4 ms·

The big lesson is that CFC removal has been a massive win for humanity and that kind of categorical and decisive climate action is exactly what we need in the f

The big lesson is that CFC removal has been a massive win for humanity and that kind of categorical and decisive climate action is exactly what we need in the future! https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220321-what-happened-to-the-worlds-ozone-hole https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220321-what-happened-to... We have sadly not applied the same ideas to asbestos. We definitely need to. And to many other terrible materials that poison us and our environment all the time (like PFAS). This was not a mistake. It was a humanity saving decision. It's the blueprint to save us from the climate catastrophe.

p-e-w 3y ago
> The big lesson is that CFC removal has been a massive win for humanity and that kind of categorical and decisive climate action is exactly what we need in the future! That's one lesson. Another lesson is that when powerful people take such celebrated "decisive" action, less powerful people get trampled underfoot, in this case through potentially crippling medical costs. > This was not a mistake. It was a humanity saving decision. The phasing out of CFCs was not a mistake. The way it was implemented, however, contained many mistakes, some of which have negatively impacted many lives, as illustrated by the top-level comment.
- tmpX7dMeXU 3y ago
  The lesson is that the US’s medical system is ridiculous.
- dale_glass 3y ago
  The lesson has nothing to do with the CFC removal. The problem isn't that CFC got removed. The problem is that a new patent got granted for an insignificant change. Why that change happened in the first place doesn't matter.
  - sneak 3y ago
    No, the CFCs in medical inhalers were of insignificant quantity and should not have been changed. The new propellants are equal-to-slightly-inferior, in my experience.
    - hathchip 3y ago
      You understand that the negative consequences of changing propellants described in the top-level comment did not occur in other societies, right?
    - light_hue_1 3y ago
      Of course they should have been changed! They caused massive damage to the planet. And they continue to do so, the CFCs they emitted will be in the atmosphere for decades. https://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/crj/1998/137198.pdf https://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/crj/1998/137198.pdf In 1991 metered inhalers were responsible for 1% of all CFCs. Since then production has gone down 30-fold https://i0.wp.com/research.csiro.au/acc/wp-content/uploads/sites/257/2021/02/2021_glb-CFC-11-emiss-WMO1998-AGAGE-new-prod.png?w=1680&ssl=1 https://i0.wp.com/research.csiro.au/acc/wp-content/uploads/s... Had we done nothing, CFCs from inhalers would be something like 1/3rd of total emissions right now (simply because of the drop). But it's far worse. The world population is much higher now, and healthcare is much more accessible around the world. India, China, the Philippines, many countries with hundreds of millions of people can now prescribe them; they were never included in any 1991 numbers because their healthcare systems weren't that well developed back then. If you factor all of those people in, the majority of CFCs would be emitted by inhalers. CFCs and Inhalers are a significant problem. No one deserves to get skin cancer because of CFCs. You should blame manufacturers and the insane patent system, not the scientists working hard to keep the planet from dying.
    - marcosdumay 3y ago
      The interesting thing is that most of the world kept the CFCs inhalers for many years. Immediately ceasing production so that people are thrown under the bus was a US thing. I really think we are looking at a case of "corruption harms people" and not one of "unintended side effects should be looked upon".
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
Asbestos is still everywhere, but whenever it's found (at least where I live), it's red alert and specialist cleanup crews suit up and come in to dispose of it safely. Most countries banned its use, but I just read that Russia still mines and uses it in construction.
- 2devnull 3y ago
  Not my experience. It’s often removed by unlicensed handy men who don’t have any training or much awareness and who will tell you candidly that they think it’s not really dangerous anyway. At least that’s been my experience as a renter here in the bay area.
  - systems_glitch 3y ago
    For some kinds, you really don't have to worry that much, e.g. removing asbestos-containing floor tile by prying up (vs. trying to grind it away) only requires that you double-bag it when you take it to the landfill, and there's a recommendation to wet it down to prevent dust, and to wear a mask. But yeah also there's totally unlicensed folks ripping lagging off old boilers in a t-shirt. No worries, they usually filter it thru a cigarette.
dagw 3y ago
We have sadly not applied the same ideas to asbestos. We definitely need to. Removing asbestos causes its own problems and if not done correctly can cause more damage than just leaving it alone. Obviously we should never use asbestos as building material again, and when we run across it while renovating or demolishing a building, it should be dealt with correctly, but proactively going into buildings and ripping out asbestos that isn't being disturbed might not be the best way to go.

p-e-w 3y ago

> The big lesson is that CFC removal has been a massive win for humanity and that kind of categorical and decisive climate action is exactly what we need in the future! That's one lesson. Another lesson is that when powerful people take such celebrated "decisive" action, less powerful people get trampled underfoot, in this case through potentially crippling medical costs. > This was not a mistake. It was a humanity saving decision. The phasing out of CFCs was not a mistake. The way it was implemented, however, contained many mistakes, some of which have negatively impacted many lives, as illustrated by the top-level comment.

tmpX7dMeXU 3y ago
The lesson is that the US’s medical system is ridiculous.
dale_glass 3y ago
The lesson has nothing to do with the CFC removal. The problem isn't that CFC got removed. The problem is that a new patent got granted for an insignificant change. Why that change happened in the first place doesn't matter.
- sneak 3y ago
  No, the CFCs in medical inhalers were of insignificant quantity and should not have been changed. The new propellants are equal-to-slightly-inferior, in my experience.
  - hathchip 3y ago
    You understand that the negative consequences of changing propellants described in the top-level comment did not occur in other societies, right?
  - light_hue_1 3y ago
    Of course they should have been changed! They caused massive damage to the planet. And they continue to do so, the CFCs they emitted will be in the atmosphere for decades. https://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/crj/1998/137198.pdf https://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/crj/1998/137198.pdf In 1991 metered inhalers were responsible for 1% of all CFCs. Since then production has gone down 30-fold https://i0.wp.com/research.csiro.au/acc/wp-content/uploads/sites/257/2021/02/2021_glb-CFC-11-emiss-WMO1998-AGAGE-new-prod.png?w=1680&ssl=1 https://i0.wp.com/research.csiro.au/acc/wp-content/uploads/s... Had we done nothing, CFCs from inhalers would be something like 1/3rd of total emissions right now (simply because of the drop). But it's far worse. The world population is much higher now, and healthcare is much more accessible around the world. India, China, the Philippines, many countries with hundreds of millions of people can now prescribe them; they were never included in any 1991 numbers because their healthcare systems weren't that well developed back then. If you factor all of those people in, the majority of CFCs would be emitted by inhalers. CFCs and Inhalers are a significant problem. No one deserves to get skin cancer because of CFCs. You should blame manufacturers and the insane patent system, not the scientists working hard to keep the planet from dying.
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    The interesting thing is that most of the world kept the CFCs inhalers for many years. Immediately ceasing production so that people are thrown under the bus was a US thing. I really think we are looking at a case of "corruption harms people" and not one of "unintended side effects should be looked upon".

Cthulhu_ 3y ago

Asbestos is still everywhere, but whenever it's found (at least where I live), it's red alert and specialist cleanup crews suit up and come in to dispose of it safely. Most countries banned its use, but I just read that Russia still mines and uses it in construction.

2devnull 3y ago
Not my experience. It’s often removed by unlicensed handy men who don’t have any training or much awareness and who will tell you candidly that they think it’s not really dangerous anyway. At least that’s been my experience as a renter here in the bay area.
- systems_glitch 3y ago
  For some kinds, you really don't have to worry that much, e.g. removing asbestos-containing floor tile by prying up (vs. trying to grind it away) only requires that you double-bag it when you take it to the landfill, and there's a recommendation to wet it down to prevent dust, and to wear a mask. But yeah also there's totally unlicensed folks ripping lagging off old boilers in a t-shirt. No worries, they usually filter it thru a cigarette.

dagw 3y ago

We have sadly not applied the same ideas to asbestos. We definitely need to. Removing asbestos causes its own problems and if not done correctly can cause more damage than just leaving it alone. Obviously we should never use asbestos as building material again, and when we run across it while renovating or demolishing a building, it should be dealt with correctly, but proactively going into buildings and ripping out asbestos that isn't being disturbed might not be the best way to go.