3 ms·
I think the main reason the world agreed on limiting CFCs to prevent ozone depletion was because there were technological alternatives in HFCs. So adopting the
by DevX101 7y ago
I think the main reason the world agreed on limiting CFCs to prevent ozone depletion was because there were technological alternatives in HFCs. So adopting the belief that CFCs are dangerous was not that costly because we could just use something else (Notably Dupont fought viciously against ozone regulations because that would have been specifically harmful to the company).
But let's imagine for a moment if there were no technological alternatives to CFCs. Where stopping ozone depletion would actually mean giving up on refrigeration and air conditioning. A lot less people would believe that ozone depletion was a real phenomena if the natural consequence of that belief would mean giving up very valuable conveniences.
Similarly, I don't think it's a coincidence that public moral attitudes about slavery changed with the advent of agricultural mechanization.
- godelski 7y agoI think a lot of people don't realize this. That many beliefs are from culture. Which explains why you can see radical shifts in ideologies even without the "changing of the guard". Some beliefs are deeply rooted personally, but many are deeply rooted socially. But then again, it's easier to blame a single person.
- marcosdumay 7y agoExactly this. The hole on the ozone layer could be solved, so a huge political movement appeared, solved it, and got away. Compared to that, the only thing one can get from the current discussions about Global Warming is a cognitive dissonance. So people don't care, or actively do not believe. I wonder how far we could go if the political discourse changed from "how do we stop emitting GW gases?" to "how do we increase solar power 100 fold?", "how do we electrify industry and transportation?", and "how do we capture CO2 into synthetic substances?"