Levels of banned CFCs rising • Hacker News Board

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#131

Post by trasz3 » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 8:33 PM UTC

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…

And let me guess, you’re not even aware that green every in China - eg nuclear power plants - is growing much quicker than in US?

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#132

Post by trasz3 » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 8:35 PM UTC

hammock wrote: post #101

smoldesu wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sorta requires you to lead by example, first.

Does it? The US is currently compelling Russia to give up its claims in eastern Ukraine, despite occupying whole parts of Syria and other places itself

US hasn’t invaded Syria in a colonial war. They also didn’t commit genocide in Syria.

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#133

Post by warning26 » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 8:37 PM UTC

guhidalg wrote: post #130

josephcsible wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what do you propose western nations do? Ban imports of goods made in ways that would have been illegal to do here.

Which ones should we start with? We can't go from 0 to 100 overnight, that would halt everything.

Why not? Hard stop on all noncompliant trade with China.

Would destroy the economy in the short run, but it would eventually correct.

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#134

Post by lamontcg » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 8:39 PM UTC

briantakita wrote: post #63

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.

[flagged]

- Actual glaciers are melting all over the globe and ice is going down. Yearly snowpack in an isolated area doesn't contradict the global trend.

- It is called "climate change" not "global warming" because you're dumping more energy into the system, evaporating more water and stronger storms can be one result.

- California flipping from drought to massive storms doesn't cancel out, it is evidence of increasing extremes.

- Sometimes unpopular opinions are just wrong.

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#135

Post by robocat » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 8:49 PM UTC

waboremo wrote: post #122

meindnoch wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern people barely spend time outside compared to the Romans. No wonder we're getting sunburnt when we finally go out in peak summer. If you spend most of your time outside year round, you'll develop a natural deep tan which offers considerable protection from the sun.

Why risk melanoma for a little bit of "natural protection" when sun screen exists?

AFAIK the biggest risk of melanoma occurs from sunburn. I would guess a protective tan from regular sunlight is probably healthy overall (depending on how you get your tan: confounding benefits and risks for any activity would drown out signal?). Lifestyle risks trump melanoma risks.

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#136

Post by ftrobro » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 8:55 PM UTC

Leary wrote: post #35

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…

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.

USA is the only western country in the top five for historical CO2 emissions since 1850 (unless you consider Brazil a western country):

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-his...

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#137

Post by nicoburns » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 9:03 PM UTC

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…

Why would you think that China doesn't care about climate change? It's going to affect them too after all. Per-capita, the US is still by far the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world.

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#138

Post by ikiris » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 9:03 PM UTC

warning26 wrote: post #133

guhidalg wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which ones should we start with? We can't go from 0 to 100 overnight, that would halt everything.

Why not? Hard stop on all noncompliant trade with China. Would destroy the economy in the short run, but it would eventually correct.

"If we kill all of our populace, we wont care if the world warms" isn't a very compelling argument.

What do you think destroying the economy does?

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#139

Post by hammock » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 9:04 PM UTC

trasz3 wrote: post #132

hammock wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it? The US is currently compelling Russia to give up its claims in eastern Ukraine, despite occupying whole parts of Syria and other places itself

US hasn’t invaded Syria in a colonial war. They also didn’t commit genocide in Syria.

Someone might want to tell the people of Syria.

>"The Syrian Arab Republic affirms that the practices of the United States of America and the illegal presence of its forces on parts of the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic is an actual embodiment of the crime of aggression," the Syrian Mission to the United Nations told Newsweek.

>"Syria stresses that the lies promoted by the U.S. administration are nothing but a failed attempt to justify the acts of aggression and the flagrant violation of the sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic,"

https://www.newsweek.com/syria-demands-end-americas-last-for...

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#140

Post by ticviking » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 9:05 PM UTC

guhidalg wrote: post #130

josephcsible wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what do you propose western nations do? Ban imports of goods made in ways that would have been illegal to do here.

Which ones should we start with? We can't go from 0 to 100 overnight, that would halt everything.

Start with those where the environmental impact is best known and understood.

Impose escalating tariffs on those items from any nation not meeting those goals.

We will buy less or they’ll be made more cleanly. Worst case making them in countries that make them cleanly eventually becomes profitable with the tariff protection.