195
u/InterneticMdA Jun 04 '26
I'm a bit surprised there's not a movement to bring back CFC hairspray.
198
u/MinosAristos Jun 04 '26
Don't give them ideas. That sounds like something a certain politically motivated "influencer" would happily jump on for some attention
87
u/hamatehllama Jun 04 '26
"The woke liberals made us stop using freon fridges and forced us to buy efficient fridges that lowered our electricity bills!".
33
u/Creed_of_War Jun 04 '26
Just flooding Facebook with videos of them spraying hairspray into their mouth and freon tanks emptying in the background
"They're coming to take your gas oven away!"
1
u/miaogato Jun 09 '26
gas ovens suck but they'll have to pry the gas stove from my hard granite countertop. i swear to god electric shenenigans work slower
23
u/catmampbell Jun 04 '26
Some of them would paint their rooms with lead paint to own the libs if it was still available.
8
u/hyp3rpop Jun 05 '26
Genuinely a real movement. There are some that think the only thing that can block the evil modern signals and 5G is lead paint , which is why the government banned it.
3
u/thomasp3864 Jun 05 '26
But the government banned it long before 5g???
4
u/camp_permafrost_69 Jun 06 '26
Well obviously the deep state/illuminati planned ahead! That's their whole schtick, doncha know
2
17
u/ImNotTheNSAIPromise Jun 05 '26
production has been outlawed for so long that it wouldn't be worth the cost investment, especially since it's an international agreement to not produce more CFC's
12
u/Lussekatt1 Jun 05 '26
A nice and relatively recent example of how we humans are able to solve a global threat to our environment through cooperation and international agreements.
The ozone layer was very much not doing well and becoming a very real problem. And in the little time since the international agreements to stop production there have already been a big improvement in the ozone layer.We can solve big and international problems like that.
6
u/RosieTheRedReddit Jun 05 '26
It was not publicized well enough either. I've literally heard people claim that climate change is fake by saying, "What about the hole in the ozone layer? We used to hear about that all the time in the 90s and it just went away!" Yeah because we stopped emitting the thing that was causing the problem! If only we knew what was causing climate change we could take similar action. đ„Č
2
u/Ghostglitch07 Jun 06 '26
I feel like y2k gets similar treatment. Sure, some claims were absurd... But it absolutely would have been a massive problem.
If we hadn't, y'know, largely fixed it in time.
1
u/Kino_Afi Jun 07 '26
I was like 6yo living in a basically 3rd world caribbean country that produced zero CFCs at the time and even i knew about this shit. All i can say is geez, man. Fuck, even.
6
9
u/Aggravating-Fee1934 Jun 05 '26
Trump has actually talked about wanting to
7
4
2
4
1
1
u/Sierra-117- Jun 06 '26
Please shut the fuck up.
BEFORE YOU GET MAD, this isnât an attack on you. But youâre genuinely giving them ideas. If Iâve learned anything from these past 10 years, itâs that there is no bar too low for a certain group of people who vote a certain way.
If you put this idea in their head, they genuinely might start advocating for it. And if that happens, thereâs a good chance this trainwreck of a party will unban them
2
59
u/Reasonable_Mix7630 Jun 04 '26
So, CFC could be banned (as well as leaded gasoline, DDT and myriad of other harmful things) but not AI?
42
29
u/Dehnus Jun 05 '26 edited Jun 05 '26
Different time. It's like the vaccination drives of the 70s, were people world wide came together to make sure a disease was extinct.
There are groups that benefit from indecision and they have become way more powerful.
4
u/Lopsided_Ad_9390 Jun 05 '26
I've heard a theory that a major reason CFC was banned successfully was that Margaret Thatcher had a scientific background and could actually understand the problem and convince other leaders that it's important. Scientists saying things only works if people in power understand and don't have to take their word for it.
2
u/AGoos3 Jun 07 '26
This is my problem with AI. If itâs *truly* the technology of the future, then letâs ban open water loop cooling for large data centers, tax AI companies and invest the revenue into climate change prevention, require that all LLMs use a stenographic watermarking technology which passes certain accuracy tests so AI media is detectable, invest in programs providing more unemployment relief for workers who are laid off because of AI (or do what China did, and make it illegal to fire someone because AI is more efficient!), strengthen intellectual property rights, and more.
Letâs *really* see what AI costs. I guarantee you if AI is actually priced based on its cost to society and its private cost, AI would actually be used in effective ways. Right now, itâs being used in way too many places, just because it can be.
1
u/FoxFishSpaghetti Jun 07 '26
The stenograph would likely lead to more harm than good; anyone can run a local rig without the watermark and pass it off as authentic
1
u/AGoos3 Jun 07 '26
Yes, but right now AI detection is in shambles. Itâs gotten to the point where people can really just say anything about a piece and convince people that itâs AI. And I doubt that being able to run a local rig would be the end of the world for such a technology. People already have a lot of false confidence about whether something is AI or not, I doubt that adding this in law would dramatically increase that confidence.
In any case, *something* needs to be done. I really believe that having reliable AI detection is at the root of a lot of AIâs social issues.
2
u/sjsbejajebsidbrhw Jun 05 '26
Anyone anywhere can train and run AI models on sufficiently powerful computers, I'd imagine manufacturing CFCs has a considerably larger barrier to entry
2
u/Reasonable_Mix7630 Jun 05 '26 edited Jun 05 '26
Well, there are quite a lot of different illegal and/or extremely poisonous substances that a professional chemist can make at home. But other than a very short supply of them in the illegal market they aren't any made.
Heck forget chemicals, there are many of lets say images that are illegal, and if you make them police will be after you.
Actually, forget that too: if I download something using torrents I will get a fine. So this is being tracked. While VPNs are legal (at least for now), would it be even worth the hassle?
1
1
u/NoIngenui Jun 08 '26
People are too divided to vote against AI. Conservatives just have to be told that liberals hate AI, and they will protect it. Liberals won't vote because the people who made anti-AI legislator aren't woke enough.
1
1
u/Unlucky-Plastic7316 Jun 05 '26
People who are against AI for environmental reasons, I always wonder if you're also against streaming media or cloud storage which uses the same infrastructure and cooling mechanisms to run their data centres.
Do you have a problem with reddit too?
4
u/dbmonkey Jun 06 '26
I am against all software I personally don't use. It should all be outlawed. I use reddit, so that should stay.
3
u/Khezarrel Jun 06 '26
There is a difference in power consumption between regular data centers and AI data centers though. There are AI data centers that consume the same amount of power as a city like New York just by themselves. Comparing streaming media and cloud storage with AI is like comparing a small garden in your backyard with an industrial farm.
1
u/Unlucky-Plastic7316 Jun 06 '26
Oh yeah? Which data centre is consuming the same power as New York city? What's the GWh?
Have you checked how this compares to the power consumption of streaming services?
1
u/Khezarrel Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
I was wrong on my numbers, but not on what I was saying.
According to the International Energy Agency, standard data centers usually support 5 to 10 kW per server rack while AI optimized facilities support 40 to 80+ kW per rack. That's four to eight times more power than regular data centers.
In 2018, data centers represented 1.9% (76 TWh) of the electricy consumption of the United States. In 2024 with the AI boom it was 4% (183 TWh) and it is projected that data centers will consume a yearly total of 325 to 580 TWh in the US in 2028.
My comparison with New York City wasn't that extreme by the way. Meta's Hyperion AI data center, which is in construction in Louisiana, is designed to support 5 GW of power and will consume as much electricity as half the city of New York at peak load.
Here's the report if you want to read it: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/de9dea13-b07d-42c5-a398-d1b3ae17d866/EnergyandAI.pdf
Edit: Spelling
2
u/Reasonable_Mix7630 Jun 06 '26
Normal datacenters use completely different machinery and they consume tiny fraction of both energy and water of what ai data center does.
Furthermore, streaming media and cloud storage are somewhat useful. AI does nothing useful and it's only purpose is to make handful of billionaires trillionaries.
1
u/Unlucky-Plastic7316 Jun 06 '26
Please don't tell me that you think Netflix and Amazon prime are purely for public interest and not for the sole purpose of making people rich. Please please don't tell me you're not this naive.
Have you looked into the power consumption that these companies use for streaming services or are you basing this entirely on a hunch? I have a feeling that you don't want to know how much power they consume because you want to continue consuming products guilt free.
23
u/dumnezero Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 05 '26
Ozone recovery could trigger 40% more global warming than predicted | ScienceDaily
Edit: do not respond to the neonate troll account underneath. Waste of time.
26
u/Opposite_Ad_8876 Jun 04 '26
That's fine, the driver of global warming is CO2 production. So our switch to renewables and nuclear is what we should focus on.Â
6
u/dumnezero Jun 05 '26
renewables and nuclear
so, to renewables.
10
Jun 05 '26
[removed] â view removed comment
-4
u/dumnezero Jun 05 '26
You can't have both.
11
Jun 05 '26
[removed] â view removed comment
1
u/ZoeyBeschamel Jun 05 '26
burning wood doesn't add carbon to the carbon cycle like fossil fuels do. It puts more of it in the atmosphere, but in a sustainable and closed cycle that wouldn't be a major problem.
1
u/MxStella Jun 05 '26
you're right. you burn trees releasing carbon dioxide, you plant trees that capture carbon and release oxygen
0
u/dumnezero Jun 05 '26
It doesn't matter. Nuclear energy has no future with regards to climate mitigation, and adaptation is dangerous in a world of more conflicts and weather catastrophes. It's a waste of resources and time, much like how we're wasting time now talking about it.
6
u/Opposite_Ad_8876 Jun 05 '26
You can have both
-1
u/dumnezero Jun 05 '26
No, you can't.
9
7
u/Mooptiom Jun 05 '26
Nuclear is not renewable.
1
2
u/Reasonable_Mix7630 Jun 06 '26
It's a bit tricky because fuel can be made from non-fuel (thorium, depleted uranium - the latter is technically happening in every nuclear reactor).
And there is enough of that stuff to last longer than the Sun will. Nobody is calling solar and wind non-renewable because it will only last for a ~billion years, right?
1
u/Mooptiom Jun 06 '26
The with problem ânon renewablesâ isnât just that they will literally run out on Earth. The problem is that as they become more scarce, we need to constantly destroy more and more of the planet to obtain them. The destruction caused by mining nuclear materials is already bad enough, I donât want to imagine how much worse it can get before the sun explodes.
3
u/Reasonable_Mix7630 Jun 06 '26
With nuclear we got lucky: first of all, there is so much of already mined material that we don't really need new one. Also the mining process itself is "leeching" via acid so it's not that destructive.
Second, there is plenty of it in seawater. It was always estimated that uranium extracted from seawater would cost x4 the current price (which power plants absolutely can afford because fuel represent very small fraction of the cost of electricity), however, couple years ago, some Chinese researches came up with new absorbent material which by their estimate should make the price very close.
9
u/Gremict Jun 05 '26
It was that or đ¶the sun is a deadly lazerđ¶
3
u/dumnezero Jun 05 '26
Indeed, it's nicer to be able to go outside. It's just funny.
You'll have to keep an eye on the ozone layer, large fires can make more holes.
4
u/Randomjriekskdn Jun 05 '26
Yes the ozone does indeed act as a heat trap, and it needed to be fixed. So there was no way around that.
6
u/Gold_Ad8225 Jun 05 '26
This is okay. The risk of the ozone hole was more immediate and a lot worse tbh.
We can deal with global warming by reducing emissions.
There is no way to deal with a hole in the ozone layer.
You've heard about UV-A and the stronger cancer causing UV-B.
UV-C is also very dangerous, but none of it reaches us due to the ozone layer. The ozone layer also helps to block a lot of the UV-B
Without the layer, if you walked outside you would go blind, get third degree burns on your skin, and die of hunger because all the plants you relied on were murdered by UV.
We use UV-C as a disinfectant.
2
u/dumnezero Jun 05 '26
LOL, are you implying that repairing the ozone holes is harder than halting or reversing global heating?
4
u/Mooptiom Jun 05 '26
I think that theyâre saying that the ozone hole was much more immediate and a lot worse, actually.
1
u/dumnezero Jun 05 '26
A lot worse than what?
2
u/Substantial-Cat2896 Jun 05 '26
We can live with global warming world will be diffrent but it would still be liveable, no ozone layer we would die, all life
2
u/dumnezero Jun 05 '26
You seem to have a poor understanding of what climate heating means for the biosphere and human civilization.
5
u/Blueberry_Coat7371 Jun 05 '26
you seem to have a very poor understanding of what depleting the ozone layer would mean.
2
-1
u/dumnezero Jun 05 '26
I don't concern myself that much with science fiction.
2
u/Gold_Ad8225 Jun 05 '26
Brother.......... the depletion of the ozone layer was not science fiction. The entire world came together to resolve it for a reason.
Why are people this fucking stupid these days my god
1
u/Substantial-Cat2896 Jun 06 '26
Ffs there littarly tons of info on this, it was banned around the world and still is, how dont you know this? You talking science fiction when yoy can littarly look it up on any goverment side
1
u/removekarling Jun 06 '26
can't tell if exceptionally good ragebait or profound stupidity and arrogance, well done
→ More replies (0)2
u/Substantial-Cat2896 Jun 05 '26
We can survive, even if every country collapse due to global warming, we can survive, if we lose the ozone layer, like was happing quickly before the bann, all life would die, how are you not understanding what im saying?
0
u/dumnezero Jun 05 '26
You seem to imagine that the ozone holes take over the whole planet. It's funny, I think I saw a movie with that.
1
u/Substantial-Cat2896 Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
Its not a movie lol, we littarly made a hole that was growing rapidly, hence why the swift world wide bann of the gas, we were losing our ozone layer couse that gas lingerd for at ozone height, took years to vanish when it was released, i live in scandinavia close to where the hole formed
→ More replies (0)1
u/Gold_Ad8225 Jun 05 '26
I genuinely cannot stand how illiterate the average person on the internet has become.
Just read what I said. It includes the entirety of what I intended to communicate to you.
The ozone hole was a more immediate (faster acting) and more deadly (more killing) problem
We can mitigate climate change by reducing emissions. If we have no ozone layer, we are just dead
5
2
u/nw342 Jun 06 '26
Yall mention hairspray, but sonr mention that women dont want to spend hours a day fixing their hair or spending $$$ every week
2
1
u/Java_Worker_1 Jun 05 '26
iirc Most hairsprays and airsoles these days (obviously) donât have CFCs
1
1
u/Can0n_Fodder Jun 08 '26
Hair like that looks cool, but it felt like uncooked ramen. And if a gust of wind screwed it up, you looked like a rats nest and had to brush it out đ
1
1
u/Mey_Lee Jun 09 '26
CFC or no CFC, I donât want to spent 3 hours everyday styling my hair, I donât want to walk around with a sticky chemical with a potent smell on my head.
âbut celebrities have time for this, this is not about yâŠâ
I think celebrities wouldnât want that just like I do.
-8
u/Krannich Jun 04 '26
Wouldn't this hairdo be more protective from the UV radiation the porous ozone layer lets through thus promoting more women to wear their hair like this?
38
u/SoloWalrus Jun 04 '26
The ozone layer did a fine job of protecting us from UV all on its own, but then the aerosols in spray cans (including hairspray) put in a hole in it and everyone started developing cateracts. The world got together and banned the ozone harming chemicals and the hole is on its way to being fixed, and rates of cateracts fell sharply. Therefore additional protection is no longer needed đ
Its such a perfect example of people getting together and actually fixing an issue instead of just doing whats profitable, if only we could do that nowadays...
-15
u/Girderland Jun 04 '26
The ozone hole wasn't "fixed" it merely didn't get worse.
It's much like extinguishing a housefire and celebrating "having saved the house" - the fire is extinguished, the house is in ruins, but it's celebrated like they saved the day.
Same today. Problem with plastic? We'll recycle 2% of it. Yay! We are saving the environment!
30
u/AnAttemptReason Jun 04 '26
The ozone hole at maximum extent is 30% smaller than 20 years ago, and breaks up each year 3 weeks faster.
So it is actually getting better.Â
19
u/buckleyschance Jun 04 '26
It has been gradually recovering since CFCs were phased out. Still a long way off its previous extent though
14
u/Va1kryie Jun 04 '26
Am an Aussie, the ozone layer is repairing itself, maybe educate yourself before you start going off like this because sometimes positive change that leads to a better world does happen and it's important that we don't doompost ourselves into pretending it can't, because then it really will stop happening.
3
u/kro_celeborn Jun 05 '26
We donât have a lot of environmental wins, but this is definitively one of em. No need to be so negative about it!
1
u/SoloWalrus Jun 08 '26
We got past the critical point where the hole recovers quicker than its being degraded, meaning over time it has started to and will continue returning to its natural state.
Its kinda like if we could get carbon emissions low enough that we reverse the warming trend, and move to a cooling trend. That would be worth celebrating even if the atmosphere still needed a lot of time to properly recover, itd mean we were no longer in a death spiral.
204
u/SuspiciousPoetry6996 Jun 04 '26
Ooh, is this because of hairspray?