Ozone-Depleting Compound Persists, NASA Research Shows

china industrial sector doesn't care about the environment, their employees or anything at all other than profit.

Not OP, but: rapid development, poor regulatory oversight, and a markedly chequered record when it comes to environmental considerations.

climate polluter, yes, but there are many other types of pollution.

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.

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.

Don't forget that Union Carbide was responsible for the disaster, who have their HQ in Houston.

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.

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.

It's a scam. It's time to call it a scam.

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.

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.

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.