems to improve quality of life in many places, so I would argue we should be trying to d…

>I mean what do you propose western nations do? Nothing? We could compel China and other countries, by diplomatic and other means

That sorta requires you to lead by example, first.

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#37

Post by dbg31415 »

I find that the US is very lenient when it comes to inspecting environmental practices. What is it, most oil rigs get inspected 5% as often as they should? I forget the number, and I'm just quoting some movie... someone will know, but it was a very small number.

China shows a blatant disregard for the environment.

Russia also seems to have no concern for environmental protection.

India may not have the financial means to prioritize environmental protection.

It's likely that some places that previously used banned chemicals simply hoarded them or purchased them at a lower price once other countries began enforcing bans.

It's not surprising that banned chemicals are still being used, and the same will likely happen with gasoline.

As we shift towards electric vehicles, the price of gas will decrease, making it more difficult to move away from petroleum-based products. As a result, anyone still "developing" will inevitably use more petroleum than they did before.

It's disheartening to say, but we're in a tough spot when it comes to the environment. I can't really envision any scenario in which short-term greed (even spanning one lifetime) doesn't destroy humanity.

And are we even able to transition off petroleum? States like California and Texas already have massive power grid issues.... and that's with sub 5% of the vehicles drawing power.

Think a Republican President would have even paused to make sure his pen worked before approving the Willow Project? Pretty hard to go against a state that overwhelmingly wants more jobs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/12/climate/biden-willow-arct...

It's a bleak situation.

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#38

Post by anonym29 »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #22
AlecSchueler wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sort of ignores the global nature of our supply chains though. Someone can be very green in life here in the EU because all the products they buy are manufactured in China and their environmental impact is externalised and put onto the stats of another country that's trying to meet our demands. By regulating what's available on markets here we can pressure maufacturers elsewhere. What is the alternative you woul…

Do the difficult thing. Stop buying from China. As consumers, buy things with a transparent supply chain. Look for ESG reports on the companies you buy from. The hard part of this is it requires consumers to be educated and act. This almost never happens unless the costs for not acting are built into the prices of goods. Doing that requires political will. It's going to make a lot of people very angry; and we're not…

>The hard part of this is it requires consumers to be educated and act.

Agreed 100%.

>Doing that requires political will. It's going to make a lot of people very angry; and we're not talking indulgences in the form of cap & trade, either.

Also an astute observation. It may be the case that this is ultimately a problem with our political system first and foremost.

But economic sanctions alone will not halt the manufacturing base of an economy the size of China's.

China and India need to get on board for real. Asking politely is not working. I'll never advocate for the initiation of force, but something is going to need to change in a big way to convince these countries to join us in a fight that will strip all of us of a little short-term prosperity, if we want to leave a planet that our great grandchildren can safely habitate.

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#39

Post by dashundchen »

hammock wrote: post #26
ryanblakeley wrote: post #2

> The collective annual warming effect of these five chemicals on the planet is equivalent to the emissions produced by a small country like Switzerland. > When CFCs were phased out, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) were brought in as substitutes. But CFCs can crop up as unintended by-products during HFC manufacture. > The appearance of CFC-13 is much more baffling. “We really have no clue” where the emissions are coming fr…

>The collective annual warming effect of these five chemicals on the planet is equivalent to the emissions produced by a small country like Switzerland. Why is warming effect what matters here? During the original CFC crisis, it was the hole in the ozone layer we were more worried about.

Because it's non-negligible source of warming greenhouse gases that is completely avoidable - we have plenty of substitutes available to us with lower global warming potential. Releasing 1 kg of CFC-13 will trap the same amount of heat as 14,000 kg of CO2.

Project Drawdown lists managing refrigerants as one of the top 10 solutions to limit warming in both 1.5 and 2C scenarios.

https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/table-of-solutions

https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/refrigerant-management

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#40

Post by bluGill »

hammock wrote: post #26
ryanblakeley wrote: post #2

> The collective annual warming effect of these five chemicals on the planet is equivalent to the emissions produced by a small country like Switzerland. > When CFCs were phased out, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) were brought in as substitutes. But CFCs can crop up as unintended by-products during HFC manufacture. > The appearance of CFC-13 is much more baffling. “We really have no clue” where the emissions are coming fr…

>The collective annual warming effect of these five chemicals on the planet is equivalent to the emissions produced by a small country like Switzerland. Why is warming effect what matters here? During the original CFC crisis, it was the hole in the ozone layer we were more worried about.

Both matter, though warming wasn't considered a big deal, the media was still coming away from warning about a coming ice age (i've never figured out what was going on there, as a kid I heard it more than once, but now few admit the scare existed). The ozone hole was a big deal.

Now that CFCs are banned the ozone layer is recovering. I'm guessing these emissions are not really enough to harm the ozone layer much (so long as they don't get worse!), but they add to greenhouse gases that are not in control.

Post reply on HN