4 ms·

I heard in 1988 that we all must be dead by now from the ozone hole.

DangitBobby 2mo ago
This exact sentiment has been expressed and addressed ad nauseum.
podgietaru 2mo ago
WE FIXED THAT. We literally listened to professionals, introduced legislation and fixed it. The worst possible example you could use.
- wartywhoa23 2mo ago
  If YOU fixed that, what stops YOU from fixing this again?
  - podgietaru 2mo ago
    Just the stupidest take you could ever have, well done.
    - karmakurtisaani 2mo ago
      You don't deserve downvotes for calling out obvious idiocy.
  - gspr 2mo ago
    People like you.
    - wartywhoa23 2mo ago
      How? By asking what stops you?
      - gspr 2mo ago
        By derailing the conversation.
  - phtrivier 2mo ago
    "WE" is an interesting word, isn't it ? The author obviously meant "humanity". Not "him and a bunch of friends". That being said, this is hacker news, this is for the elite, and startups can disrupt everything, etc... What can "you and a bunch of friends" do to fix the issue" ? Because, the people "preventing" us from fixing the issue here are, basically, the whole oil and gas industry, plus the electorate. Which, interestingly, is partly... "WE".
wongarsu 2mo ago
And we fixed the ozone hole by taking decisive action internationally banning the worst ozone-destroying gases
VeninVidiaVicii 2mo ago
Weird how something was done about that though
- jalk 2mo ago
  Pretty trivial to replace CFC with HCFC gases (which breaks down more easily in the atmosphere) compared to moving away from fossil fuels.
bakies 2mo ago
Luckily the Montreal protocol was implemented and CFCs were banned. Something like that should be considered for more green house gasses. Maybe Paris?
DennisP 2mo ago
Good point, we should probably do the same thing with our carbon emissions that we did with the chemicals that deplete ozone. The Montreal Protocol of 1987 successfully phased out over 99% of them.
- OroPla 2mo ago
  The hole is still there as far as I can tell, though. I hate it when the news cycle alerts people and then never gives out updates and closure.
  - wartywhoa23 2mo ago
    It's called agendas. The world is full of issues everyone is okay with until they are presented as apocalyptic to the public. Like seasonal flu whose annual death toll is in the range of 600-1200 thousands. And then, as easily forgotten as soon as there's a new scarecrow on the table. With weather prediction accuracy of 90% for 5 days, 50% for 10 days and basically that of a TRNG for longer terms, what makes you all so sure you're facing a manmade climate apocalypse (you all partook in, by the way) and not a natural harmonic in the weather fractal?
    - triceratops 2mo ago
      Because climate isn't weather. We don't know the temperature 12 months from now (August 2027) but we know it'll be warmer that it will be 3 months from now (November 2026).* This is common sense. *If you live in the Northern hemisphere.
    - Lord-Jobo 2mo ago
      This is really embarrassing to write in public, to be frank. Weather and climate are not the same thing, they are several orders of magnitude different in scope. This is first grader information, typically. Predicting weather relies on metrics like wind, pressure, moisture in tight local areas, they can change hundreds of percent in that scope within 24 hours. Predicting climate relies on information like co2 levels, ocean temperatures, or glacier melt rates. If any of those changes hundreds of percent in 24 hours the entire planet would be fucking dead instantly. Weather prediction relies in records going back in the range of 30-70 years. Climate prediction relies on records going back MILLIONS of years. Comparing the two is like comparing the ripples in your bathtub to the movements of the heavenly bodies. It’s asinine.
wesleywt 2mo ago
Glad you brought that up. Because we fixed it. Now because of ignorance, we are not fixing this. As a person without kids, its not my problem. Strange that anti-science conservatives wants us to have more children while willfully destroying their future.
- toasty228 2mo ago
  > As a person without kids, its not my problem. If you're under 50 it definitely will be your problem
quickthrowman 2mo ago
CFC elimination worked, but switching refrigerants is a lot easier than not burning hydrocarbons.

This exact sentiment has been expressed and addressed ad nauseum.

WE FIXED THAT. We literally listened to professionals, introduced legislation and fixed it. The worst possible example you could use.

wartywhoa23 2mo ago
If YOU fixed that, what stops YOU from fixing this again?
- podgietaru 2mo ago
  Just the stupidest take you could ever have, well done.
  - karmakurtisaani 2mo ago
    You don't deserve downvotes for calling out obvious idiocy.
- gspr 2mo ago
  People like you.
  - wartywhoa23 2mo ago
    How? By asking what stops you?
    - gspr 2mo ago
      By derailing the conversation.
- phtrivier 2mo ago
  "WE" is an interesting word, isn't it ? The author obviously meant "humanity". Not "him and a bunch of friends". That being said, this is hacker news, this is for the elite, and startups can disrupt everything, etc... What can "you and a bunch of friends" do to fix the issue" ? Because, the people "preventing" us from fixing the issue here are, basically, the whole oil and gas industry, plus the electorate. Which, interestingly, is partly... "WE".

wongarsu 2mo ago

And we fixed the ozone hole by taking decisive action internationally banning the worst ozone-destroying gases

VeninVidiaVicii 2mo ago

Weird how something was done about that though

jalk 2mo ago
Pretty trivial to replace CFC with HCFC gases (which breaks down more easily in the atmosphere) compared to moving away from fossil fuels.

bakies 2mo ago

Luckily the Montreal protocol was implemented and CFCs were banned. Something like that should be considered for more green house gasses. Maybe Paris?

DennisP 2mo ago

Good point, we should probably do the same thing with our carbon emissions that we did with the chemicals that deplete ozone. The Montreal Protocol of 1987 successfully phased out over 99% of them.

OroPla 2mo ago
The hole is still there as far as I can tell, though. I hate it when the news cycle alerts people and then never gives out updates and closure.
- wartywhoa23 2mo ago
  It's called agendas. The world is full of issues everyone is okay with until they are presented as apocalyptic to the public. Like seasonal flu whose annual death toll is in the range of 600-1200 thousands. And then, as easily forgotten as soon as there's a new scarecrow on the table. With weather prediction accuracy of 90% for 5 days, 50% for 10 days and basically that of a TRNG for longer terms, what makes you all so sure you're facing a manmade climate apocalypse (you all partook in, by the way) and not a natural harmonic in the weather fractal?
  - triceratops 2mo ago
    Because climate isn't weather. We don't know the temperature 12 months from now (August 2027) but we know it'll be warmer that it will be 3 months from now (November 2026).* This is common sense. *If you live in the Northern hemisphere.
  - Lord-Jobo 2mo ago
    This is really embarrassing to write in public, to be frank. Weather and climate are not the same thing, they are several orders of magnitude different in scope. This is first grader information, typically. Predicting weather relies on metrics like wind, pressure, moisture in tight local areas, they can change hundreds of percent in that scope within 24 hours. Predicting climate relies on information like co2 levels, ocean temperatures, or glacier melt rates. If any of those changes hundreds of percent in 24 hours the entire planet would be fucking dead instantly. Weather prediction relies in records going back in the range of 30-70 years. Climate prediction relies on records going back MILLIONS of years. Comparing the two is like comparing the ripples in your bathtub to the movements of the heavenly bodies. It’s asinine.

wesleywt 2mo ago

Glad you brought that up. Because we fixed it. Now because of ignorance, we are not fixing this. As a person without kids, its not my problem. Strange that anti-science conservatives wants us to have more children while willfully destroying their future.

toasty228 2mo ago
> As a person without kids, its not my problem. If you're under 50 it definitely will be your problem

quickthrowman 2mo ago

CFC elimination worked, but switching refrigerants is a lot easier than not burning hydrocarbons.