I wouldn't be surprised if it was China either, but I would also argue that it's very likely used in the production of goods that aren't consumed by the Chinese. This sort of pollution is a side effect of western demand for cheap goods coupled to poorly regulated Chinese production. As such, responsibility for the problem is only partly down to the Chinese.
First world consumers have to demand ethically produced, environmentally friendly goods in order to fix these problems, instead of saying "We want it as cheap as possible but the result of that isn't our problem."
I don't disagree with you, but part of the reason first world consumers demand cheap Chinese products is because many of their middle-class-income-producing jobs have been exported to China and various third-world countries, so they can't afford the ethically produced environmentally friendly goods anymore.
What the first world consumers need is to bring manufacturing back to the first world, so they can get jobs that pay enough to buy the products they help manufacture.
That, or basic income, if first world labor is no longer needed because manufacturing has become too efficient.
> the reality of the situation is that people are presently working too much
You don't fix this by giving people basic income. You fix this by making things cheaper so people don't have to work so much to make a living. Many necessities in our society have prices artificially inflated by various government policies (for example, farm subsidies artificially inflate the price of food). Adding another government policy (basic income) won't fix that.
The Internet has made copying and the transport of bits cost nothing.
This efficiency has also now moved to other industries, like manufacturing, because communication has become so easy.
I recall many people here saying that the record industries need to deal with it or die. Now that this same thing has started to effect your bottom line (or the bottom line of people you might care about), we need government sanctions to make up for the lost revenue.
Instead, I say we just deal with what has happened, like any other business model destroyed by technology (horse and buggy?!). Manufacturing jobs are gone. It's time to learn a new skill and figure out what will make you a living.
A basic income is not sustainable. It will only force legitimate businesses out of the US (which means less jobs) because of the higher taxes. These taxes will also only increase over time, because more and more people will start relying on it as a way to live.
IMO our "costlier manufacturing" would be capital intensive but not high amortized cost.
If we didnt have trade relations with China we'd automate the terrible jobs that we get chinese citizens to do for low wages. I believe the only reason we export work is because once you include capital cost (upfront investments) its cheaper/easier to have a human do it.
Of course, there'd be some ramp up time required where our stuff would be really expensive. Its going to happen anyways as Chinese citizens become more and more affluent and demand the middle class life of the rich world.
I'd say that's the very reason the upfront costs are high. We dont get good automation technology from China, so we have to manufacture it here. Thus its expensive up front.
China has a pollution problem, but I think they're serious about trying to do something about it. The rampant corruption and restriction on press freedoms with regard to reporting on pollution doesn't help though.
Multinational businesses aren't that simple. The Bhopal plant was owned by the Indian subsidiary of Union Carbide, UCIL, which was half owned by Union Carbide, and half owned by the Indian government. Among the eight convicted in India in the disaster was the CEO of UCIL, Keshub Mahindra. Indifference to safety by corporations is a global issue. It's not reasonable to pretend Bhopal was caused solely by evil decisions emanating from Texas while innocent foreigners look on helplessly.
Others (meaning UCC as owned wholly by Dow) have not been convicted because they continue to be fugitives from justice. They are yet to appear in court where they face criminal charges, they are able to this by taking shelter behind sovereignty laws, the US govt has itself fully supported this. You seem to have conveniently forgotten to mention that, some axe to grind ?
I could add more, the Bhopal plant was supposed to be a replica of UCC's MIC plant in West Virginia and UCC was in charge of design and construction. Strangely enough they thought the plant in India could do without most of the safety systems in place in the Virginia plant. Further, discovery process of litigation has brought forth gobs of documentation that shows that cost cutting measures were enforced by the US side of the corporation. Yes the ownership was indeed shared, but as is often the case control and power leaned overwhelmingly on the UCC side. Scientists employed by UCC wrote to Indian counterparts to help deal medically with the tragedy, in particular they mentioned people should be injected with thiocynate salts to chelate out the active poison. This in itself would have saved thousands of lives. However, since the success of this intervention would have proved that the leaked MIC is more than "just tear gas, just wash your face" they not only took a heavy handed approach to totally discredit the advice with FUD but instructed the Indian government to demolish stores of thiocynate that were being used by local clinics, which they did. They were aware of the long term affects of the leaked gas, but concealed all information about it, and knowledge of how the medical effects could be mitigated. They spread rumors about disgruntled employee precipitating the disaster on purpose, but to this day it remains just an allegation, no corroborating evidence of that has been found or substantiated. DOW, as well as the US government officials have several times pressured the Indian government to drop the charges in lieu of setting up a foundation provided that they are absolved of all liability.
If you care to know more there are enough resources on the internet and just a few google searches away, or else you can take a 'post a driving ticket' smear approach to it.
The Indian govt had little to no real operational control over the plant but they are very far from fee of blame. They worked actively to shield UCC so as to make Indian economy look attractive to foreign investors. Warren Anderson was personally given a safe passage out rather then being detained/arrested. They suppressed, and continue to do so govt funded research on the health effects of the MIC gas conducted by its national medical lab ICMAR, purportedly because the findings are so damaging. They have taken no steps to corral the premises of the plant where children go to play habitually. However the moment there is a spike of interest in the national news the premises are heavily guarded to deny journalists and environmentalists access to the conditions.
This is a very accurate reply. I would like to add one thing: actually, although ownership was 'shared' Union Carbide Corporation never owned less than 50.9% i.e. a controlling share.
I ran a facility for a company that was a wholesaler/reclaimer of CFCs (reclaiming is just pulling gas out of cooling systems that are being disassembled or repaired). We'd buy tanks of dirty refrigerant from HVAC companies, clean it up and resell it.
At the time R-12 was the big money, R22 was cheap as dirt but starting to phase out. The company fell apart/was bought out, but not before the firing (and arrest?) of one VP, multiple allegations of trade violations, and the seizing of a substantial amount of refrigerant.
Our distribution center was packed up and shipped back to TX, and I never really followed along with what ended up happening. This was about 15 years ago, my memory is a little fuzzy.
BUT, a few things have stuck with me...
We used to get containers of 30lb cylinders of banned refrigerants (mostly R12, but also R22 and less common CFCs) from China. The BOL and packages themselves stated it was reclaimed refrigerant, which was legal to buy/sell. No idea of it was legal to import/export, but purchasing was done at corporate headquarters and not something I was ever involved with.
Anyway, part of my job was overseeing the testing/categorization of reclaimed CFCs. We had a pretty decent little lab we'd use to determine which CFCs were reclaimed, purity, oil content, water content... etc.
Part of our company's pitch was that we could make reclaimed refrigerants identical to newly synthesized product ('revirginate') using some advanced distillation and filtration processes. While possible, at the time there was nobody doing true 100% purification of reclaimed products at scale. It was simply too expensive. ALL of the 'revirginated' CFCs had detectable levels of impurities, and we'd frequently do tests with our fancy gas chromatography system for QC. It was close enough that functionality was fine and it was cheaper than virgin gas, so buyers didn't care.
But the reclaimed gas that came from China -- guess what impurities/contaminants we found in the Chinese cylinders? Yup... nothing. Remember, this is late 90s/early 00s, and our company was (supposedly) an industry leader using some pretty sophisticated purification techniques. I never bought into the idea that the Chinese product was reclaimed.
I could be wrong, perhaps they had better technology, but the reclamation dates were VERY clearly after production was supposed to have ended and I find it hard to imagine they were returning product that was indiscernible from virgin product.
I'd be surprised if some enterprising companies in China aren't still making huge amounts of the stuff. It can't all be coming from old systems (it's worth so much money reclaimed) and asthma inhalers.
Like it was everywhere else in the now developed world.
This is a huge problem, we are so quick to tell others that they can not walk the same road to riches that we did (by polluting the environment with abandon).
But that's creating an artificial moat which will simply lengthen the period that non-affluent countries will remain that way. This serves us in all kinds of ways and is actually quite unfair.
I don't have a way out of this but I feel there is something quite wrong with telling a country that has some natural resource that they can't deplete it (after depleting our own natural resources) and telling a country that is polluting like mad that they shouldn't do that either (after we did that ourselves and have reaped the benefits of it).
Many non-affluent companies have skipped over the many stages the US went through in creating electrical and telecommunications infrastructure. For the latter they've jumped right to cellular, which has kept a LOT of copper and rubber from being wasted and littered across the landscape.
We've developed technologies and equipment for extracting natural resources without the pollution we used to create; developing countries should skip ahead and make use of those same technologies. They're not exactly national secrets; I'd bet that our manufacturers who produce that equipment would be happy to fill overseas orders, and I doubt the US government would have a problem with it.
I don't think it's unfair to impose these rules on developing nations. We have to learn from our mistakes. The industrial revolution may be the only template we have for a developed nation, but there are other routes. I can imagine a world where comparable levels of investment in Education can deliver deliver on the promises of industrialisation without as many of the "bad bits".
I see your point, but I don't think the fairness you want is really fair. I have to ask the question; fair for who?
Firstly, the world didn't forge ahead with the industrial revolution in spite of the environmental costs. No one was initially aware of those costs. Now we are, and there's a push for everyone to change their tactics. I think it's fair that everyone has to change, but I acknowledge that it's a bit unfair that the west got to profit on those mistakes. But that's just life.
Developing nations now have real solid data on the environmental damage an industrial revolution will inflict not only on their part of the world, but the world as a whole. Is it fair to ask them to factor that new knowledge into their plans? Maybe it's not exactly fair, but it's a reasonable request I think.
But then what about a child born today? Is it fair for that child to grow up in a world where the air they will breath becomes more dangerous with each passing second, even though the adults of today know what they are doing and have it in their power to not do it? I think that's unfair.
And it's not like China's industrialisation has helped all Chinese. It's helped a few people. Is it fair that all citizens of Shanghai should suffer the health effects of the pollution generated as a result of 1 persons endeavour to maximise a profit? I don't see it.
This is not to say it's a black and white issue. Someone somewhere has to get a rough deal. This sadly is the world we've created for ourselves, and the rules we've decided to live by. It's not fair.
I don’t want anyone to damage the environment. But we got an unfair advantage and now denying that advantage to others is blatantly unfair without any kind of compensation. We have to pay others. That’s my view on this.
One is preserving the environment, often (global warming, ocean acidification, mercury pollution, acid rain, background radiation elevation, plastics pollution, ozone depletion, antibiotics overuse) in ways which affect the global environment and pose existential risks to all of modern civilization, if not humanity.
The other is equity and fairness.
Achieving a few years or decades of growth to lose it all really doesn't strike me as particularly rational behavior.
Addressing the whole scope of challenges facing the world is going to be exceptionally difficult.
We weren't generally aware of many of the specific problems at the time. Though, it turns out: a huge number of the bigger problems were actively opposed by presentation of disinformation, from the use of lead in paint and gasoline, to the hazards of cigarettes and tobacco, asbestos, air pollution, CFCs, and now CO2 and global warming. Often with the same tactics and even individuals involved in different battles.
The bigger problem is that humans, as with all life, exists to exploit entropic gradients. Some of these are huge (e.g., the energy densities of hydrocarbons and fissible nuclear fuels), some are much more subtle, including the disruptions caused by introductions of modest amounts of novel contaminants into the environment. It's both our entropic sources and sinks which can be overwhelmed.
And economic growth which comes at a cost of the future to all isn't growth. It's a Ponzi scheme.
Chine is the biggest climate polluter in absolute terms; but per capita, the US and Australia are way ahead, so maybe you should include them in your list of likely candidates.
Yes, in terms of actually solving the problem, we should also see where China's customers/influencers come from. Countries can (and do) demand that other countries have certain working standards and regulations. On pain of tariff or sanction.
A lot of my goods come from basically slave labor and polluters. They have a competitive advantage over companies who don't, so garbage floats and takes over. Countries are complicit when they support or benefit from other countries which do this.
The regulatory conditions in US/AU are a lot stricter than in China. The pollution per person is higher in these countries but it that pollution is unlikely to contain PFCs.
It's all too easy to jump to conclusion and shout "China!", but in spirit of true political correctness (without the usual hubris) - there is nothing so fundamentally different between Chinese and any other dear humans of this world that would, given just slight changes in political/social/economical/religious enviroment, prevent them from doing something like this.
You are right, this is the actual question. The mechanism for localizing the emissions is a chemical transport/interaction model, and data from remote sensing and in situ sampling to constrain the model. The model allows you to interpolate temporally/spatially between the observations you have.
The linked study (abstract is at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/2014GL06...) apparently uses this approach. You can't tell from the press release what they have done, and the full-text is not online (which is a shame). (I'm not at work or I could look it up.)
But you can find other work that uses the same approach (e.g.: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/10421/2010/acp-10-10421-20...). They divided the Earth land surface into gross regions and computed mean source and sink values (the ocean is a sink). Their conclusion:
"[...] Although industry data imply that the global industrial emissions were substantially declining with large interannual variations, the optimized results show only small interannual variations and a small decreasing trend. The global surface CCl4 mole fractions were declining in this period because the CCl4 oceanic and stratospheric sinks exceeded the industrial emissions. Compared to the a priori values, the inversion results indicate substantial increases in industrial emissions originating from the South Asian/Indian and Southeast Asian regions, and significant decreases in emissions from the European and North American regions."
In short: industry claims that emissions are dropping are contradicted by data showing the gross decrease is explained by higher-than-expected absorption; also, we identify substantial increased emissions from South/Southeast Asia.
As atmospheric chemistry models improve, and remote sensing constraints increase, we'll know a lot more about the origins of pollution. E.g., for CO2, the just launched OCO2 (http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov) which is finishing checkout -- it returned its first data last Wednesday.
I find this interesting not so much regarding the CCl4 itself, but for its implications with respect to CO2 and climate change.
Most of those clamoring for worldwide attention to climate change have as the foundation of their plans, international control on CO2 emissions. And one of the arguments against such plans is that getting all the polluters on-board is rather impractical. Such cooperation is pretty much unprecedented, with the only example I can think of being the treaty on emissions of CFCs.
If even that one example - of something that is, in comparison to the burning of fossil fuels, barely a drop in the bucket - then it doesn't bode well for humanity's ability to get a handle on CO2 emissions.
It's being replenished constantly. Ozone is created when UV radiation hits reguly Oxygen molecules.
The problem is that we used to release large so amounts of stuff like the CCl4 mentioned in the article that ozone got destroyed quicker than it was created.
Okay, I'm trying to understand The Rules, rules of HN?
(1) No jokes. Ever.
(2) Global warming and climate change are real, no matter temperature measurements there are, not just flim-flam, fraud scams, are severe dangers to all life on earth soon, and are caused by evil humans releasing CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. People who disagree are deniers and are ignorant, irresponsible, or paid, say, by Big Oil or other forces of evil. This point is a catechism and is not to be questioned.
(3) The ozone hole is also real, a severe danger to all life on earth, and caused by evil humans releasing CFC and maybe also NOx gasses. This point is a catechism and is not to be questioned.
(4) The current administration is great and not to be doubted or questioned. Freedom of speech does not apply to the current Administration. More of the catechism.
(5) Microsoft is evil. Windows is bad. Visual Basic .NET is silly and for wimps. Linux is good. All code should be open source. C is good. C++ is better; all real men love C++. Otherwise the best languages now are Ruby, Python, and Haskell. More catechism.
(6) Electric cars are good. Gasoline powered cars are bad. Just any day now, electric cars with their great advantages will drive gasoline powered cars off the road. Similarly for trucks and buses.
(7) For the electric grid, wind and solar are good. Fossil fuels and nukes are bad. Soon the world will have nearly all energy on the grid, for cars, home HVAC, etc. from just wind and solar.
(8) Private cars are bad. Trains are good. If the US had any sense at all, then it would have 300+ MPH trains connecting all medium to large cities with really good service and really cheap tickets. Otherwise we just need bicycles, and they are very, very good. There need be only a few years of meager government subsidies to permit such trains, and then the trains would be economically self supporting just from the cheap ticket sales.
(9) Gluten is bad. Sugar is much worse, is a poison and should be made illegal. People should drink only pure rain water and pure grain alcohol. Drinking anything else is giving in to a plot to pollute our precious bodily fluids. We should not eat red meat because it is poison, and the animals are ruining the pure, pristine, precious, delicate, 100% natural environment. We should not eat fish because fishing has nearly destroyed the oceans, and when the oceans have been destroyed humans will be destroyed. Instead we should eat only organic fruits and vegetables bought in farmers markets directly from the growers. There should be no brown paper bags; groceries should be carried in reusable sacks from renewable resources.
(10) The first rule of HN is never talk about The Rules of HN.
The HN audience is well informed, public spirited, fair, reasonable, tolerant, open minded, and objective, and all posts violating The Rules will be voted down to oblivion and not tolerated.
I'm trying to understand The Rules. Since I didn't see any such rules in anything written by PG, I am looking for more information. What rules have I omitted?
So, we're all supposed to be all concerned about CFCs and ozone, again. Hmm ....
Sorry, guys. Net, I just can't accept the null hypothesis and have to reject it. I know; I know; a guy got the Nobel prize in chemistry for his work on CFCs and ozone. Nice. Sounds like really good work in chemistry.
So, the null hypothesis is that we must restrict CFCs or we will be destroying the planet, the sky will fall, we will all get skin cancer, in the tropics all life will be destroyed, the ozone layer is the blanket protecting life on our Mother Earth, and we will be destroying it! Evil humans! Evil CFCs! Precious life giving ozone! So go the cries.
Sorry, guys, I have to reject that null hypothesis.
Why reject? It smells like week old dead fish, that's why.
Or, it's the old trilogy: Transgression by sinful, evil humans (using CFCs). Retribution from an angry god (skin cancer). Redemption via sacrifice (destroy old A/C equipment).
Old? Sure, back to the old English morality plays. In various versions, for centuries in Europe it had the Roman Catholic church filthy rich. How rich? Look up the Bishop's Residenz in Würzburg (1751-53). To heck with some dirt cheap, $100 million Manhattan apartment; for some real luxury, tough to beat the Bishop's Residenz! Or, at one time, the Roman Catholic church owned a major fraction of all the farm land in France which happens to have a major fraction of all the good farm land in Europe. Did I mention rich?
Such a good wheel had to be reinvented: Okay, the Mayan charlatans claimed that they had to kill people (sacrifice) to pour their blood on a rock to keep the sun moving across the sky (redemption). Ah, right, the trilogy from Europe was more sophisticated!
Okay, guys: It's a scam. Old England figured it out with the morality plays. The Europeans figured it out with the Roman Catholic church. The Mayans figured it out with pouring blood on a rock. It's a popular scam, reinvented more than once. Don't believe it's not a scam.
Instead, as usual, there's a hidden agenda. Or, wise advice, "Always look for the hidden agenda.". Yup, good advice.
Here for CFCs, what is the hidden agenda? Sure: Outlaw old Freon, which was getting to be a cheap commodity; sell new refrigeration working fluids at much higher prices; and destroy all existing auto A/C and more refrigeration equipment. Yup, I've got two cars with A/C that doesn't work due to lack of Freon.
So, net, what is the really believable real reason for the laws against CFCs? Sure: Sell more working fluid and equipment for refrigeration, especially auto A/C.
That the real reason is protecting the ozone layer? Smells like week old dead fish to me. Selling more A/C sounds much more believable.
Or, take the other wise advice, "Follow the money.". Still, I'm sure it was some really nice chemistry.
For NASA talking about this now? Hmm .... The White House likes to have the Administration talking about green things. Doing things? Not so much. Talking? Yup, lots of it. Why? Get political support from the greenies. Easy political support -- just have, say, NASA issue some press releases and get some support. Nothing real, just some simple politics.
Do I believe that the NASA statement is really about the ozone or about White House politics? I come down on the side of White House politics; I'm sure that the White House cares much more about politics than ozone.
Sorry 'bout that, but as a citizen I have to form opinions, and eventually I can smell week old dead fish and do believe in the importance of hidden agendas, following the money, and watching out for politics, all much more than ozone.
Fool me once; shame on you. Fool me twice; shame on me. I've been fooled more than once already and don't want to be fooled again. By now I don't believe it's really about the ozone; not a chance. If NASA and the White House have some really good evidence, then they can trot it out. Else I will just move on.
Now, has rational, engineering, scientific, skeptical Hacker News been converted into naive, sucker, gullible, politically correct,, brain-dead, anxiety-ridden. manipulated greenie news and propaganda? Are are some people getting paid for such propaganda?
Just because we dont know ~why~ the ozone is depleting, doesnt mean we dont know the effects of ozone depletion. Maybe we've tried a half dozen things that havent worked. We probably want to keep trying due to the consequences of ozone loss.
Yes, likely we know what the effects of ozone depletion would be if we in fact had some significant ozone depletion.
I've never seen any meaningful evidence of ozone loss. Yes, yes, yes, I know, there was publicity and/or propaganda of a big ozone hole over the Antarctic, right, in the winter in the Antarctic when there was no sunlight at all. Semi-, pseudo-, quasi-amazing. It was presented just as propaganda, not as solid evidence with who measured it, how, when, where, etc. with comparisons with elsewhere, with the Antarctic at other times of the year and in other years, the Arctic, etc. It was just propaganda. It wasn't much better than the Mayan charlatans claiming that without pouring blood on a rock the sun would stop moving across the sky.
"Keep trying"? Sounds like medicine 500 years ago -- let's try some of this sulfur, now some of this broth of boiled rat tails, now some of these leaches. We've had hundreds of years to know that such mindless, irrational throwing trash against the wall to see what sticks is just wasteful or dangerous and we shouldn't do it.
Or, if it ain't broke, then don't fix it, and so far there is no good evidence that anything is broken. Moreover, even if there is a problem, there's still less evidence that humans are the cause.
Much stronger evidence is that some manipulators and propagandists can make people feel guilty for no good reason. It's social and psychological, not physical or scientific. Some good technical people can be a bit eager to believe that there is a genuine problem and a bit slow to see just simple, silly, psychological manipulation.
"Consequences of ozone loss"? Yes, the "consequences" would be bad, but we shouldn't worry about such consequences until we have some solid evidence of significant "ozone loss" due to human activity, and so far we don't. There would also be terrible "consequences" if the sun quit shining, but we don't try to DO something about that yet.
You are acting like someone convinced you that you are a terrible sinner, that you are doing something very wrong, and that you need to sacrifice this and that, whatever, until you are no longer doing something wrong, etc. As I outlined, that's a very old, dirty, destructive, manipulative mind trick. You've been totally taken in.
Instead, it's much more likely that you should be concerned about being manipulated by a hidden agenda, that you should follow the money, that you should know that politics is more important than ozone. It's just not about ozone.
Warm, sincere advice: Just gotta be really gullible to believe that this is actually about ozone. Or, some people want to be on your back and into your pocket. Not nearly a new story, but one, a scam, that has worked for 1000+ years.
Why? Because people tend to be afraid. And, when in doubt, still be afraid. Be afraid of anything that goes "bunp" in the night. Be afraid of what's under the bed. Be afraid of anything new. Be afraid that are doing something wrong. Be afraid when authority figures talk about the sky is falling. Then, afraid, believe that need to do something, certainly not just do nothing. So, something, say, what some manipulative propagandist authority figure is saying to do. Let them be on your back and pick your pocket. Let them ruin your A/C and, then, sell you new A/C at much higher prices, all for no good reason of science or engineering.
Based on your wall of text I have to assume that you're serious. I'm also going to venture a guess that you haven't looked into the literature on ozone depletion at all, or you're not well versed in the science and you don't understand it. Not only are there a plethora of papers out there from a variety of different sources, with different funding, spread over decades, (here's a simple search[1]), but this was actually a problem that garnered international collaboration. That is phenomenally rare on environmental topics, particularly those where local emissions collectively lead to global impacts.
Here's a straight review[2] for you to read through and perhaps understand this issue a little better.
I did follow the arguments when the ozone hole stuff was making a big stink. As I already wrote here, I know a guy got a Nobel prize in chemistry for his work on CFCs and ozone.
But I also know that for "garnered international collaboration", a much better explanation is follow the money to flow to the chemical industry for outlawing cheap, commodity Freon, ruining a lot of refrigeration capex, and selling new refrigeration working fluid, at high prices, and capex.
Ozone? Surely you are joking. Money and politics? Now for the real cause, that's believable.
Okay, I just followed your [1] and, there, the first link,
S. Solomon, et al., "On the Depletion of Antarctic Ozone",
Okay, just as I recall: There have been some measurements of an ozone hole over Antarctica during the late winter and early spring there when there has been no sunlight for months. Of course there was ozone depletion; there had been no sunlight for months; we can't expect anything else.
Since that good measurement effort was new, we didn't have much good, historical data to compare; that is, as far as we know, there has been such a big ozone hole each late winter and early spring in the Antarctic for 1000+ years, that is, well before human generated CFCs.
But the paper did make clear that their measurements showed a hole only during the late winter and early spring and only over Antarctica. There was little discussion of an ozone hole over the Arctic. There was essentially no evidence to raise concern that ozone would be depleted in areas with both sunlight and humans.
Why just Antarctica and not also the Arctic? The paper outlined some differences in temperature and clouds.
As I already wrote, there was some cute chemistry there.
Of concern on earth where there is both life and sunlight? Nope. So, for life on earth where there is both sunlight and life, f'get about the ozone hole.
Indeed, if want to worry about life in Antarctica, say, the penguins, still nothing to worry about because the ozone hole is only there when there is no sunlight and, thus, no UV to worry about. Even over Antarctica, even with the CFCs from sinful, evil humans, when there is sunlight, there is ozone, from the paper apparently at reasonable levels, and no concern about UV hurting life.
So, why the big stink? Look for a hidden agenda. Follow the money. A big trilogy of sin, evil, transgression, retribution, redemption. Manipulation. Propaganda. Politics. Take a little, cute but nearly irrelevant, science and blow it up with a lot of scare headlines (get ad revenue) and build a big consensus to permit picking the pockets of everyone who wants to use refrigeration. So, a flim-flam, fraud, scam. Suspicions confirmed.
Science showing threat to humans? Nope.
Got some better evidence? If so, then trot it out. Else we should move on and f'get about the ozone hole.
But, we can learn a lesson: Some people who want to pick pockets with a hidden agenda can misuse and exploit a little science and use a lot of publicity and propaganda to mislead much of the world. And ozone is not the only threat they can scream about.
Too much of the Hacker News community looks too gullible.
One way that doesn't seem to get talked about much: land use. The land surface of planet Earth looks a lot different than it did a few hundred years ago, and even more different than ten thousand years ago before humans started farming. For example, I look around my local area and compare it with what it looked like when I was growing up: then, lots of woods with a few farms; now, lots of asphalt and concrete and buildings. Ten thousand years ago it would have been all forest.
Here you are asking about me, personally, and not asking about science, policy, etc. But, I'll answer, this time.
One thing I am demonstrating today, as I get voted down by about 50 points, is that there are a lot of really nasty, intolerant people on HN. Okay, now that I have established and know that, maybe it was worth the 50 points. The shame is HN's, not mine.
"At all"? Sure: Light a candle and warm the planet. No doubt. Change? Yes. Significant or harmful? No.
The environment? Well, yes: There has long been a lot of pollution of lakes and streams. E.g., Lake Erie used to be a total mess. People with boats saw scum on their boats. Now Lake Erie is much cleaner, and people can and are willing to catch and eat the fish. And people around the Great Lakes are really happy about the cleaner lakes.
The clean air act did a lot to clean up auto smog in big cities. Out in the suburbs and country, nearly all the mandated changes in cars were an expensive, total pain in the back side for no good reason at all.
Apparently for some years Japan had to learn some of the lessons about water pollution the hard way. Now they have had to learn about nuclear safety the hard way. I believe that they will learn.
Apparently China is learning the lessons over again, also the hard way. But China can be severe on some law violations, and in places China has a lot of motivation to have some good laws and enforce them. I suspect that relatively quickly, mostly they will get the message.
Maybe someday all the US rivers will be clean enough for fish to migrate up and breed. Dams will be an issue, but otherwise there shouldn't be much reason why not. Land runoff? Shouldn't really be a biggie.
People have worked hard on the Chesapeake Bay, and likely they have made good progress. There's a lot of good economic value in a clean Chesapeake Bay.
In places there has been overfishing, but that's not usually regarded as changing the environment. Still, a well run, regulated, fishery is in the interests of nearly everyone so is feasible in practice.
But, apparently also there is something of an industry that wants to run environmental alarm scams for whatever agendas. From all I've been able to see, at least 99 44/100% of the alarm about human caused global warming, climate change, and depletion of the ozone is just such a scam. To me, the alarmists just don't make a solid case. It looks like a scam, walks like a scam, quacks like a scam, and I conclude it's a scam. It's a close cousin to the Mayan charlatans saying that to keep the sun moving across the sky it was necessary to kill people and pour blood on a rock -- literally, no exaggeration. A scam. A psychological manipulation and exploitation for reasons of a hidden agenda, usually for money or politics, with a lot of both involved. It's my best judgment; read my arguments on this thread; consider my judgment or not; take it or leave it as you wish. If you want to believe in human caused climate change, etc., go ahead, but my view is that you are being manipulated into letting manipulative, exploitative, selfish people on your back and into your pocket, shooting yourself in your foot, with higher prices across the board, often significantly higher, for no good reason.
Here's one: Here on HN I noted that a car needs a source of energy, and for that energy a 15 gallon tank of gasoline is really tough to beat. Batteries? Good for golf carts and otherwise next to hopeless due, especially to recharging time.
Heck, I can really like an electric car if only because I like high performance, and a series wound electric motor at stall generates essentially infinite torque. Also a generator-motor combination provides essentially a perfect transmission. And a battery with an electric motor is really low on moving parts compared with a gasoline engine.
But, just like a Ford executive said long ago, and the auto industry understood well when electric cars were tried 100 years ago (with batteries nearly as good then as now), "You build me a good battery, and I will build you a good electric car.". We're still waiting for that good battery, say, one that can beat a 15 gallon tank of gasoline. Well, that message was heresy here on HN. A lot of electric car true believers here? Who hate gasoline? Apparently.
So, what's the best way to beat a 15 gallon tank of gasoline? Apparently scream about CO2 and climate change. Money? Sure, get a lot of subsidies. Later, tax carbon. Did I mention a hidden agenda, follow the money, on your back and in your pocket?
Maybe a winner will always get picked on, and a 15 gallon tank of gasoline is a great winner -- super tough to beat. So, it gets picked on. But not by me -- I believe that tank is terrific and want to continue to benefit from it.
I discussed that below, i.e., in an earlier response here. A big part of that old scam was that there is a big ozone hole over the Antarctic. Wow! Nearly all the CFCs were released in the northern hemisphere, but somehow the ozone hole the CFCs caused was in the southern hemisphere, the Antarctic, without mention of the Arctic. Easy conclusion: For whatever reason, and not CFCs, there is and long has been a huge ozone hole over the Antarctic in the Antarctic winter when there are months with no sunlight at all. Thus, maybe there is more UV in winter in Patagonia, Sidney, Johannesburg? How about Skull Island?
But, what about a winter ozone hole over the Arctic and, then, more winter UV in, say, Maine? I haven't heard about that.
As I discussed, if we are going to talk about ozone holes, then let's have some comparisons, different times of year, different years, different locations, etc. Let's know how the measurements were done, by whom, when, etc. Let's have the data peer reviewed. Indeed, let's have some evidence that is at least a notch or two above just raw, smelly dead fish, manipulative, flim-flam, fraud, scam propaganda.
We don't have such evidence? Then I conclude propaganda. Sorry 'bout that. To me, the ozone hole alarmists just didn't make their case.
It is interesting that, when speaking of ozone depletion, stratospheric geoengineering[0] is never mentioned.
A plethora of studies and climate scientists have proved that this public climate-alteration program, that has been going on since the 90's, is influencing the ozone-depletion[1] and other hazardous consequences of weather manipulation.
A documentary showing depicting the public conferences with scientists talking about this program[2]
From your sources [0] and [1], I am inclined to believe that if such a program were in effect it could influence ozone depletion, but there is no indication this is happening, let alone that it has been since the '90s.
If I find a paper telling me the potential side effects of shredding dollar bills in the upper atmosphere* and a video by chemtrail conspiracy theorists, does it follow that the government has been shredding dollar bills in the upper atmosphere for the last 20 years?
