Eh. The solution to the ozone layer was to replace refrigerant A with refrigerant B. A 1:1 swap that required very little effort from anybody.
Getting off fossil fuels more or less mandates an entire global paradigm shift in how we do basically everything. The entire global economy of the past 200 years has been built off an unsustainable energy source.
Sure, we can replace gas with batteries, but every step of the way is going to require small changes in how people do things, and they’re going to be very resistant to that.
my point is that the consumers are not where change starts. it’s cheaper to run ad campaigns than it is to change the production process, but for CFCs they couldn’t do that.
Oh sure. I agree with that. Obviously many people have limited options.
I just think think it’s a monumentally bigger ask no matter where the change has to be made (policy or individual choice).
Like our best solution for transportation (in the US at least) is to just keep making larger free ways. Even gas powered buses running on decades old technology could make a significant impact on the climate crisis, but people either don’t want to ride them or cities don’t want to build them.
Any way, I’m just frustrated with the attitude that we’re going to technology our way out of this hole without needing to change or sacrifice anything (like we pulled off with ozone).
When it comes to energy use, there’s such a thing induced demand. If it’s cheaper, people will use it more. Hell, look at how much energy it takes to use AI to write an email.
Eh. The solution to the ozone layer was to replace refrigerant A with refrigerant B. A 1:1 swap that required very little effort from anybody.
Getting off fossil fuels more or less mandates an entire global paradigm shift in how we do basically everything. The entire global economy of the past 200 years has been built off an unsustainable energy source.
Sure, we can replace gas with batteries, but every step of the way is going to require small changes in how people do things, and they’re going to be very resistant to that.
the key was that the producers had to be forced to take action, as consumers had very little agency in choosing cfcs.
no ad campaign for individual responsibility there, as there was really nothing you could do.
Yeah but consumers already have choices when it comes to fossil fuels and they’re sticking with fossil fuels.
my point is that the consumers are not where change starts. it’s cheaper to run ad campaigns than it is to change the production process, but for CFCs they couldn’t do that.
Oh sure. I agree with that. Obviously many people have limited options.
I just think think it’s a monumentally bigger ask no matter where the change has to be made (policy or individual choice).
Like our best solution for transportation (in the US at least) is to just keep making larger free ways. Even gas powered buses running on decades old technology could make a significant impact on the climate crisis, but people either don’t want to ride them or cities don’t want to build them.
Any way, I’m just frustrated with the attitude that we’re going to technology our way out of this hole without needing to change or sacrifice anything (like we pulled off with ozone).
When it comes to energy use, there’s such a thing induced demand. If it’s cheaper, people will use it more. Hell, look at how much energy it takes to use AI to write an email.
There’s no induced demand with refrigerants.
right, we agree then. legislation is required.
Yeah, but again, try running on a platform of “everything you enjoy will need to be different.”