Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

vwb2022 t1_j3n36eg wrote

This is a prime example of how to coordinate global action to address environmental issues. The world took notice of what was happening and, albeit slowly, took decisive action to ban ozone-destroying chemicals.

Such action can work for other environmental issues, don't believe people who tell you otherwise.

429

RollingCarrot615 t1_j3ov0fb wrote

Dupont had a technology they had already developed and needed a way to market it as an alternative to something that was cheaper and easier to make. Shortly after the hole in the Ozone was discovered, and Dupont did everything they could to make sure the hole in the Ozone got the appropriate attention.

77

HoldingTheFire t1_j3pxbxu wrote

Sounds great that a technological solution was found, and then incentivized via world wide law. We would never give up refrigeration without an alternative, nor should we.

26

Equal-Sale t1_j3q7f3p wrote

Plus the chemicals destroying the ozone layer weren’t fueling 80% of the industrial society that we live in.

11

TheRidgeAndTheLadder t1_j3pko01 wrote

This is Tesla's contribution. They made EVs sexy. Which were more expensive and harder to make at the time.

Edit: Haven't seen a comment awing this hard in a while. If you're brigading, why not leave a comment?

−47

Parabola_Cunt t1_j3pogqx wrote

Or, you know, Toyota Prius. Those were popular and the OG “eco friendly” car that celebrities popularized in the early 2000s when Musk was still playing leather clad dragon slayer steam punk.

31

Elestriel t1_j3pq9t9 wrote

The Prius didn't make the population want EVs, though. Tesla did what Apple did for smartphones - made them interesting and desirable, then other companies came in and made them better. Now that people are interested in them, there are loads of alternatives to Teslas.

11

its-not-me_its-you_ t1_j3pl85q wrote

It was amazing. Scientists said, this is bad and this is what's causing it. Governments went, well let's ban cfcs and hfcs. Manufacturers went, ok we'll just move to an alternative. And that was it.

No push back. No party politics. No anti-zoners. Nothing. It was just done.

The only other thing in my living memory that went as well as that was Y2k. But that was driven by corporate self-preservation

31

zeyus t1_j3qa4yy wrote

I like your optimism, but apparently DuPont did try to squash it with trademark violation threats for the use of the word Freon(tm) in an academic paper, as well as trying to convince a conference organizer to push it off the bill.

I just learned about this whole insane story yesterday from the cautionary tales podcast https://timharford.com/2022/11/cautionary-tales-the-inventor-who-almost-ended-the-world/ and there are sources there but I haven't read the book yet, though it sounds interesting enough to have a go at!

Edit: formatting, added the conference part that I just remembered.

8

Asd_dsA_Dsa_asD t1_j3r3kc8 wrote

>Such action can work for other environmental issues, don't believe people who tell you otherwise.

Hear! Hear!

Started recycling, driving less and conserving power, don't care if it's miniscule, makes me feel good man.

3

MittenstheGlove t1_j3oasiv wrote

This is just Hopium. The ozone layer is peanuts by comparison.

−28

Ryboticpsychotic t1_j3pd5hg wrote

This has an impact on global warming as well, since “a depleted ozone layer would let more harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation reach the surface, inhibiting plants from storing carbon in their tissue and in the soil. As a result, atmospheric CO2 levels are estimated to be 30% higher than they would likely be under Earth’s current trajectory. Consequently, Earth would likely be an additional 0.85 °C (1.53 °F) hotter in that “world-avoided” scenario solely because of the impact on plants.”

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3112/protecting-the-ozone-layer-also-protects-earths-ability-to-sequester-carbon/

5

MittenstheGlove t1_j3pjnn9 wrote

You’re right, but that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying by relation fixing the ozone layer won’t mean much due to the level of destabilized climate we’re experiencing today. We need a much faster plan than 25 years for the rest of our issues

I mean this IS good news, but I am still not counting on much of the way of global coordination if it took us this long to rectify the problem with the ozone layer.

4

its8up t1_j3p9dyq wrote

I hope the penguins don't have peanut allergies.

1

MittenstheGlove t1_j3pkcf8 wrote

Read my other reply. I’m saying that this like 45 year plan to fix the ozone layer was far too slow.

I’m glad they’re fixing it, but the rest of our climate action won’t have 45 years to rectify. We started this process in like the 90’s.

I do not have much faith in global efforts at the rate we’re going. We can take this victory, but we still have people actively denying the severity of climate change, if not climate change as a whole.

3

its8up t1_j3plwa5 wrote

Well, to be fair, I've seen reports for ozone layer being healed by 2060, 2040, and 2050 in that order over the past 2 days. Risky with us on the co2. People are stupid, stubborn, and greedy.

3

MittenstheGlove t1_j3pn37v wrote

I absolutely agree with you there. I just felt the last sentence from VWB. Just felt odd, considering fervent climate misinformation.

2

TheVirusWins t1_j3n5y4p wrote

Its only been 36 years to get the ozone hole repairing properly. I suspect we wont have the same rapid response to climate change as that is a death by a thousand cuts scenario

136

Blu_Skies_In_My_Head t1_j3ntn73 wrote

There also wasn’t a well-funded, decades long PR effort devoted to making the ozone hole bigger because a significant sized business lobby made billions off it and consequences be damned.

59

[deleted] t1_j3oabfh wrote

[deleted]

13

SandyDelights t1_j3om44n wrote

I don’t disagree, at least re: people who recognize climate change is real, but that’s the problem: not everyone does. A sizable chunk of countries like the US just… Don’t believe it’s actually a thing, and actively push against addressing it out of a desire to “win” and sheer spite.

4

Kelsenellenelvial t1_j3orzs6 wrote

Also first world countries that have huge per capita emissions, but total emissions much lower than places with larger populations not wanting to do anything because they consider themselves a drop in the bucket. Those same people also not making simple changes because each individual change doesn’t make much difference, stop complaining about not getting plastic bags at the grocery store and just bring your own, or keep a couple folding crates in your trunk. If they put as much effort into finding ways to reduce waste as they do complaining about what others are trying to do we might actually get things under control in a reasonable timeframe.

2

lambda_x_lambda_y_y t1_j3pbhmb wrote

Well actually we know what that single simple step is: the single sector responsible for the majority (~60%) of anthropogenic GHG emissions (measured in CO2eq over 100 years) is energy production (i.e. electricity and thermal energy production).

Fossil fuels were (and still are) too convenient and pervasive to take action, though. But theoretically we had the technology to decarbonise electricity and thermal energy production even 50 years ago (with nuclear energy).

1

projectkennedymonkey t1_j3q970k wrote

I read somewhere that nuclear is not actually the answer because there isn't enough nuclear material to replace all the fossil fuel generation needed. I haven't done any follow up research or anything but wonder if it's true...

1

lambda_x_lambda_y_y t1_j3qf4bd wrote

Well, it would have last for a century or so seeking only the currently economically profitable mineral uranium resources at market value (which aren't the totality of the mineral uranium resources).

Theoretically, seawater uranium can last millennia (but the extraction makes it cost more than the uranium market value, although that bottleneck is decreasing fast lately).

However, the fast nuclear reactor technology solves the limitations issue of the economically profitable uranium as well as the highly radioactive wast problem (which in reality is more of a social conundrum than a problem).

1

Opening_Customer_665 t1_j3n8zt2 wrote

The brutal effect was discoreved in mid seventies, only took the worlds 40 largest countries approx 2 years to sign an agreement forbidding freon. Our parents generation saved us

67

AggravatingHorror757 t1_j3nfnm1 wrote

The science deniers use the repair of the ozone hole as an example of an over-hyped fake crisis comparable to the ‘climate change hoax’.

40

WashiBurr t1_j3o87u8 wrote

I got shot in the leg, but I removed the bullet, bandaged it, and ultimately recovered. I guess I was never actually shot! It's such a silly argument that I wouldn't even come close to taking those people seriously.

32

Blu_Skies_In_My_Head t1_j3nsz8x wrote

Wow, it’s almost like scientists could alert the world to a big problem, and countries worldwide could coordinate to fix the issue.

Huh.

22

lilrabbitfoofoo t1_j3pdywi wrote

Unfortunately "Big Freon" wasn't as well-funded as "Big Oil".

11

SterlingVapor t1_j3pmdmn wrote

Big freon was also really just chemical manufacturing companies, so they mostly just turned around and went "fine, ok, then what kind of refrigerant should we make then?"

Big oil has been looking into renewables for a long time and has invested in them to try to transition their cash flow, but the profit margins won't come close to stacking up and they own a ton of machinery and properties that will be worth practically nothing

11

[deleted] t1_j3pic1l wrote

And big coal. It accounted for 50% of energy related emissions in the US in 2020, but only 20% of our energy. It’s more carbon intensive than petroleum or natural gas. It’s played a major role getting us here as well.

3

Lord_Earthfire t1_j3qfek8 wrote

To be honest, switching out a single group of chemicals for already existing alternatives is far easier and happening very often in the industry on the country-level.

Restructuring the whole energy production is fundamentally on a different level of difficulty.

2

Spike_Spiegel t1_j3oxx04 wrote

Destroyed before I was born

Fixed after I die

Thanks boomers

9

wwarnout t1_j3n0iko wrote

By then, climate change will have done so much damage that the health of the ozone layer might no longer be important.

8

fujidust t1_j3n5c7o wrote

Maybe. But this is an important step. It’s good practice to put the fire out before you focus on the burned stuff. Or inset your preferred metaphor here.

27

BigDamnHead t1_j3nkupb wrote

The ozone and global warming are two different disasters. Fixing the ozone does nothing to help global warming.

13

Kennyvee98 t1_j3nicpt wrote

Isn't the ozon layer keeping in the heat as well as filtering out harmful rays? Or is it cooling down the earth as well?

5

BigDamnHead t1_j3nko97 wrote

Ozone is a greenhouse gas that also protects us from radiation. So yes, it is keeping more heat in. The ozone layer and global warming are two different disasters.

6

Ok_Salamander9174 t1_j3nfshu wrote

I read it was supposed to be 2060 somewhere

3

gerundive t1_j3om6ui wrote

according to the article, 2066 is the estimated date when the hole over the Antarctic is expected to have "fully bounced back"

5

Superpansy t1_j3okvoe wrote

Ah great we'll be nice and skin cancer free as we burn to death in our little furnace

3

sir_duckingtale t1_j3pqmo4 wrote

We saw the problem

We acted

The problem became better

We’re on the path of not being it a problem anymore

Must take serious assholes, money and interests to not allow that for climate change.

3

etopp t1_j3px4ci wrote

Thanks for the shield Highlander!

3

AutoModerator t1_j3n04md wrote

Vote for Best of r/science 2022!

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

autistic_bard444 t1_j3n5avd wrote

5c by 2050

but it's nice they are so optimistic

1

BigDamnHead t1_j3nljkn wrote

What does that have to do with the ozone layer being fixed?

10

autistic_bard444 t1_j3nruj6 wrote

because short sighted people have been stuck on the ozone layer being the problem for decades now

it's like trying to repair a wall while the house is on fire

−4

gerundive t1_j3okru9 wrote

No, it really isn't.

1

autistic_bard444 t1_j3olcah wrote

because 500ppm co2 isnt the issue

nor is a million tones of cfcs getting put into the atmosphere each year

nor is the bacteria overgrowth in baffin bay and the arctic oceans which raises the water temperature because the result of bacteria growth is heat

never mind the methane deposits going up, or the fact that the arctic has literally been on fire for years or that every mountain top glacier is melting at unprecedented rates, that the swiss alps is a forest now

no. it cant be humans destroying the planet, it must be the ozone layer? not industrialization, or the fact that we burn up 4 earths worth of resources a year. it cant be all the vehicles and coal we burn

no. it has to be the ozone layer

get a grip and wake up and smell what you're shoveling

what humans started 200 years ago. will not be stopped by the ozone hole fixing itself. our childrens children will inherit a wasteland because of what humans have done. mean while boomers think everything is fine and they refuse to take any methods to fix the issue?

but it's the ozone

−1

smf0x10 t1_j3olhvh wrote

That’s the worst case for warming above preindustrial levels by 2100, actually, not 2050. At least, it used to be the worst case. Thanks to the action that HAS happened since the early 2000s, that figure is down to around 2.8c by 2100 if all the current measures stay in place and nothing else changes. That’s still terrible, don’t get me wrong; it’s enough to seriously hurt a bunch of ecosystems and cause famines in third-world countries, but it probably won’t mean the end of the human race. Climate change remains a massive problem, but exaggerating the dangers doesn’t help anyone

2

autistic_bard444 t1_j3om5i4 wrote

2100 humans will live underground
remember how they said 1.5c for the past 40 years
mean while we passed that long ago. 2.8 is still a pipe dream because it means human have to change their entire civilization. and we both know that will not happen until gen z and millennials get in charge of policies that gen x and the baby boomers were too apathetic in their capitalism to fix

exaggerating the dangers. shell oil did that since the late 1950s, when they knew oil production would wreck the environment. dont get me started on oil tar sands.

when corporations rule politics over the world over, expecting any type of long term change which does not profit them is a pipe dream

0

smf0x10 t1_j3ov1qq wrote

We still haven't passed 1.5 degrees C above preindustrial levels, though that is unlikely to still be true by the end of the century. We're at about 1.2 right now. Current policies are predicted to keep warming to 2.8 degrees (plus or minus 0.5) by the end of the century, according to the 2021 UN Emission Gap Report.

https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2021#:~:text=DOWNLOAD%20THE%20FULL%20REPORT

The precise statistic I'm citing is on page 26 of the PDF.

In summary, 2.8 is not a pipe dream, it's something we've already achieved. And I stand by my statement about exaggerating the dangers. When you pretend the problem is worse than it is and that efforts to solve it haven't done anything, it inspires people to stop trying to fix it. Fossil fuel companies want that to happen. They have a history of denying that climate change is happening or how dangerous it truly is, but as more people get more educated on and concerned about the subject, that strategy is becoming less and less viable. So, the next step is to make the problem look insurmountable, to make people give up on pressuring the government to change things.

And if you think your version of the events is necessary to startle people into action, the current situation does not need exaggerating. That number has to get below 2 degrees before I'll begin feeling comfortable with it, but 5 degrees Celsius by 2050 is not our future and it never has been.

5

Knot-Know138 t1_j3q9skb wrote

great news...let’s just hope humans don’t figure out a better way to deplete it again beforehand.

1

Sufferix t1_j3qcpmy wrote

Wait, we need to let some gases out first.

1

iqisoverrated t1_j3qhddo wrote

Finally some good news. There hasn't been much of that the past decade or two.

1

No-Wonder1139 t1_j3qi8dk wrote

Some company will lobby some government to reverse the ban of CFCs before then. Just to keep up the trend.

1

blasphemingbanana t1_j3rbgat wrote

The ozone will be repaired just in time for the global economic collapse and/or shift. Get ready, everywhere except the USA and new Zealand. Y'all's populations will be mainly mass retirees in the next 15 yrs with not nearly enough younger people to support them. It's gonna get weird.

1

tatoren t1_j3p3tl2 wrote

This is so good to hear! Let's make sure we don't add more Sulfer Dioxide into the atmosphere to keep that recovery up.

0

MrDurp t1_j3o19gl wrote

That's great and all but we are currently in an accelerated reversal of earths magnetic poles. In the past when this happened it shredded the ozone layer. It's gonna get hot out there.

−1

huh_phd t1_j3nge95 wrote

I'm guessing China and mongolia might take a little longer to heal

−2