[eesmith]

Should we have continued with CFC emissions then? And not put restrictions on sulfur dioxide emissions?

FWIW, we don't have to understand it extremely well, only well enough to affect policy changes.

A 99% probability of an estimated increase of 2-4°C can be considered a rather large range, but enough certainty to know that it's a problem. (Numbers made up for demonstration purposes.)

[ThomPete]

We should improve the environment wherever and whenever we can which is what people demand when the get pulled out of poverty and into the middle class.

But the idea that we should upend the use of fossil fuels without any realistic alternative is simply anti-human and will for sure cause millions to die.

I haven't heard of a single scientifically demonstrated consequence of climate change that would lead to that and thus I see no need to worry more about climate change more than pulling people out of poverty.

We should always try and make energy cleaner and less pollutant but wouldn't you agree we should always make a cost benefit analysis and weigh the positive and negative consequences of our decisions?

[eesmith]

I don't understand the point of your first paragraph.

Poor people demand an improved environment too - it's not a special demand limited to the middle class or richer.

Eg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_justice#Affected... starts "Among the affected groups of Environmental Justice, those in high-poverty and racial minority groups have the most propensity to receive the harm of environmental injustice." Many of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe members are poor, and they lead the protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline in part on environmental grounds.

Have you heard of a single scientifically demonstrated consequence of decreased CFC emissions which would lead to people being pulled out of poverty and into the middle class?

Do you support CFC restrictions, and if so, when do you regard the evidence as being strong enough to warrant those restrictions?

I agree we should "weigh the positive and negative consequences of our decisions". I disagree with your statement that there are no realistic alternatives to the current practices.

People argued that there were no realistic alternatives to CFCs. (See http://aei.pitt.edu/63734/1/WD_126.pdf from 1980 for "No satisfactory substitute has yet been found for these machines containing CFCs [11 and 12], but there is undoubtedly room for reducing emissions by making design changes.") Now, from https://www.livescience.com/62603-new-cfcs-enter-ozone-layer... :

"""Neither of the two primary CFC-11 use-cases, firefighting and refrigerators, are at all hampered today by not having the substance, Ferry said. He added that he couldn't think of any special use-case for the chemical for which there isn't already an alternative."""

There is undoubtedly room for alternatives for the current use of fossil fuels.

[ThomPete]

The west have the cleanest environments so yes they go hand in hand. If you have the money you can clean up your environment you do that mostly by replacing things like cooking over indoor fire with gas or induction or electricity and you use air purifiers, and you use better and more modern cars, you clean up the streets and so on. All things rich societies do and poor societies dont.

So you are making my point.

[eesmith]

Do you support CFC restrictions, and if so, when do you regard the evidence as being strong enough to have warranted those restrictions and how has it lead to people being pulled out of poverty and into the middle class?

The Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador is but one of many examples which show that poor people don't need to become middle class before wanting to protect the environment. And it's the rich Western companies like Texaco/Chevron which caused the pollution they are protesting against.

[ThomPete]

I support restrictions as long as there are proper alternatives and that the restrictions don't have more negative than positive consequences.

But you are confusing things here. The Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador doesn't have the power to do anything about that as there are more people in the world than them and thus other interests. 100 year ago they would just have been wiped out. By becoming richer they have the power to have a say in the international community.

Are their lives more worth than others?

As long as you are not prepared to make a proper cost-benefit anlysis and judge what's right or wrong you aren't really taking the discussion seriously IMO.

[eesmith]

I have long ago stated that while I agree that cost-benefit analysis is relevant, I disagree with your opinion that there are no realistic alternatives to the current practices.

CONAIE is an concrete example of my previous statement that "Poor people demand an improved environment too - it's not a special demand limited to the middle class or richer." It is a counter-example to your implication at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21248038 that we need to get people into the middle class first, in order that they demand we improve the environment.

I gave that one because you seemed to have rejected my earlier example of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, likely because you confused people in poverty (a large fraction of that tribe are in poverty) with the "rich society" of the US.

Respecting the rights of indigenous people is another way to let them have a say in the international community. Not that it makes a difference here since I'm pointing to their success in protecting the environment on the national stage in Ecuador.

You'll note that your "better and more modern cars" implies that all people want cars. Some indigenous people expressly do not.

You like talking about "worth". How do you balance the "worth the cost of upending the current use of ex fossil fuels" vs. the worth of indigenous lives and lifestyles?

Because the only way I see that you can do a cost-benefit analysis is to have some way to judge that balance. And my balance is far more on the side of indigenous lives than on the loss of profits to the rich.