> I mean, obviously nuclear war was averted because we ended the cold war (we changed our behavior). I had a very spirited argument the other day about whether

> I mean, obviously nuclear war was averted because we ended the cold war (we changed our behavior). I had a very spirited argument the other day about whether a unipolar world is actually more stable than a multipolar world, or not. The threat of nuclear war is ever-present, even if it is less serious now than it was in the 60s. I’m not sure where you get “obviously” in this claim. > I believe the hole in the ozone layer was fixed by banning CFCs The alternative explanation (which I’m sure you will be able to find a “debunking” of somewhere) is that ozone is regenerated very quickly, and the “hole” (it really was never more than a “thin spot”) in the Antarctic has improved because the South Pole is exposed to just a little more solar energy now. CFCs probably do make some difference, but they are very heavy molecules and would not accumulate much in the upper atmosphere: https://news.mit.edu/2021/cfc-atmosphere-ozone-0518 https://news.mit.edu/2021/cfc-atmosphere-ozone-0518 (Note: That article has some data that could support this theory, but it does not reach the same conclusion. You are nevertheless encouraged to think for yourself.)