• Hikermick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    6 days ago

    There’s a lesson to be learned here:

    Remove lead? Industry fights it. Lead gets removed. Industry is fine.

    Acid rain? Industry fights it. Sulfur dioxide emissions reduced. Industry is fine.

    Hole in ozone layer? Industry fights it. PFCs removed. Industry just fine.

    Global warming? Industry fights it…

    • Ricky Rigatoni@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      6 days ago

      But the industry WASN’T fine. They lost a fraction of a fraction of a percent in profits by going for the cleaner, safer options. How can you be so heartless.

    • considine@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      There is an issue of scale in that series. The first three are relatively small cost fixes. Addressing global climate change requires fundamentally reconfiguring all industry, globally at the very least. That’s orders of magnitude more costly than the first three fixes. And it’s orders of magnitude more difficult to get done politically, and engineering-wise.

      But beyond that it may require massive reductions in consumption, trade and transportation. Possibly even short term remediation efforts like sprinkling silver dust in the stratosphere, which is estimated to cost in the hundred trillion dollar range.

      I like that your comment shows that progress can be made against entrenched powerful interests though.