3 ms·

and in a few years if not already India, and then... and then... so the issue becomes, how to insure they use good refrigerants because we sure as hell cannot

and in a few years if not already India, and then... and then... so the issue becomes, how to insure they use good refrigerants because we sure as hell cannot deny them the right to refrigeration. Sorry, your too late isn't going to work. the only real alternative if this issue is believed to be a real problem is to reduce the CO2 cost from other sources, namely the generation of the energy used to perform refrigeration and other tasks. However even that isn't going to add up to much against the fact that more transportation is coming online in all these countries - meaning cars and trucks using fossil fuels. so how do you get an agreement with economies who wish and will grow?

Tloewald 12y ago
It's a greenhouse problem just based on electricity consumption -- leaked refrigerants merely compound it.
waps 12y ago
There is an alternative : use technology to take control of the planet's climate. There are a number of papers investigating various means of controlling global temperature, from ships that blast water into the athmosphere, to using bombs to put reflective particles high in the athmosphere, and others. The advantage of this would be that such a system cannot be defeated by a single sizeable dissenter. Additionally, the big problem I would say most conservatives have with global warming policy is that it requires a global government with real authority, which they oppose (and I agree with that, freedom, democracy, transparency in government, human rights and the like are not exactly global values, rather the opposite. Any real move to a global government will worsen personal freedom, human rights, corruption and the like). The big disadvantage is legal and moral responsibility. What if we can make the Sahara a paradise, but only if we turn France (just a random example) into a desert, or say, Norway, Sweden and Finland into frozen wastelands ? What if we analyze things and conclude that locking global temperatures at the current, very high, levels is actually desirable ? Who gets to benefit at whose cost ? Does one person's significant disadvantage justify not improving a lot of people's lives ?

Tloewald 12y ago

It's a greenhouse problem just based on electricity consumption -- leaked refrigerants merely compound it.

waps 12y ago

There is an alternative : use technology to take control of the planet's climate. There are a number of papers investigating various means of controlling global temperature, from ships that blast water into the athmosphere, to using bombs to put reflective particles high in the athmosphere, and others. The advantage of this would be that such a system cannot be defeated by a single sizeable dissenter. Additionally, the big problem I would say most conservatives have with global warming policy is that it requires a global government with real authority, which they oppose (and I agree with that, freedom, democracy, transparency in government, human rights and the like are not exactly global values, rather the opposite. Any real move to a global government will worsen personal freedom, human rights, corruption and the like). The big disadvantage is legal and moral responsibility. What if we can make the Sahara a paradise, but only if we turn France (just a random example) into a desert, or say, Norway, Sweden and Finland into frozen wastelands ? What if we analyze things and conclude that locking global temperatures at the current, very high, levels is actually desirable ? Who gets to benefit at whose cost ? Does one person's significant disadvantage justify not improving a lot of people's lives ?