So, I state that while CFCs are mostly banned right now. They're still an issue, and it took far too long to regulate. It is seriously not nonsense.
> and then stubbornly do the square root of bugger-all about it.
That's nonsense. There's a world of difference between "we do nothing about environmental problems," and "I think some particular action should've taken five less years go do," and when you retreat to that position it's a different point entirely.
As to whether it took "too long" to regulate CFCs, what's your measure for that? Is it just vibes? If we had started the process of banning CFCs five years earlier, what's your assertion for the harm mitigated compared to the factual?
Certainly some, probably low level employees, didn’t feel they had the luxury of questioning their company’s ethics and looking for work elsewhere, but what about all the more senior people who presumably sat in boardrooms and spun ways to continue pouring shit into the environment with reckless abandon? What am I missing?
Fictionalised, quite accurately perhaps, Michael Cristofer as Phillip Price and Bruce Altman playing Terry Colby in Sam Esmail's "Mr Robot" both do an outstanding job of capturing the shrugging banality of evil at genocidal scale. The feeling I got from that (Esmail is a first class writer) was of those inside accounts of the Nuremberg trials with Eichmann laughing
The banality of evil is that murdering a million people is just something you do on a nondescript Wednesday afternoon over wine and canapés while everyone is watching the clock to get out to the golf course.
There is no "rationalisation". No moustache twisting or maniacal laughter. No drama. No thought at all. It is the "amorality", the total absence of moral thought that is horrifying beyond anything Colonel Kurtz could conjure up at the dark end of the river.
Excellent points, well worth thinking about more.
(At least one side is willing to acknowledge that the problem exists. That’s worth something but maybe not very much.)
I don't think there was anything remotely close to a scientific consensus, or even a respected minority view, that fossil fuels would cause dangerous global warming in 1912, but correct me if I am wrong.
We have no way of getting rid of these chemicals except possibly to spread more chemicals, which then would need to break apart only those specific molecules AND capture their fluoride ions in some inert matrix to prevent them from forming other compounds as well as directly affecting the environment and our bodies.
We’re pretty much SOL and the only thing we can do is STOP using fluoride chemicals permanently, which we can’t entirely do, because things like uranium enrichment are dependent on teflon.
While creating a ton of new ones, which is sadly in the nature of most solutions; They tend to create new problems.
The question is how much "environmental capital" do we have left trying to figure out something actually long-term sustainable.