This Grauniad article suggests the handwringing of the 1980s led to big improvements. If so, this hopeful story deserves more exposure.
Unless you live at the North Pole, of course. Screw you, Santa!
Just in time…for climate change to wreck havoc across the globe.
Stranger
Funny the difference we can make when we address issues instead of fighting them. If we had actually starting trying to halt Climate Change in the 90s the way we addressed Ozone Depletion, Water & Air pollution in the 70s we would be a lot better off right now.
How true. This is what happens when you deny the science and make global environmental issues political. Who did that benefit?
Older CEO types and Board of Directors who weren’t going to be around when the shit hit the fan.
Sadly, too many people are going to say “See, the environmental problems fixed themselves; that means we don’t have to do anything about problems”, instead of “see, the things we did to solve environmental problems actually work, so we should do things to solve other environmental problems”.
Well, the difference is changing refrigerants and eliminating CFCs was actually a cost-plus for manufacturers, and pretty much neutral for everyone else, even the companies producing CFCs that could rapidly shift to producing HFCs (which, unfortunately, are a greenhouse gas). With respect to coal and especially oil, however, such shifts were not possible and would require a massive public investment into both research and building supporting infrastructure vice just raking in more profits from the public need of current energy sources. This was facilitated by corporate denialism and deliberate campaigns to obfuscate the threat orchestrated by the so-called “Merchants of Doubt” but it is unclear that even if those issues were understood that public policy really would have changed t support a wholesale transition to sustainable and renewable energy sources that are still not sufficient replacements for baseload energy demand or provide a suitable fuel for air travel.
And while emissions standards certainly cleaned up air in metropolitan areas like Los Angeles and New York City, most of those changes from industrial production were the result of shifting polluting industries to rural areas or offshoring them to developing nations. Air and especially ground water pollution are still substantial problems that have been exacerbated by the expanded use of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in many textiles, household goods, and packaging, the lack of control over polymer precursors, and overuse of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides in industrial food production. Regulations addressed the most visible issues but air and water pollution are hardly “solved” problems, and potentially not capable of really being controlled while sustaining concentrated and ever-growing populations.
Stranger
I’m trying to wrap my head around how you typed out Grauniad?
And, I just learned something new today: Grauniad is a nickname. Thanks for the edcaution.
You’re right iof course. But real change leading to real improvement beats “we can do nothing about it”, “this isn’t really a problem”, “we have independent (cough) scientists who say these are just lies made by lying liars”, “humans cannot possibly affect such a big planet” or “these terrible changes somehow make us better off”.
Not that this diminishes other issues. It strengthens taking meaningful actions since they have sometimes been shown to work.
British people love their rhyming slang and anagrams.
You are right, except I think the technologies that eventually help (assuming the problems get meaningfully addressed) will also be economically beneficial in the long run. Interesting that too much of the modest leadership on these issues comes from local and regional governments and not national ones.
There was a funny comedy bit by a Chinese comedian complaining on Sirius comedy radio about being unfairly blamed for Covid. He said he was both Chinese and a meat eater, and these were the two things people blamed. But he could only change one of them. And he did not wish to undergo expensive plastic surgery. I sympathize.
Thing is, our success at stopping ozone depletion has probably made it harder to get people on board with fighting similar issues. “All this Global Warming talk is bunk! Remember when everyone freaked out about the ozone/Y2K/insert other averted disaster here, but then nothing happened?”
Isn’t human nature just the worst?
I see I was beaten to this thought.
Funny, I’m an environmentalist and a programmer.
The Y2K dismissal drives me a little crazy as I know the effort put into that one first hand.
I’ve been trying to help with climate change since about 1997 or so. I became and active environmentalist in 1990. Mainly clean water and air at first.
Y2K was a mixed bag. Yes, there was a real problem there that really did need to be fixed and really would have caused significant problems if it hadn’t been… but it was also significantly over-hyped to include people worrying about things that couldn’t possibly have been affected by it. Like, just because your refrigerator has a computer chip inside of it for some reason doesn’t mean that it’s going to stop working when the date rolls over. And the power company’s billing system might get confused by the bug, but that doesn’t mean that the generators are suddenly going to stop turning.
They will be economically beneficial (a true “Green Revolution” could be the greatest economic expansion in the history of industrial society) but crucially not for the interests who are making money on petroleum and coal mining. You’d think they would be interested in expanding into new areas of energy because of the finite nature of ‘fossil fuels’, and in fact in the ‘Eighties and early ‘Nineties companies like Shell and Chevron were investing in research into energy alternatives like solar and nuclear fusion; however, these weren’t panning out in a timeframe to make them profitable or did not appear to be technically viable in the foreseeable term, and so they abandoned these and doubled down on petroleum and natural gas because that was where the money was.
Even as solar has gotten dramatically cheaper it has become fiscally problematic as a large scale energy source (see Varun Sivaram’s Taming the Sun: Innovations to Harness Solar Energy and Power the Planet for an extensive discussion of why and how to address that) and other potential energy and transportation fuel sources just aren’t able to be scaled up in a reasonable period to replace petroleum as a feedstock in a near term period. It is possible that we could have developed these to be at a point of technical viability and production scale if we’d started on this in earnest circa 1990; unfortunately, this would have required massive public investment that nobody was enthused about and that the politically entrenched fossil fuel industry steadfastly opposed.
Stranger
I have heard the newer refrigerants are much more efficient than the older, more damaging ones.
Energy companies claim to have invested in newer technologies but it is difficult for non-experts to know how much of this is greenwashing.
Not surprising that it will take a long time to replace existing fuels, especially in large Northern countries. Realistic expectations would help. Canada currently supplies 40% of its energy needs from its Prime Mjnister’s warm thoughts and high sense of self-satisfaction.^
^ You might think this statistic was just.made up. But it is equally true that: 1) the average Canadian weighs 0.7 Americans, 2) 56% of Manitobans think they have travelled to the future when they visit other provinces, 3) The number one cause of heartbreak in Canadian males is being a Toronto Maple Leaf fan, 4) Three out of five Great Lakes are just okay and 5) The average Canadian says sorry ten thousand times per day.
Contrary news:
The Nature article for those of you with a subscription:
Not exactly. CFC levels are down, and the ozone hole is closing. That’s not questioned by the study. However, the levels of five specific CFCs which are still in use as part of processes to produce other chemicals have been found to be rising. This is concerning because all these chemicals should be getting used up without leaking. But it won’t reverse the healing of the hole, not at this scale.
No, but the scale may not be constant. And it could still delay things.