Corp.'s make good money by engineering replacements. For established profits, revenue increases are only marginal improvements. If they can get governments to g

Corp.'s make good money by engineering replacements. For established profits, revenue increases are only marginal improvements. If they can get governments to go a long with a mandate to replace something with an alternative, the profit increases are much greater. It's like a substitute for coming up with a new product. Not saying it's not beneficial, but I've seen this corporate grift too many times. They did this in the late 1980s with the need to replace CFC's with HCFC's to protect the hole in the ozone layer. Then they discovered HCFC emitted thousands of times more carbon. The cycle just keeps repeating. Again, I'm not saying these aren't necessary, but there's little in the way of cost/benefit analysis. Harmful effects are in some sense inevitable, but they should be weighed relative to the benefits added. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerant#Phasing_out_of_CFC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerant#Phasing_out_of_CFC...