deniers often point at "the ozone hole" and pretend that it was somehow an overblown problem. in fact, we truly dodged a bullet. it's too bad that people don't realize that science saved the planet.
https://twitter.com/AndrewDessler/status/1156639660371795968?s=20
RT @AndrewDessler@twitter.com
A video view of the world avoided.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfnVz_0Pa3c
🐦🔗: https://twitter.com/AndrewDessler/status/1156639660371795968
in fact, if you're looking for people that were wrong, it was those saying that it was "too expensive" or "too hard" to fix the problem. here's Fred Singer in 1989 in the National Review:
these "ozone deniers" sounds a whole lot like people who are telling us that we can't switch to renewable energy. why do we still listen to people who tell us we can't solve environmental problems given our track record of solving them cheaply and effectively?
@andrewdessler Beyond those deniers, objectively, the move from CFC to HCFC and then to HFC can't even remotely be compared with the phasing out of coal, petrol, and gas.
@ljbo Here’s the way I think about it. Certainly, the transition to renewable energy is a bigger problem, and I don’t think anyone really knows how hard it will be. But many of the people who are saying it’s going to be too hard are making that argument not based on any actual analysis, but because they are pursuing a policy objective, exactly the same way that people who said solving ozone depletion is too hard.
@andrewdessler Fair enough. People like me (and you) who are conscious of the climate issue and also point out the difficulty do so in order to set priorities and delineate where our efforts should go, not to argue that it is impossible. The debate is then about what's the best path forwards, not about whether it is possible in the first place.
