Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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