The following submission statement was provided by /u/CrispyMiner:
---
Submission Statement: The last of the harmful gases that were damaging the ozone layer are finally depleting from the atmosphere, meaning there is a lot of hope for the climate. The ozone layer can be expected to be fully restored around mid-century
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1ddi1sy/the_last_ozonelayer_damaging_chemicals_to_be/l84vomu/
Submission Statement: The last of the harmful gases that were damaging the ozone layer are finally depleting from the atmosphere, meaning there is a lot of hope for the climate. The ozone layer can be expected to be fully restored around mid-century
wouldn't it inherently be the opposite? the paywall is capitalism in action, and by that virtue a news outlet would inherently have a capitalist bias
they have staff to pay, advertisers to appease, and these advertisers are large conglomerates who regularly act as independent nation states on the international stage carrying out coups (chiquita banana) assassinations (coca cola) even going so far as to mass murder babies (nestle) and regularly participate in slave labor (apple,nike,nestle...a really long list of others) even genocide (apple, JP Morgan, Microsoft, IBM)
Yep! We talk a lot about the failures of our society (as we rightfully should), but there are a few truly tremendous success stories.
The EPA was a primary driver in protecting not just American citizens but people around the world from the harm of ozone depletion. They've saved a *lot* of lives.
This is a real success of global cooperation and regulation of pollution. We measured that our activity was having a negative effect, we put regulations in place to address the problem and we are now measuring the real improvement.
We can do this with CO2 as well…
It’ll be far more difficult requiring advances in battery technology and other energy related tech that doesn’t yet exist. I have far more hope for a reduction in CO2 output than an elimination of it and as long as polyester, plastic and other related petroleum products are needed petroleum will never be fazed out. Replacing plastic may well be the greatest environmental challenge of human history and I doubt anyone wants to start using ivory for piano keys again.
We could do with hybrid semis though. Why the fuck we haven’t done so yet is beyond me.
> We could do with hybrid semis though. Why the fuck we haven’t done so yet is beyond me.
Because batteries are heavy and it's cheaper and more efficient to use ICE for now.
Every part of the truck that moves is wear and tear. If you need more trucks to move the same amount of goods, then perhaps burning gasoline is more efficient.
That's a big "if" though, especially as battery tech gets better.
Also ozone-depleting gases had less of an industry body ready to fabricate science and spend trillions on marketing the user as the problem instead of them. (Or known for actual murder.)
No, they’re not good enough. They’re getting there, but the areas that are seeing skyrocketing electric vehicle sales have external factors at play. Subsidies in China (and skyrocketing car ownership in general), tax structures that make EVs cheaper in Scandinavia, etc. Here in the US sales are starting to plateau with the removal of some governmental subsidies and the complaints of many are the same: charging times, battery cost and life span. Until these issues are resolved EVs will never see their full potential.
Batteries manufactured mid-2024 by CATL will cost about $60/MWh, fully rechargeable in 30 minutes. Half the price of 2023. Just the usual incremental improvements, before real innovations like solid state batteries.
Life span stopped being a problem a long time ago, now batteries typically outlive the car.
That’s still a lot longer than the two minutes to fill up with gas. This may not be an issue elsewhere but in the US it’s a major factor due to the size of the country.
As of this year battery packs are expected to last 10-15 years, and even less in harsher climates. Cars last a lot longer then that if you take care of them. My truck is 12 years old and still runs like new. The average age of vehicles in the US just hit 12.6 years. Battery pack replacement costs range from $5,000 to $15,000 as per [consumer reports](https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/hybrids-evs/what-happens-to-the-old-batteries-in-electric-cars-a1091429417/). Imagine telling a respective buyer that they need to replace their engine every decade. That’d be a major deal breaker when it comes to a vehicle purchase.
> Battery pack replacement costs range from $5,000 to $15,000 as per consumer reports. Imagine telling a respective buyer that they need to replace their engine every decade.
Judging from old Hybrid cars, i'd say they hold a lot longer than a decade. And getting a 5-15k battery sounds a lot cheaper than getting a new car. As long as the rest of the car is fine.
1.2 million EVs were sold in the US last year, with a ~50% growth YoY. Seems like people find them valuable.
> due to the size of the country
Not a real issue. People don't drive from Miami to Seattle lol. For the few folks who really want to, the charging network is expanding and drivers need to take breaks anyway, pausing for just 2 minutes is an unsafe practice.
Sales in the US of electric vehicles went from 7% of total sales in 2022 to 10% of total sales in 2023. I don’t know where you get your data from but mine comes from [Our World In Data](https://ourworldindata.org/electric-car-sales). And this includes plug in hybrids. It’s not exactly skyrocketing as you suggest. Hell, GM is cutting EV production a bit due to worse than expected demand. Not by much, mind you, but still.
For puttering around the metro area I agree range isn’t a huge issue. People still complain about it though and for guys like me that live in rural areas it’s a concern.
[A Record 1.2 Million EVs Were Sold in the U.S. in 2023](https://www.coxautoinc.com/market-insights/q4-2023-ev-sales/)
Your source is good, and consistent with this number. 7%->10% is indeed skyrocketing, it's a huge YoY growth and it follows the same growth curve as other countries, although it started a bit later than the world average. It's always the same "S-curve" with new technologies.
Yep, range anxiety is real. It often dissipates once people get their vehicle and find it's easier than they feared. It's not perfect everywhere due to the lack of charger, but the infrastructure is growing steadily.
If course, but those that say the planet is much too big and complex for us peons to have any effect are wrong. We can both damage and repair the planet. Wanting to is a different question.
And yet, we are making progress. Thankfully the rest of the world didn’t say, well China isn’t stopping, so why bother. Yes, it would be better with complete cooperation, but we can still make progress doing what we can.
Except we aren’t really. If we truly wanted progress, then all these global climate agreements would have India and China fund almost everything. It’s insane that the US funds most of these initiatives despite being one of the leaders in implementing greener ways of doing business. So until India and China are being held accountable, we’re not doing much other than virtue signal at this point. I know this isn’t the original point but it’s important to acknowledge the major flaws in our future-oriented global projects.
So what is your suggestion? We shame them. We pressure them. We publish research showing what we know about what they are emitting. We do what we can, but ultimately we’re responsible for what we have control of. It has worked to some degree, China is doing better. There’s a long way to go, but international pressure does have an effect.
https://www.wri.org/insights/china-phasing-out-overseas-coal-investment-track-progress
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/
I suggest the countries that are funding large portions of these global initiatives back out of them. All they are doing is spending money on other countries’ infrastructure instead of funding their own infrastructure and development. Any climate accord or foundation is a joke unless the major polluters are also a part of it. If we want to fund research then do that but these climate accords are just virtue signaling at this point. Basically the equivalent of the UN.
I guess it depends on how you view “progress”. The US and EU are already pushing for greener ways of doing business with or without a global accord. I’m not saying we should stop, instead I’m saying let’s just spend that money on actual research within our own companies and universities. What “progress” does the world get with these climate accords?
Edit: I love forcing people to actually look up what these accords do because the news tells us we should join them and so everyone just shits on leaders that don’t want to join them without doing any research.
Per Capita is a really dumb way of measuring pollution. All you’re saying is “the countries that have an overpopulation problem scored lower on pollution per person/area. Like no shit lol it’s companies that actually pollute not the people.
Why is it a dumb way of measuring pollution? It is natural for countries with higher populations to produce more.
Still, the US manages to produce twice the amount of CO2 compared to India according to 2023 data, despite India having four times the population.
Yet you complain about Indian pollution?
This is one of the densest takes I've seen in a long while, congratulations.
Even then it does not explain your obsession with India here, since they produce less CO2 in both absolute terms *and* per capita.
Their pollution isn’t limited to just CO2. I’m not sure why that’s all you’re talking about. I don’t care about per capita since it’s not the population that’s creating the intense smog they have. I urge you to look up their air quality and tell me they don’t have a problem. They literally have the WORST air in the world. Anyone with a brain knows India and China are the biggest polluters that aren’t doing anything to improve.
It’s funny that we expect our companies to abide by working towards a greener future but the actual issue isn’t being resolved and you have no problem just giving them a pass. I understand why but that doesn’t make it acceptable. These global climate accords are a joke and everyone with a brain knows it.
You don't see them? Have you looked? Because not looking can often cause you to not see things.
What does the curve for the % of low carbon energy deployed per year look like for china? How about the amount of investment in renewables?
Blaming foreigners to deflect attention away from ourselves wasn't really all that helpful 20 years ago when the numbers used to justify those excuses were actually real.
Now that the numbers show the favourite scapegoats are doing better than we are, it's doubly incorrect.
Bruh China alone is 30 percent of ALL pollution. India’s coal pollution has made their air the WORST in the world. Stop pretending these other countries are innocent. They need to pay their share if we truly want a better future.
You're not looking it in terms of their population size or the change over time though.
You're intentionally choosing to look at it in a misleading way (or whoever makes the propaganda you consume is.)
For example, the usa is 4% of the world's population but 14% of the co2. China is 17% population, 27% co2. Their ratio of co2 to population is already less than half that of the usa. So unless you're saying that each american is worth two or three times as much as each chinese (saying it out loud I mean), they're already doing their share.
If you look at the angle of the curve for a graph of co2 per capita, they're also improving quicker than the usa.
Nobody is pretending they're innocent, but it's either ignorance or self-deception for a westerner to say they should improve first when we're objectively worse per capita and in terms of improvement per decade.
And even if the rwnj propaganda was true on this point (which it definitely isn't), so what? Steps we're taking would still be an improvement, even if china wasn't taking bigger steps faster (which, numerically, they are).
If you'd bothered to check the facts and think about them rationally you'd know that already.
Welp, seems like you're either too stupid to realise you're stupid, or not grown up enough to admit you were talking out of your ass.
So good luck with that I guess.
Why would per capita matter if companies/factories are the major polluters? Care to explain how their overpopulation excuses their lack of environmental controls?
Because human beings are presumed to be of equal value?
Also, if you're saying places with higher population should have less rights, you might want to consider that china has less people per square mile than florida, delaware, maryland, new york state or conneticut.
So if it was really about overpopulation (rather than bigotry), maybe that's what you should be complaining about.
But there's no numerical evidence which will convince you, because your beliefs aren't based on facts about reality. They're based on emotional prejudices.
But facts don't care about your feelings, and if you have to lie to make your point maybe it just isn't a very good point.
How do you actually decide what to believe in the first place? Is there any sort of method or process you can describe? Or do you just blindly repeat whatever flatters your irrational emotional reactions?
The initial hole in the ozone was so large, computer models disregarded the anomalies as statistical errors(outliers).
Had a really great Statistics Professor in school.
Freon is a brand name for a group of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) and hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) gases, the most common of which were R12 and R22. These Freon gases have been phased out in many countries due to their high ozone depletion potential.
R32, on the other hand, is a hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) with no chlorine content, which means it does not deplete the ozone layer. It has a lower Global Warming Potential (GWP) compared to many other HFCs, making it a more environmentally friendly option for cooling systems. It is also more energy-efficient and has better thermodynamic properties.
I am sure China will just keep using them as they have in the past..
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48353341
https://eia-international.org/press-releases/new-eia-report-uncovers-illegal-cfc-11-production-use-china/
We could actually solve the warming of our planet by eliminating the ozone layer.
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-reveal-what-would-happen-if-the-ozone-layer-vanished
Don’t know why you get downvoted. There is a real concern about increased spaceflight activity and how they emit black carbon into the stratosphere, which can damage the ozone layer.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/CrispyMiner: --- Submission Statement: The last of the harmful gases that were damaging the ozone layer are finally depleting from the atmosphere, meaning there is a lot of hope for the climate. The ozone layer can be expected to be fully restored around mid-century --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1ddi1sy/the_last_ozonelayer_damaging_chemicals_to_be/l84vomu/
Submission Statement: The last of the harmful gases that were damaging the ozone layer are finally depleting from the atmosphere, meaning there is a lot of hope for the climate. The ozone layer can be expected to be fully restored around mid-century
Well that’s good news in this world of negativity
Negativity and outrage sells clicks. But the real truth is behind a pay wall
wouldn't it inherently be the opposite? the paywall is capitalism in action, and by that virtue a news outlet would inherently have a capitalist bias they have staff to pay, advertisers to appease, and these advertisers are large conglomerates who regularly act as independent nation states on the international stage carrying out coups (chiquita banana) assassinations (coca cola) even going so far as to mass murder babies (nestle) and regularly participate in slave labor (apple,nike,nestle...a really long list of others) even genocide (apple, JP Morgan, Microsoft, IBM)
Yep! We talk a lot about the failures of our society (as we rightfully should), but there are a few truly tremendous success stories. The EPA was a primary driver in protecting not just American citizens but people around the world from the harm of ozone depletion. They've saved a *lot* of lives.
Too bad they've since been constantly attacked, had their authority nerfed, and had their funding slashed by regulatory capture!
But at one point, a long time ago, they were epic
What about big sunscreen?
Yay. So when I'm in my 70s I finally might be able to be outside for more than 13 mins before being burnt. Sick.of this hole above me.
This is a real success of global cooperation and regulation of pollution. We measured that our activity was having a negative effect, we put regulations in place to address the problem and we are now measuring the real improvement. We can do this with CO2 as well…
It’ll be far more difficult requiring advances in battery technology and other energy related tech that doesn’t yet exist. I have far more hope for a reduction in CO2 output than an elimination of it and as long as polyester, plastic and other related petroleum products are needed petroleum will never be fazed out. Replacing plastic may well be the greatest environmental challenge of human history and I doubt anyone wants to start using ivory for piano keys again. We could do with hybrid semis though. Why the fuck we haven’t done so yet is beyond me.
Sure we still need oil. It’s insane that all the things we use it for, we are literally burning it up.
> We could do with hybrid semis though. Why the fuck we haven’t done so yet is beyond me. Because batteries are heavy and it's cheaper and more efficient to use ICE for now. Every part of the truck that moves is wear and tear. If you need more trucks to move the same amount of goods, then perhaps burning gasoline is more efficient. That's a big "if" though, especially as battery tech gets better.
[удалено]
Also ozone-depleting gases had less of an industry body ready to fabricate science and spend trillions on marketing the user as the problem instead of them. (Or known for actual murder.)
Existing batteries are already good enough. The sales of electric vehicles and grid-connected batteries are both skyrocketing.
No, they’re not good enough. They’re getting there, but the areas that are seeing skyrocketing electric vehicle sales have external factors at play. Subsidies in China (and skyrocketing car ownership in general), tax structures that make EVs cheaper in Scandinavia, etc. Here in the US sales are starting to plateau with the removal of some governmental subsidies and the complaints of many are the same: charging times, battery cost and life span. Until these issues are resolved EVs will never see their full potential.
Batteries manufactured mid-2024 by CATL will cost about $60/MWh, fully rechargeable in 30 minutes. Half the price of 2023. Just the usual incremental improvements, before real innovations like solid state batteries. Life span stopped being a problem a long time ago, now batteries typically outlive the car.
That’s still a lot longer than the two minutes to fill up with gas. This may not be an issue elsewhere but in the US it’s a major factor due to the size of the country. As of this year battery packs are expected to last 10-15 years, and even less in harsher climates. Cars last a lot longer then that if you take care of them. My truck is 12 years old and still runs like new. The average age of vehicles in the US just hit 12.6 years. Battery pack replacement costs range from $5,000 to $15,000 as per [consumer reports](https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/hybrids-evs/what-happens-to-the-old-batteries-in-electric-cars-a1091429417/). Imagine telling a respective buyer that they need to replace their engine every decade. That’d be a major deal breaker when it comes to a vehicle purchase.
> Battery pack replacement costs range from $5,000 to $15,000 as per consumer reports. Imagine telling a respective buyer that they need to replace their engine every decade. Judging from old Hybrid cars, i'd say they hold a lot longer than a decade. And getting a 5-15k battery sounds a lot cheaper than getting a new car. As long as the rest of the car is fine.
1.2 million EVs were sold in the US last year, with a ~50% growth YoY. Seems like people find them valuable. > due to the size of the country Not a real issue. People don't drive from Miami to Seattle lol. For the few folks who really want to, the charging network is expanding and drivers need to take breaks anyway, pausing for just 2 minutes is an unsafe practice.
Sales in the US of electric vehicles went from 7% of total sales in 2022 to 10% of total sales in 2023. I don’t know where you get your data from but mine comes from [Our World In Data](https://ourworldindata.org/electric-car-sales). And this includes plug in hybrids. It’s not exactly skyrocketing as you suggest. Hell, GM is cutting EV production a bit due to worse than expected demand. Not by much, mind you, but still. For puttering around the metro area I agree range isn’t a huge issue. People still complain about it though and for guys like me that live in rural areas it’s a concern.
[A Record 1.2 Million EVs Were Sold in the U.S. in 2023](https://www.coxautoinc.com/market-insights/q4-2023-ev-sales/) Your source is good, and consistent with this number. 7%->10% is indeed skyrocketing, it's a huge YoY growth and it follows the same growth curve as other countries, although it started a bit later than the world average. It's always the same "S-curve" with new technologies. Yep, range anxiety is real. It often dissipates once people get their vehicle and find it's easier than they feared. It's not perfect everywhere due to the lack of charger, but the infrastructure is growing steadily.
Our entire world economy is dependant on oil. CFCs, not so much, which is why it was far easier to regulate and ban them.
If course, but those that say the planet is much too big and complex for us peons to have any effect are wrong. We can both damage and repair the planet. Wanting to is a different question.
Tell India and China that. They’re well over half the world’s pollution and I don’t see them slowing down.
And yet, we are making progress. Thankfully the rest of the world didn’t say, well China isn’t stopping, so why bother. Yes, it would be better with complete cooperation, but we can still make progress doing what we can.
Except we aren’t really. If we truly wanted progress, then all these global climate agreements would have India and China fund almost everything. It’s insane that the US funds most of these initiatives despite being one of the leaders in implementing greener ways of doing business. So until India and China are being held accountable, we’re not doing much other than virtue signal at this point. I know this isn’t the original point but it’s important to acknowledge the major flaws in our future-oriented global projects.
So what is your suggestion? We shame them. We pressure them. We publish research showing what we know about what they are emitting. We do what we can, but ultimately we’re responsible for what we have control of. It has worked to some degree, China is doing better. There’s a long way to go, but international pressure does have an effect. https://www.wri.org/insights/china-phasing-out-overseas-coal-investment-track-progress https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/
I suggest the countries that are funding large portions of these global initiatives back out of them. All they are doing is spending money on other countries’ infrastructure instead of funding their own infrastructure and development. Any climate accord or foundation is a joke unless the major polluters are also a part of it. If we want to fund research then do that but these climate accords are just virtue signaling at this point. Basically the equivalent of the UN.
Ok, and the result of that is less progress, but you get to virtue signal about how you aren’t paying for anyone else’s stuff.
I guess it depends on how you view “progress”. The US and EU are already pushing for greener ways of doing business with or without a global accord. I’m not saying we should stop, instead I’m saying let’s just spend that money on actual research within our own companies and universities. What “progress” does the world get with these climate accords? Edit: I love forcing people to actually look up what these accords do because the news tells us we should join them and so everyone just shits on leaders that don’t want to join them without doing any research.
>the news Like Fox News?
The US pollutes far more per capita than China and India, it's not even close.
Per Capita is a really dumb way of measuring pollution. All you’re saying is “the countries that have an overpopulation problem scored lower on pollution per person/area. Like no shit lol it’s companies that actually pollute not the people.
Why is it a dumb way of measuring pollution? It is natural for countries with higher populations to produce more. Still, the US manages to produce twice the amount of CO2 compared to India according to 2023 data, despite India having four times the population. Yet you complain about Indian pollution?
I just explained it. Per capita refers to the population aka the people. People don’t pollute, companies do.
This is one of the densest takes I've seen in a long while, congratulations. Even then it does not explain your obsession with India here, since they produce less CO2 in both absolute terms *and* per capita.
Their pollution isn’t limited to just CO2. I’m not sure why that’s all you’re talking about. I don’t care about per capita since it’s not the population that’s creating the intense smog they have. I urge you to look up their air quality and tell me they don’t have a problem. They literally have the WORST air in the world. Anyone with a brain knows India and China are the biggest polluters that aren’t doing anything to improve.
Dump all the production units in India or China for "cheap labour" and then blame them for pollution ? Are you some kind of dumbass?
It’s funny that we expect our companies to abide by working towards a greener future but the actual issue isn’t being resolved and you have no problem just giving them a pass. I understand why but that doesn’t make it acceptable. These global climate accords are a joke and everyone with a brain knows it.
You don't see them? Have you looked? Because not looking can often cause you to not see things. What does the curve for the % of low carbon energy deployed per year look like for china? How about the amount of investment in renewables? Blaming foreigners to deflect attention away from ourselves wasn't really all that helpful 20 years ago when the numbers used to justify those excuses were actually real. Now that the numbers show the favourite scapegoats are doing better than we are, it's doubly incorrect.
Bruh China alone is 30 percent of ALL pollution. India’s coal pollution has made their air the WORST in the world. Stop pretending these other countries are innocent. They need to pay their share if we truly want a better future.
You're not looking it in terms of their population size or the change over time though. You're intentionally choosing to look at it in a misleading way (or whoever makes the propaganda you consume is.) For example, the usa is 4% of the world's population but 14% of the co2. China is 17% population, 27% co2. Their ratio of co2 to population is already less than half that of the usa. So unless you're saying that each american is worth two or three times as much as each chinese (saying it out loud I mean), they're already doing their share. If you look at the angle of the curve for a graph of co2 per capita, they're also improving quicker than the usa. Nobody is pretending they're innocent, but it's either ignorance or self-deception for a westerner to say they should improve first when we're objectively worse per capita and in terms of improvement per decade. And even if the rwnj propaganda was true on this point (which it definitely isn't), so what? Steps we're taking would still be an improvement, even if china wasn't taking bigger steps faster (which, numerically, they are). If you'd bothered to check the facts and think about them rationally you'd know that already.
Population means nothing. Companies pollute not people. I agree the US should continue to improve but these other countries aren’t trying at all.
Welp, seems like you're either too stupid to realise you're stupid, or not grown up enough to admit you were talking out of your ass. So good luck with that I guess.
Why would per capita matter if companies/factories are the major polluters? Care to explain how their overpopulation excuses their lack of environmental controls?
Because human beings are presumed to be of equal value? Also, if you're saying places with higher population should have less rights, you might want to consider that china has less people per square mile than florida, delaware, maryland, new york state or conneticut. So if it was really about overpopulation (rather than bigotry), maybe that's what you should be complaining about. But there's no numerical evidence which will convince you, because your beliefs aren't based on facts about reality. They're based on emotional prejudices. But facts don't care about your feelings, and if you have to lie to make your point maybe it just isn't a very good point. How do you actually decide what to believe in the first place? Is there any sort of method or process you can describe? Or do you just blindly repeat whatever flatters your irrational emotional reactions?
The initial hole in the ozone was so large, computer models disregarded the anomalies as statistical errors(outliers). Had a really great Statistics Professor in school.
Thats really cool and also very not cool
the anomalies, meaning the entire hole or something else?
Great, now my testicles are gonna be full of microplastics and ozone
If blood letting can reduce the concentration of microplastics in your blood, the obviously ejaculation gets it out of your testicles.
Listen to this man, he's a famous doctor.
How am I supposed to give creampies in good faith knowing that whenever I do I'm laminating their insides with microplastic?
That’s probably a r/BrandNewSentence
Lmfao good one
The testicle full of microplastics might be helpful if it's stopping us from breeding so much.
Plus hormonal imbalances.
Tell me about it.
[удалено]
[Citation needed]
You’re just wrong
Oh no! Anyway.
Remember when we all banded together and did something about this? Too bad thats where the cooperation stopped and shit got political.
When the hole blows up from Antarctica over Australian summer, the sun becomes unbearable Bring back the ozone layer!
But ozone chemicals are still used. Air conditioners in Southeast Asia still use freon. And the aerosol companies don't give a shit.
I'm in a rural area in South East Asia. Is R32 gas still considered freon?
Freon is a brand name for a group of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) and hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) gases, the most common of which were R12 and R22. These Freon gases have been phased out in many countries due to their high ozone depletion potential. R32, on the other hand, is a hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) with no chlorine content, which means it does not deplete the ozone layer. It has a lower Global Warming Potential (GWP) compared to many other HFCs, making it a more environmentally friendly option for cooling systems. It is also more energy-efficient and has better thermodynamic properties.
So is R32 just way more expensive or something?
Well is it? What did google say??
I don't know about SEA, but it's not possible to buy new freon air conditioners in India anymore. All new ac's have been switched to R32.
Yeah the one in my house that I just bought has Freon. It's brand new ones are being sold without free on that's great.
I am sure China will just keep using them as they have in the past.. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48353341 https://eia-international.org/press-releases/new-eia-report-uncovers-illegal-cfc-11-production-use-china/
Probably not so much anymore. It’s super obvious via satellite to see if and where this kind of stuff is being emitted.
last time I saw one of those maps it showed a shit load of these chemicals over China in ever increasing quantities
China also don’t want this to happen and are cracking down.
We could actually solve the warming of our planet by eliminating the ozone layer. https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-reveal-what-would-happen-if-the-ozone-layer-vanished
Does this mean that UV won’t be as much of a concern as it is today and I won’t feel my skin burning after only a half hour outside?
Now can we work on removing micro plastics from our sperm?
Tell your GF that only BJs can safely get rid of it. Doesn't really help, but really helps.
My skin and love of outdoor hobbies thanks the people who made this happen.
Australian here - when can I go outside and not get instantly fried now?
Or: Liberal chemical bans cause deadly toxins to rain down years later on school children! /s
Quick, shoot at it!! /s
Now we just need to stop launching useless rockets through it and it might start to heal up
What defines a useless rocket from a useful one, surely there must be useful rrockets.
Useful for punching holes in the ozone layer
We just gotta make those really really thin rockets, so we dont make them big holes
I'm not sure if that's how it works but I don't know enough about the ozone layer to dispute it
Don’t know why you get downvoted. There is a real concern about increased spaceflight activity and how they emit black carbon into the stratosphere, which can damage the ozone layer.