• ch00f@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    2 months ago

    Eh. The solution to the ozone layer was to replace refrigerant A with refrigerant B. A 1:1 swap that required very little effort from anybody.

    Getting off fossil fuels more or less mandates an entire global paradigm shift in how we do basically everything. The entire global economy of the past 200 years has been built off an unsustainable energy source.

    Sure, we can replace gas with batteries, but every step of the way is going to require small changes in how people do things, and they’re going to be very resistant to that.

    • lime!@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      2 months ago

      the key was that the producers had to be forced to take action, as consumers had very little agency in choosing cfcs.

      no ad campaign for individual responsibility there, as there was really nothing you could do.

      • ch00f@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah but consumers already have choices when it comes to fossil fuels and they’re sticking with fossil fuels.

        • lime!@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          my point is that the consumers are not where change starts. it’s cheaper to run ad campaigns than it is to change the production process, but for CFCs they couldn’t do that.

          • ch00f@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Oh sure. I agree with that. Obviously many people have limited options.

            I just think think it’s a monumentally bigger ask no matter where the change has to be made (policy or individual choice).

            Like our best solution for transportation (in the US at least) is to just keep making larger free ways. Even gas powered buses running on decades old technology could make a significant impact on the climate crisis, but people either don’t want to ride them or cities don’t want to build them.

            Any way, I’m just frustrated with the attitude that we’re going to technology our way out of this hole without needing to change or sacrifice anything (like we pulled off with ozone).

            When it comes to energy use, there’s such a thing induced demand. If it’s cheaper, people will use it more. Hell, look at how much energy it takes to use AI to write an email.

            There’s no induced demand with refrigerants.

              • ch00f@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Yeah, but again, try running on a platform of “everything you enjoy will need to be different.”

      • lurker2718@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        Gases we emit into the atmosphere are well mixed over the whole globe in a relatively short time span over a few years or faster. So these refrigerants are in the same concentration over Antarctica as over inhabitated land. However, the ozone depletion effect of the gases is dependent on a lot of factors. One of them are stratospheric clouds, which seem to be one reason for the hole above Antarctica.