4 ms·

Only happened because Ronald Reagan got skin cancer on his nose. [0] Classic GOP: it’s not a problem until it affects me, personally, and then we absolutely ha

by freen 2y ago

Only happened because Ronald Reagan got skin cancer on his nose. [0] Classic GOP: it’s not a problem until it affects me, personally, and then we absolutely have to fix it. Until then? Liberal fear mongering, special interests, etc. etc. [0] https://time.com/5564651/reagan-ozone-hole/ https://time.com/5564651/reagan-ozone-hole/

nashashmi 2y ago
Give republicans the coast line and see them go!
Workaccount2 2y ago
It only happened because the solution was cheap and worked well. The "magic" of the Montreal Protocol wasn't any kind of sympathy or joint cooperation to save the Earth. No one had to sacrifice anything so it breezed through no problem.
- lern_too_spel 2y ago
  Neither claim is true. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1991/09/29/the-costly-race-to-replace-cfcs/86e250e5-6031-4b77-88c4-9f9b6963b6b7/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1991/09/29/t... "Eliminating CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals by switching to alternatives could cost as much as $36 billion between now and 2075, according to the Environmental Protection Agency." "Substitutes have drawbacks compared to the industrial perfection of CFCs, however, he said. Turpines are flammable. In addition, its toxicity in high concentrations has yet to be determined, so 'we use it with caution,' he said. 'It all comes under the grand scientific principle of no free lunch.'" For that matter, fixing LA's smog wasn't cheap either.
  - Workaccount2 2y ago
    Imagine the fix for global warming was $500M a year for 75 years.
    - lern_too_spel 2y ago
      $36 billion is the cost to the US. Yes, it's not nearly as much as the cost to fix global warming, but the usual suspects opposed it using cost arguments at the time. https://www.lpl.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/resources/globalwarming/skeptics-vs-ozone-hole.pdf https://www.lpl.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/resources/gl...

by freen 2y ago

nashashmi 2y ago

Give republicans the coast line and see them go!

Workaccount2 2y ago

It only happened because the solution was cheap and worked well. The "magic" of the Montreal Protocol wasn't any kind of sympathy or joint cooperation to save the Earth. No one had to sacrifice anything so it breezed through no problem.

lern_too_spel 2y ago
Neither claim is true. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1991/09/29/the-costly-race-to-replace-cfcs/86e250e5-6031-4b77-88c4-9f9b6963b6b7/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1991/09/29/t... "Eliminating CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals by switching to alternatives could cost as much as $36 billion between now and 2075, according to the Environmental Protection Agency." "Substitutes have drawbacks compared to the industrial perfection of CFCs, however, he said. Turpines are flammable. In addition, its toxicity in high concentrations has yet to be determined, so 'we use it with caution,' he said. 'It all comes under the grand scientific principle of no free lunch.'" For that matter, fixing LA's smog wasn't cheap either.
- Workaccount2 2y ago
  Imagine the fix for global warming was $500M a year for 75 years.
  - lern_too_spel 2y ago
    $36 billion is the cost to the US. Yes, it's not nearly as much as the cost to fix global warming, but the usual suspects opposed it using cost arguments at the time. https://www.lpl.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/resources/globalwarming/skeptics-vs-ozone-hole.pdf https://www.lpl.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/resources/gl...