4 ms·

why is it that for the ozone layer we got together and undid the damage but for climate change we don't? is it too politicized, are the required changes too da

why is it that for the ozone layer we got together and undid the damage but for climate change we don't? is it too politicized, are the required changes too damaging to the economy to start agressively implementing them?

ceejayoz 1mo ago
Industry groups saw the ozone scenario unfold and said "never again". Same thing happened after Nixon - it led directly to the founding of Fox News (https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2011/memo-from-1970-a-plan-for-putting-the-gop-on-tv-news/ https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2011/memo-from-197...).
ActorNightly 1mo ago
[flagged]
nom 1mo ago
This worked so well because we had suitable replacement gases and the industry had little financial incentives to push against it. It's a very different situation with fossil fuels.
bryan0 1mo ago
Reducing CFCs, while difficult and requiring global cooperation, was far more simplistic and targeted than decreasing co2 emissions
flexagoon 1mo ago
> why is it that for the ozone layer we got together and undid the damage but for climate change we don't? Because it also happened to be profitable for a large company (DuPont), which was also the company largely responsible for the whole ozone layer thing. They lobbied against ozone layer protections while they had a patent on Freon, but as soon as it expired, they came up with a new more expensive alternative and started supporting environmental regulations forcing people to switch to the new one.
antonvs 1mo ago
Because with the ozone layer, the causes of the problem were much more narrow, the solutions were orders of magnitude cheaper, and they affected a much smaller industry, much less dramatically. It’s not that the changes are “too damaging to the economy,” it’s that they’d need to be much more widespread. For example, everyone should have stopped driving gasoline engine cars at least by 2010, when the scientific evidence had already been undeniable for years, for anyone studying the matter in good faith. No such action was needed to deal with the ozone layer. Compounding the problem for climate change mitigation is that it threatens the wealth of people in the oil, gas, and related industries. Changing refrigerant type for ozone hole mitigation was not an existential threat to any industry. The fossil fuel industry has plowed billions of dollars into propaganda and political influence to prevent or slow down changes.
- coolThingsFirst 1mo ago
  Yeah ditching cars is very hard in some places where public transport is not good. (US) But I am seeing that it's not that hopeless by 2030 43% of energy would come from renewable sources like solar. Maybe there's still hope. It would be profoundly stupid if as a species we died off because we couldn't curb CO2 emissions.
tokai 1mo ago
This has actually been studied. The question even has it's own wikipedia article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion_and_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion_and_climate_ch...
heresie-dabord 1mo ago
> why is it that for the ozone layer we got together and undid the damage but for climate change we don't? For the ozone layer, it was deemed possible to eliminate (or significantly reduce) certain chemical emissions. For generalised climate change, the common enemy of all people is the transnational petroleum industry. This corporate alliance will topple democracies rather than reduce its profits and influence.
T-A 1mo ago
Saving the ozone layer required changing practices in a relatively small part of the economy (refrigeration, mostly). In 1994, the total cost of the transition in the US was estimated to less than $100 billion [1], about 1.3% of GDP ($7.3 trillion [2]). Reducing global carbon emissions to reach net zero by 2050 has been estimated to cost $9.2 trillion per year [3]. World GDP is currently $126 trillion [4]. That means 7.3% of current world GDP per year, or 1.8x of it over a quarter century. [1] https://cei.org/studies/the-high-cost-of-cool-the-economic-impact-of-the-cfc-phaseout/ https://cei.org/studies/the-high-cost-of-cool-the-economic-i... [2] https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/gdp-gross-domestic-product https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/uni... [3] https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/the-net-zero-transition-what-it-would-cost-what-it-could-bring#/ https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-ins... [4] https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPD@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD/AFQ https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPD@WEO/OEMDC/ADVE...
kshri24 1mo ago
> why is it that for the ozone layer we got together and undid the damage but for climate change we don't? If you want the honest, brutal take it is because I remember, at least in my country, that for the ozone stuff there was a lot of scientific people taking lead roles in educating the masses. Especially those with credibility who were otherwise not media savvy. Climate change on the other hand, whenever I think about the words, I can only get Greta Thunberg and her antics in my mind. Even for someone who believes in climate change I can't help but feel these crazed lunatics have only caused massive damage to what should have otherwise been a wake up call. It is like how COVID got associated with Fauci and Gain-of-function. > is it too politicized, are the required changes too damaging to the economy to start agressively implementing them? Ofcourse it was politicized. It became a party vs party, an ideology vs ideology thing. Science took a backseat.
- roelschroeven 1mo ago
  This is a take I often see recently, and it such a weird one. Greta Thunberg and her "crazed lunatics" have caused massive damage? By that do you mean that in a world without them, there would be much more efforts to fight climate change? That is demonstrably false. Greta Thunberg only became famous in 2018. The world before 2018 was that world without "crazed lunatics", and things weren't any better than. Greta Thunberg got frustrated precisely because after all this time practically nothing was being done. Also, exactly why do you call Greta a crazed lunatic? What has she done to deserve such a negative designation? What could she have done that in your eyes would have made a positive impact? Also also, lots and lots of scientists have been telling the world about climate change, just as scientists did regarding ozone. It's just that the media or politicians or the industry or whoever decided their reports were inconvenient and they got largely ignored.
  - kshri24 1mo ago
    > Also also, lots and lots of scientists have been telling the world about climate change, just as scientists did regarding ozone. It's just that the media or politicians or the industry or whoever decided their reports were inconvenient and they got largely ignored. Funny how this same media brought Greta to limelight. If you want to kill the messenger at least realize that it is the one that gave Greta her popularity (for better or worse). > What could she have done that in your eyes would have made a positive impact? Simple. Stayed out of news. Stayed in school and finished education instead of taking a gap year. The ones who should have been given coverage by media should have been the actual scientists working on this crisis. They would have been taken seriously. Instead it turned into a big joke. > By that do you mean that in a world without them, there would be much more efforts to fight climate change? Ofcourse there would have been. The World took scientists seriously when it came to ozone. It did take scientists seriously when it came to COVID even (though Fauci and co caused a lot of damage by becoming a political hack causing polarization when it should not have been). There was absolutely no reason to assume people would not have taken climate change seriously if it was presented in the right manner. > This is a take I often see recently, and it such a weird one The very fact you are seeing it often recently should tell you that a lot of people feel that way. Irrespective of which side of the divide you are on, the messaging is lost if an issue as critical as climate change is hijacked by a bunch of teens who are not taken seriously by those in power. If you ask me, the politicians and media were more than happy to let Greta be the face of the movement. Think about the last sentence I said for a bit and you'll realize you have been played.
dgellow 1mo ago
Was an industry really hurt by the actions needed to rebuild the ozone layer? I don’t think so, at least not as far as I can remember. On the other hand the fossil fuel industry has an insane amount of control over politics since a century or so?
ryathal 1mo ago
1. The damage was understood, fairly easily measured, and could be done repeatably. 2. The cause was widely agreed upon. 3. Solutions weren't predicated on massive societal change. 4. Compliance was fairly easy to track and enforce. Climate change is lacking all of these to various degrees.

ceejayoz 1mo ago

Industry groups saw the ozone scenario unfold and said "never again". Same thing happened after Nixon - it led directly to the founding of Fox News (https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2011/memo-from-1970-a-plan-for-putting-the-gop-on-tv-news/ https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2011/memo-from-197...).

ActorNightly 1mo ago

[flagged]

nom 1mo ago

This worked so well because we had suitable replacement gases and the industry had little financial incentives to push against it. It's a very different situation with fossil fuels.

bryan0 1mo ago

Reducing CFCs, while difficult and requiring global cooperation, was far more simplistic and targeted than decreasing co2 emissions

flexagoon 1mo ago

> why is it that for the ozone layer we got together and undid the damage but for climate change we don't? Because it also happened to be profitable for a large company (DuPont), which was also the company largely responsible for the whole ozone layer thing. They lobbied against ozone layer protections while they had a patent on Freon, but as soon as it expired, they came up with a new more expensive alternative and started supporting environmental regulations forcing people to switch to the new one.

antonvs 1mo ago

Because with the ozone layer, the causes of the problem were much more narrow, the solutions were orders of magnitude cheaper, and they affected a much smaller industry, much less dramatically. It’s not that the changes are “too damaging to the economy,” it’s that they’d need to be much more widespread. For example, everyone should have stopped driving gasoline engine cars at least by 2010, when the scientific evidence had already been undeniable for years, for anyone studying the matter in good faith. No such action was needed to deal with the ozone layer. Compounding the problem for climate change mitigation is that it threatens the wealth of people in the oil, gas, and related industries. Changing refrigerant type for ozone hole mitigation was not an existential threat to any industry. The fossil fuel industry has plowed billions of dollars into propaganda and political influence to prevent or slow down changes.

coolThingsFirst 1mo ago
Yeah ditching cars is very hard in some places where public transport is not good. (US) But I am seeing that it's not that hopeless by 2030 43% of energy would come from renewable sources like solar. Maybe there's still hope. It would be profoundly stupid if as a species we died off because we couldn't curb CO2 emissions.

tokai 1mo ago

This has actually been studied. The question even has it's own wikipedia article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion_and_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion_and_climate_ch...

heresie-dabord 1mo ago

> why is it that for the ozone layer we got together and undid the damage but for climate change we don't? For the ozone layer, it was deemed possible to eliminate (or significantly reduce) certain chemical emissions. For generalised climate change, the common enemy of all people is the transnational petroleum industry. This corporate alliance will topple democracies rather than reduce its profits and influence.

T-A 1mo ago

Saving the ozone layer required changing practices in a relatively small part of the economy (refrigeration, mostly). In 1994, the total cost of the transition in the US was estimated to less than $100 billion [1], about 1.3% of GDP ($7.3 trillion [2]). Reducing global carbon emissions to reach net zero by 2050 has been estimated to cost $9.2 trillion per year [3]. World GDP is currently $126 trillion [4]. That means 7.3% of current world GDP per year, or 1.8x of it over a quarter century. [1] https://cei.org/studies/the-high-cost-of-cool-the-economic-impact-of-the-cfc-phaseout/ https://cei.org/studies/the-high-cost-of-cool-the-economic-i... [2] https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/gdp-gross-domestic-product https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/uni... [3] https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/the-net-zero-transition-what-it-would-cost-what-it-could-bring#/ https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-ins... [4] https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPD@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD/AFQ https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPD@WEO/OEMDC/ADVE...

kshri24 1mo ago

> why is it that for the ozone layer we got together and undid the damage but for climate change we don't? If you want the honest, brutal take it is because I remember, at least in my country, that for the ozone stuff there was a lot of scientific people taking lead roles in educating the masses. Especially those with credibility who were otherwise not media savvy. Climate change on the other hand, whenever I think about the words, I can only get Greta Thunberg and her antics in my mind. Even for someone who believes in climate change I can't help but feel these crazed lunatics have only caused massive damage to what should have otherwise been a wake up call. It is like how COVID got associated with Fauci and Gain-of-function. > is it too politicized, are the required changes too damaging to the economy to start agressively implementing them? Ofcourse it was politicized. It became a party vs party, an ideology vs ideology thing. Science took a backseat.

roelschroeven 1mo ago
This is a take I often see recently, and it such a weird one. Greta Thunberg and her "crazed lunatics" have caused massive damage? By that do you mean that in a world without them, there would be much more efforts to fight climate change? That is demonstrably false. Greta Thunberg only became famous in 2018. The world before 2018 was that world without "crazed lunatics", and things weren't any better than. Greta Thunberg got frustrated precisely because after all this time practically nothing was being done. Also, exactly why do you call Greta a crazed lunatic? What has she done to deserve such a negative designation? What could she have done that in your eyes would have made a positive impact? Also also, lots and lots of scientists have been telling the world about climate change, just as scientists did regarding ozone. It's just that the media or politicians or the industry or whoever decided their reports were inconvenient and they got largely ignored.
- kshri24 1mo ago
  > Also also, lots and lots of scientists have been telling the world about climate change, just as scientists did regarding ozone. It's just that the media or politicians or the industry or whoever decided their reports were inconvenient and they got largely ignored. Funny how this same media brought Greta to limelight. If you want to kill the messenger at least realize that it is the one that gave Greta her popularity (for better or worse). > What could she have done that in your eyes would have made a positive impact? Simple. Stayed out of news. Stayed in school and finished education instead of taking a gap year. The ones who should have been given coverage by media should have been the actual scientists working on this crisis. They would have been taken seriously. Instead it turned into a big joke. > By that do you mean that in a world without them, there would be much more efforts to fight climate change? Ofcourse there would have been. The World took scientists seriously when it came to ozone. It did take scientists seriously when it came to COVID even (though Fauci and co caused a lot of damage by becoming a political hack causing polarization when it should not have been). There was absolutely no reason to assume people would not have taken climate change seriously if it was presented in the right manner. > This is a take I often see recently, and it such a weird one The very fact you are seeing it often recently should tell you that a lot of people feel that way. Irrespective of which side of the divide you are on, the messaging is lost if an issue as critical as climate change is hijacked by a bunch of teens who are not taken seriously by those in power. If you ask me, the politicians and media were more than happy to let Greta be the face of the movement. Think about the last sentence I said for a bit and you'll realize you have been played.

dgellow 1mo ago

Was an industry really hurt by the actions needed to rebuild the ozone layer? I don’t think so, at least not as far as I can remember. On the other hand the fossil fuel industry has an insane amount of control over politics since a century or so?

ryathal 1mo ago

1. The damage was understood, fairly easily measured, and could be done repeatably. 2. The cause was widely agreed upon. 3. Solutions weren't predicated on massive societal change. 4. Compliance was fairly easy to track and enforce. Climate change is lacking all of these to various degrees.