The issue was low priority for him and his administration, but the fact that he had personally suffered from the effects of excessive UV made it personal for him, and so he eventually pushed for action.
Before becoming a politician Thatcher was a research chemist (she studied X-ray crystolography under Dorothy Hodgkin) and so understood the science behind it all.
She had a brief "green" phase in the late 1980s which helped environmental concerns be seen as less of a "treehugger" thing in the UK and supported the creation of things like the IPCC and the Montreal Protocol. Unfortunately she later reverted to treating it as a political issue. It's frustrating to think about where we might be now if she had continued to treat it as a serious issue that needed cross-politics action rather than treating it as a partisan issue.
It's worth clarifying that Thatcher's study of crystallography was for her final-year undergraduate dissertation at Oxford. She got a second-class degree in Chemistry, and this was her only earned academic qualification. She did nothing that would be regarded as academic research. As for her work after graduation, she worked for just four years as an industrial chemist at a company that made plastics, before starting a legal career.
There is no evidence that she had any particular knowledge of atmospheric science. Perhaps her degree gave her an understanding of chemistry at an undergraduate level, but I'm always a little irritated by her being described as a "scientist" or that she did "research". I don't think that either claim is true.
Ad Hominem? Makes me a lot irritated, folks claiming that no degree of education is quite enough to understand whatever science they disagree with.
Based on my memory of Regan and a quick review of his educational achievements, I'd say you're probably right.
> Maybe that's why he believed her.
World leaders don't usually take scientific advice from people with just a bachelor's degree. Especially when said world leader is the head of a government that has multiple world-class national laboratories, a space agency, and employs tens of thousands of highly qualified scientists. If Thatcher influenced Regan's thinking on the ozone hole then I suspect it's because he recognised her as a fellow social conservative, not because of anything she might have been able to say about the catalysis of O3 to O2.
> She knew some of the societal costs (being a world leader) and some of the science too.
As a prime minister who famously stated in public that "there is no such thing as society", and who presided over the miner's strikes, I find it hard to believe that she knew much about "societal costs".
> Ad Hominem? Makes me a lot irritated, folks claiming that no degree of education is quite enough to understand whatever science they disagree with.
That's not what ad hominem means. I wasn't taking issue with her character (I never knew her), I was taking issue with her (as a public figure with political policies) being factually described as a "scientist" who did "research".
Empathy is something you feel, rather than something you calculate.
Also that might be the stated responsibility, but the implicit one is to improve the outcomes relative to perceived alternatives. Many times the alternatives area manufactured.
It's only when they themselves, or someone they care about, experiences something that they begin to care about it. It speaks to a selective empathy, one that is ultimately selfish, because it is only given when it starts to impact them. It is especially selfish when that lack of empathy has benefited them in the past, as well.
It isn't really hypocrisy -- it's more of a moderating factor given one's connections with people one might know, assuming the desire to fit in with society and have more pro-social interactions with others.
I'd say that it is natural to empathize more with people we know. I'd also say that it is totally unreasonable to ignore what is happening to other people when forming ones opinion on something. Maybe it is normal but I can not understand why you would think that it is in any way reasonable.
Empathy is when you recognize the basic humanity of others and are able to put yourself into their shoes and feel what they feel.
We're reactive, sure, but let's not throw that out there and use it to discount the fact that we can, without a doubt, learn to control those reactions. Social change often moves at a glacial pace because of this attitude, when the reality is that it up to us, right now, to break the cycle or change the pattern.
Look at LBJ.
And where would we be today if history had gone just a little bit differently? Heatwaves, wildfires, hurricanes, deforestation, mass extinction, AND I can't go outside without dressing like a beekeeper? It gives me a cold feeling in my stomach.
Keep in mind that Dow made billions on CFC replacements.
Reagan removes skin cancer from nose in 1984: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/08/06/r...
New Reagan EPA head appointed in 1986 pushes for Montreal Protocol ratification: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/21/reagan-seeks-to-pr...