We can expect 2026 to have an overall ranking within the top ten most severe ozone holes of all time.

I know the main stream bang on about this being a success for cooperation by humanity (cough) and yet we have no idea of the long term consequences of what we've done.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 day ago (1 child)

We could get a worldwide ban going but as long as any country with launch capabilities (like, say, the United States) decides not to join the ban we achieve nothing. And given how the States work, it's unlikely that they'd agree to such a ban.

With CFCs we had the benefit of having replacement chemicals available. Sure, they were somewhat less efficient than CFCs but they worked just fine.

(Also, some people still use them despite the ban. China has been shown to still be a CFC emitter although to a lesser degree than earlier.)

A ban or heavy restriction on LEO satellite constellations would render the whole high speed satellite internet business model useless. Sure, you can do it with higher orbits but that requires unacceptable tradeoffs. So you'd see much more pushback.

On the other hand, charging for environmental damage is kinda hard to work around. Sure, Musk can go cry to daddy Trump if the mean EU forces him to pay up. But Trump can't really do much except escalate the trade war for the thirtieth time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 hours ago

    I'd still say that the situation is similar enough to CFCs. If the USA would not have forbidden CFCs, there also wouldn't really have been much other countries can do, as it's in the atmosphere. From that political perspective it's pretty comparable.

    As for having a replacement available, there are some technologies that just aren't worth it, when compared to the damage they do. We do have a replacement, which would be wired internet. Or heck, even cellular networks. For those rare remote locations it might have a higher upfront cost, but from a perspective of necessity, I'd say that a working ozone layer is even more important to those remote locations than high-speed internet.

    That doesn't go against anything you said, on a factual level I agree with your statements - I'm well aware that that's not how the world works. I'm just annoyed by this being used as arguments in discussions about the environment. Of course the USA or even Europe would hesitate to do something that would eat into the profit margins of companies. That doesn't mean that we immediately have to take over these talking points. The world shouldn't be about profit over everything else. But that's just my little utopia.

  • source
  • parent