• lime!@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 day ago

    the key was that the producers had to be forced to take action, as consumers had very little agency in choosing cfcs.

    no ad campaign for individual responsibility there, as there was really nothing you could do.

    • ch00f@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Yeah but consumers already have choices when it comes to fossil fuels and they’re sticking with fossil fuels.

      • lime!@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        18 hours ago

        my point is that the consumers are not where change starts. it’s cheaper to run ad campaigns than it is to change the production process, but for CFCs they couldn’t do that.

        • ch00f@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          Oh sure. I agree with that. Obviously many people have limited options.

          I just think think it’s a monumentay bigger ask no matter where the change has to be made (policy or individual choice).

          Like our best solution for transportation (in the US at least) is to just keep making larger free ways. Even gas powered buses running on decades old technology could make a significant impact on the climate crisis, but people either don’t want to ride them or cities don’t want to build them.

          Any way, I’m just frustrated with the attitude that we’re going to technology our way out of this hole without needing to change or sacrifice anything (like we pulled off with ozone).

          When it comes to energy use, there’s such a thing induced demand. If it’s cheaper, people will use it more. Hell, look at how much energy it takes to use AI to write an email.

          There’s no induced demand with refrigerants.