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

41–50 of 181 posts

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#41

Post by 5e92cb50239222b »

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

We've been observing for more than a year now how well that works in practice. Don't overestimate your abilities.

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#42

Post by christkv »

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…

[flagged]

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#43

Post by Pxtl »

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…

Realistically, China is playing both sides here and everybody knows it. On the one hand, they know there's no real political consequence for polluting yet - they're happy to loot the commons as hard as they can.

On the other hand, China is also investing a furious amount of money into green tech, doing multiple moonshots at a time on this stuff. So when the world does start to enforce standards globally, they'll be in the winning position.

So in this era where nobody is putting in an earnest effort on climate change, they're winnning... and the day we switch over to caring and enforcing the rules globally, they'll keep on winning.

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#44

Post by asperous »

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 don't have to trust their numbers, we have satellites that can monitor the emission levels.

The US pollutes at roughly twice the amount on a per person basis as China. In addition we "outsource" some of our pollution to them by them doing our manufacturing.

It's tough to both raise the standard of living (reduce poverty) while also reducing pollution but China has a lot of initiatives to be more green; for examples 150 new nuclear reactors planned in the next 15 years. They benefit from the better air quality so it's a goal for them.

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#45

Post by dsfyu404ed »

bluGill wrote: post #40
hammock wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>as a kid I heard it more than once, but now few admit the scare existed.

People very rarely admit to backing the wrong horse that. Nobody will tell you they sold AAPL and MSFT stock in the 90s. Nobody will tell you they believed the racist propaganda back in the 60s. Nobody will tell you they believed Iraq had WMDs in the 00s. Nobody will tell you that they believed the people who were saying Long Island would soon be under ice in the 70s.

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#46

Post by Pxtl »

dimitrios1 wrote: post #13
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…

[flagged]

How is "Accelerate the wealth generation in developing nations" an alt-right idea?

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#47

Post by marcinzm »

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…

Last I checked China, India, etc. still have a much lower per capita carbon footprint than the US.

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#48

Post by munk-a »

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…

I might suggest the slightly less difficult thing that I think could be reasonably politically accomplished. Introduce carbon tariffs on goods imported from dirty countries to make their products less competitive and provide an incentive to clean up manufacturing.

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#49

Post by bluGill »

anonym29 wrote: post #17
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…

I understand that pointing out problems in complex systems without proposing a solution is ultimately indifferent from eloquent bitching, which I can certainly be fairly accused of. That said, what the west is currently doing to address climate change - analogous to cheering for the people trying to push a derailed 130-ton freight car back onto the rail tracks with unassisted manpower alone - is not a solution either…

The west is moving to renewable energy quickly. It will take time, but we have made a lot of progress and are making more.

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#50

Post by eloff »

dashundchen wrote: post #39
hammock wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Yes, but the point is the danger from the warming contribution is less than the danger from an ozone hole, so why focus on the warming? Unless the ozone depletion is below the recovery rate.
Post reply on HN