Live data from Hacker News

Levels of banned CFCs rising

nature.com

171–180 of 181 posts

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 manufac…

Really enjoyed reading your writing. Do you have any other outlets?

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do have a worse starting point, but as another commenter has pointed out, we're trending in the right direction and China is trending in the wrong direction. Part of the solution is necessarily going to be temporary reductions in American energy consumption, writ large, until we can produce technology to sustainably remove carbon emissions from the environment at scale. I'm all-in, for instance, on banning SUVs an…

"to be reduced to a level sufficient only for the sustainment of life past a certain threshold," Wow, do you hear yourself? Who decides what "threshold" is acceptable, you? You think you should be able to determine whether my infant daughter freezes in the winter or swelters in the summer? Oh I'm sure your theory involves some utopian government that never gets anything wrong. What you're proposing is a dystopian pol…

>What you're proposing is a dystopian police state where the government decides how warm or cold your house should be on any given day. Of course the rich will be able to just pay any fines to keep the power/gas on, so they can blast their AC all summer while the poor swelter or go into debt to pay fines...

>Why not grocery rations while we're at it? The government will assign you the number and type of foods you're limited to...

>Also housing will be limited to a certain number of sq ft per person...

Spoiler: how rich you are already determines how warm/cold your house is allowed to be, and how large it's allowed to be, and the foods you're allowed to eat.

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#173

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?

Chronic sun exposure affects the skin differently than intermittent:https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Differential-dependence-...

If you stay indoors 95% of your time, then yes, by all means, use as much sunscreen as you can.

If you spend most of your time outside your whole life, your skin is already conditioned to deal with UV damage.

Otherwise we would have gone extinct due to skin cancer, aren't we?

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"to be reduced to a level sufficient only for the sustainment of life past a certain threshold," Wow, do you hear yourself? Who decides what "threshold" is acceptable, you? You think you should be able to determine whether my infant daughter freezes in the winter or swelters in the summer? Oh I'm sure your theory involves some utopian government that never gets anything wrong. What you're proposing is a dystopian pol…

>What you're proposing is a dystopian police state where the government decides how warm or cold your house should be on any given day. Of course the rich will be able to just pay any fines to keep the power/gas on, so they can blast their AC all summer while the poor swelter or go into debt to pay fines... >Why not grocery rations while we're at it? The government will assign you the number and type of foods you're…

To a point, but there are payment plans for people who can't make their utility bills, there are charities and soup kitchens for people who are food insecure. Also welfare and food stamps. It's not a perfect system by far but there's at least some semblance of a safety net. Also the government doesn't directly dictate how much you eat or the precise temperature of your house. If you run out of resources, the government gives you a minimum. You still have the freedom to acquire more resources if you're able, in fact it's generally expected that you try.

What these proposals are talking about is forcing people to live in poverty by government mandate to fight climate change. (So much for the war on poverty I guess, now poverty is the solution!) It's about putting a hard, government enforced ceiling on the level of prosperity one is allowed to earn, and making that ceiling lower than most peoples' current living standards. All so one individual nation can fight climate change, because there's no way the entire world is going to agree to this.

After centuries of democracy and prosperity, people will kill over that, and they would be right to. It's also ineffective and unnecessary. The amount of carbon saved would be offset by the massive internal security and enforcement departments needed to achieve any of this, and it would stifle innovation as the social/cultural motivations that encourage it in the populace are removed by government mandate. It would also kill the economy and consequently make governments poorer due to the loss in tax revenue.

I'm pretty left by American standards, but I believe in American founding principles. If that shit ever starts I'm going to be dealing in illegal wood-fired generators, and helping the more militant resistance properly encrypt/secure their communications until such time as the government is overthrown. But democracy still works here, so thankfully I can be confident enough that's never going to happen that I can post about it here.

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#175
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 manufac…

Really enjoyed reading your writing. Do you have any other outlets?

I do not, sorry if this comes as a disappointment.

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#176
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> i've never figured out what was going on there The media lying is what happened. Either because they don't know anything about any subject and misunderstood some very non-surprising papers or because somebody was paying them to lie so people wouldn't believe on global warming. It's hard to say how much of what reason. And nowadays people go scrutinize the scientific papers to find the bad ones... and there aren't a…

> And nowadays people go scrutinize the scientific papers ... and there aren't any.

That's provably not true, there are many bad scientific papers out there.

If its bad science in the first place, nothing downstream is ever going to be credible.

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#177
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> i've never figured out what was going on there The media lying is what happened. Either because they don't know anything about any subject and misunderstood some very non-surprising papers or because somebody was paying them to lie so people wouldn't believe on global warming. It's hard to say how much of what reason. And nowadays people go scrutinize the scientific papers to find the bad ones... and there aren't a…

> And nowadays people go scrutinize the scientific papers ... and there aren't any. That's provably not true, there are many bad scientific papers out there. If its bad science in the first place, nothing downstream is ever going to be credible.

There was never much scientific discussion about Earth entering an ice age. So there aren't papers there, neither good nor bad.

There was something about fixed frequency cycles on our climate, that were the source of the thing. But those don't say anything not even similar to what the press run with.

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#178
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And nowadays people go scrutinize the scientific papers ... and there aren't any. That's provably not true, there are many bad scientific papers out there. If its bad science in the first place, nothing downstream is ever going to be credible.

There was never much scientific discussion about Earth entering an ice age. So there aren't papers there, neither good nor bad. There was something about fixed frequency cycles on our climate, that were the source of the thing. But those don't say anything not even similar to what the press run with.

That's because anthropologists are very particular about their methodology, and which papers get accepted for peer review.

We've known about precession, but since these cycles occur in the tens of thousands of years, and each cycle is usually offset by some cataclysmic event, little actual evidence remains.

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I certainly advocated for action in Iraq in the early 2000s. I have a naive world view, informed I guess by a lot of 90s American media output, about America saving the world, Iraq was one of those opportunities.

I they hadn't totally botched it post invasion, maybe it would have worked too. But let's see, tell 800k armed angry men they are out of a job and tell them to "go home, please don't steal any AK47s on your way out, mmmkay thanks goodbye go home and be a good boy now"

That was definitely one of the bad ones, but I think the root problem (which continues to this day) is that US foreign policy somehow manages to blend black-and-white moral histronics with an extremely shaky grasp of morality. The US can't work with moderates and pragmatists because anybody who's less than a pro-US liberal is beyond the pale, and it can't work with idealists because it spent the whole GWOT trumpeting about its torture program.

Re: Levels of banned CFCs rising

#180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What you're proposing is a dystopian police state where the government decides how warm or cold your house should be on any given day. Of course the rich will be able to just pay any fines to keep the power/gas on, so they can blast their AC all summer while the poor swelter or go into debt to pay fines... >Why not grocery rations while we're at it? The government will assign you the number and type of foods you're…

To a point, but there are payment plans for people who can't make their utility bills, there are charities and soup kitchens for people who are food insecure. Also welfare and food stamps. It's not a perfect system by far but there's at least some semblance of a safety net. Also the government doesn't directly dictate how much you eat or the precise temperature of your house. If you run out of resources, the governme…

>but there are payment plans for people who can't make their utility bills, there are charities and soup kitchens for people who are food insecure. Also welfare and food stamps. It's not a perfect system by far but there's at least some semblance of a safety net.

Don't make me laugh.

I take it you've never actually needed to use these services? Because their 'availability' is increasingly unavailable due to bogus eligibility criteria, bureaucratic gridlock and delays, transport unavailability, etc.

The apparent presence of these services is just a pernicious lie pulled over the eyes of the well-off, in the same way that Law and Order and other 'cop-aganda' TV shows disarm their outrage about the justice system. The well-off are the only ones with the power to change the system, so (predictably) they're subject to extensive propaganda along these lines.

>Also the government doesn't directly dictate how much you eat or the precise temperature of your house.

Right. The economy is better because it generously gives you the choice of... heat or eat. Such luxury!

That distinction means you're just fine with it, apparently. So no doubt a government program that affords people the same luxurious choice should pass your muster, correct? :D

Post reply on HN