[afry1]

One fact from this saga to boggle the mind: a big reason that the international treaties on ozone-harmful chemicals succeeded was because Ronald Reagan, president at the time, had skin cancer removed from his nose right around the time that studies on ozone layer depletion were coming out.

The issue was low priority for him and his administration, but the fact that he had personally suffered from the effects of excessive UV made it personal for him, and so he eventually pushed for action.

[noneeeed]

Another reason the Reagan took it seriously was that Margret Thatcher vouched for the science and that it was serious.

Before becoming a politician Thatcher was a research chemist (she studied X-ray crystolography under Dorothy Hodgkin) and so understood the science behind it all.

She had a brief "green" phase in the late 1980s which helped environmental concerns be seen as less of a "treehugger" thing in the UK and supported the creation of things like the IPCC and the Montreal Protocol. Unfortunately she later reverted to treating it as a political issue. It's frustrating to think about where we might be now if she had continued to treat it as a serious issue that needed cross-politics action rather than treating it as a partisan issue.

[andyjohnson0]

> Another reason the Reagan took it seriously was that Margret Thatcher vouched for the science and that it was serious. > Before becoming a politician Thatcher was a research chemist (she studied X-ray crystolography under Dorothy Hodgkin) and so understood the science behind it all.

It's worth clarifying that Thatcher's study of crystallography was for her final-year undergraduate dissertation at Oxford. She got a second-class degree in Chemistry, and this was her only earned academic qualification. She did nothing that would be regarded as academic research. As for her work after graduation, she worked for just four years as an industrial chemist at a company that made plastics, before starting a legal career.

There is no evidence that she had any particular knowledge of atmospheric science. Perhaps her degree gave her an understanding of chemistry at an undergraduate level, but I'm always a little irritated by her being described as a "scientist" or that she did "research". I don't think that either claim is true.

[JoeAltmaier]

Was her knowledge and familiarity with the subject better than Reagans? Maybe that's why he believed her. She knew some of the societal costs (being a world leader) and some of the science too.

Ad Hominem? Makes me a lot irritated, folks claiming that no degree of education is quite enough to understand whatever science they disagree with.

[andyjohnson0]

> Was her knowledge and familiarity with the subject better than Reagans?

Based on my memory of Regan and a quick review of his educational achievements, I'd say you're probably right.

> Maybe that's why he believed her.

World leaders don't usually take scientific advice from people with just a bachelor's degree. Especially when said world leader is the head of a government that has multiple world-class national laboratories, a space agency, and employs tens of thousands of highly qualified scientists. If Thatcher influenced Regan's thinking on the ozone hole then I suspect it's because he recognised her as a fellow social conservative, not because of anything she might have been able to say about the catalysis of O3 to O2.

> She knew some of the societal costs (being a world leader) and some of the science too.

As a prime minister who famously stated in public that "there is no such thing as society", and who presided over the miner's strikes, I find it hard to believe that she knew much about "societal costs".

> Ad Hominem? Makes me a lot irritated, folks claiming that no degree of education is quite enough to understand whatever science they disagree with.

That's not what ad hominem means. I wasn't taking issue with her character (I never knew her), I was taking issue with her (as a public figure with political policies) being factually described as a "scientist" who did "research".

[noneeeed]

By that point Reagan and Thatcher were close political allies and friends. From everything I’ve read about this that is the biggest part of it. She convinced him that this was a serious issue and that the scientists were not being hyperbolic scaremongers, a common attack thrown at any experts bring predictions of bad things to come.

[noneeeed]

Yes, that’s the point I was making. I believe he was sceptical initially. They were friends and she had enough scientific knowledge to understand the data being presented and the mechanisms behind it. Therefore she was able to convince him that it was a serious issue.

[andyjohnson0]

Independently of the above, and as someone who grew up working class in the north of England during her time as prime minister, she was one of the most obstinately dogmatic and malign people ever to have gained serious political power in the UK in the twentieth century. We would do well not to valorise her.

[noneeeed]

I’m not valorising her. Even her green period was short lived and ultimately ended due to her political convictions being stronger than her critical thinking skills. It makes it worse, that she had the knowledge to understand the impacts, but chose politics over doing the right thing.

[andyjohnson0]

My apologies. My remark about not valorising her was a general one that I wanted to keep separate from my response to @JoeAltmaier. I'm happy to clarify that it wasn't addressed at you.

[noneeeed]

Oops, sorry, I think I got a bit lost in the comments.

[noneeeed]

This is all true, but I don’t see why that means she couldn’t get her head around the chemistry of how CFCs destroy ozone, or the mechanisms behind climate change, or indeed that she lacked the skills to understand the data and models she was being presented with.

[buzzdenver]

Same hypocrisy with supporting stem cell research after Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimers, but opposing first. Or the Cheneys' attitudes towards same sex marriage after one of their daughters came out as lesbian.

[dan-robertson]

Is it hypocrisy or just changing one’s mind? I guess I’m generally thankful for people changing their minds rather than sticking steadfastly to one thing (even if that is a good thing).

[wbsss4412]

It’s more just a complete lack of empathy.

[vntok]

On the contrary, it would seem like Cheney was/became rather empathetic to his daughter's situation.

[stemlord]

Caring only about one's immediate blood legacy strikes me as more opportunistic than empathetic when one is a top leader whose explicit responsibility is to work to improve the lives of all citizens.

[Phlarp]

On the other hand, this is Dick Cheney we're talking about; an empathetic human response isn't something he's otherwise demonstrated in his business or political dealings.

[Closi]

Eh, these people are human though. Different people care about different things, and these change based on personal experience.

Empathy is something you feel, rather than something you calculate.

[iamthepieman]

I would argue that this is how you become a top leader. It's really discouraging to realize that only a certain type of people even want to win a popularity contest. Even dictators are winning the "more popular than the alternatives" contest, though the alternative might just be death.

Also that might be the stated responsibility, but the implicit one is to improve the outcomes relative to perceived alternatives. Many times the alternatives area manufactured.

[heavyset_go]

There's an overall trend that this example fits in where people tend to act on spectrum of outright denial, not caring or actively exacerbating/ridiculing/etc, when it comes to problems experienced by people other than themselves.

It's only when they themselves, or someone they care about, experiences something that they begin to care about it. It speaks to a selective empathy, one that is ultimately selfish, because it is only given when it starts to impact them. It is especially selfish when that lack of empathy has benefited them in the past, as well.

[arthurcolle]

I feel like this is just how most people behave, for better or worse. I have a set of strongly held opinions about certain things that may or may not be considered socially acceptable and when people I actually know that I care about are experiencing particularly bad consequences as a result of secondary or tertiery effects that "derive from" from views (in the sense of legislation being passed that is in line with the views that I hold, or anything adjacent from this) as such, I sometimes loosen up - isn't this pretty reasonable, natural given that we empathize with people we know more than people we don't know?

It isn't really hypocrisy -- it's more of a moderating factor given one's connections with people one might know, assuming the desire to fit in with society and have more pro-social interactions with others.

[wbsss4412]

If you only care when something affects you/your immediate family, that’s selfishness, not empathy.

Empathy is when you recognize the basic humanity of others and are able to put yourself into their shoes and feel what they feel.

[tinsmith]

Even if we abandon the word "hypocrisy" for the sake of this discussion, being unable to care about an issue unless it directly effects you is just as bad, if not worse in some ways.

[andrew_]

We're a reactive species in general. We rarely act in a proactive manner and require personal experience to change habit and thinking, especially after the age of 25 when neural pathways become harder to change.

[tinsmith]

Harder, but far from impossible. I work with the adult (26+) I/DD population in the US (individuals with developmental disabilities) and one of their biggest challenges is coping with and learning to buffer emotional reactions, while also being able to understand the emotional experiences of others. This often takes years of practice, and sometimes therapy for a neurotypical individual to master. And yet, I see progress regularly enough in the I/DD population that I often wonder what excuse the neurotypical population has when they collectively display a lack of emotional checks and balances, or empathy.

We're reactive, sure, but let's not throw that out there and use it to discount the fact that we can, without a doubt, learn to control those reactions. Social change often moves at a glacial pace because of this attitude, when the reality is that it up to us, right now, to break the cycle or change the pattern.

[harry8]

Empathy is a thing worth considering, working on, being better at. I try.

[bawolff]

I think the objection is that they did not change their minds based on the merits of the situation, but because it suddenly was personally. Its hypocrisy because the relavent deciding factor was personal not general.

[buildsjets]

Yes, it most certainly is. The definition of hypocrisy is claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which your own behavior does not conform.

[caymanjim]

I think it ceases to be hypocrisy when you make a change. It's something, but let's not completely dismiss a positive change. Is that not the entire objective of education and awareness via activism? People deserve credit for acting.

[buzzdenver]

Hypocrisy was probably not the perfect word to use, and I am happy for the positive change. Having said that, it needs to be pointed out when somebody supports policies that disadvantage people right until the point when those policies start negatively affecting them. Maybe "lack of general empathy" is the right phrase, like somebody else in the thread said.

[hgomersall]

There's a necessary extra bit, which is that you seek to change other people's behaviour but not your own. It's critically important that we're able to hold moral positions inconsistent with our behaviour, otherwise moral discourse simply reflects peoples' desires about how they wish to live. Indeed, we see this without any unnecessary charges of hypocrisy (people's moral positions are really just positions of convenience).

[Spooky23]

Sometimes personal acquaintance with a topic has a profound impact on people. Even politicans are human.

Look at LBJ.

[bcrosby95]

I don't see why it boggles the mind. There's a significant portion of the population that doesn't care about something until it perceptibly affects them.

[afry1]

The mind boggling thing is that he was the right person at the right time. If some other Republican had been in office, they probably wouldn't have pushed as hard as he did to take action on the issue.

And where would we be today if history had gone just a little bit differently? Heatwaves, wildfires, hurricanes, deforestation, mass extinction, AND I can't go outside without dressing like a beekeeper? It gives me a cold feeling in my stomach.

[woodruffw]

Whether reasonable or not, we generally expect loftier motives from our elected officials.

[refurb]

Source? Everything I read tells me that’s just a guess.

Keep in mind that Dow made billions on CFC replacements.

[lern_too_spel]

Carter banned CFCs in aerosol sprays and planned to remove them from refrigeration. Reagan EPA head and Gorsuch mother calls CFC threat an unsubstantiated scare story, DuPont halts work on CFC alternatives, and CFC production peaks during the Reagan administration: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-linden-ozone-hol...

Reagan removes skin cancer from nose in 1984: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/08/06/r...

New Reagan EPA head appointed in 1986 pushes for Montreal Protocol ratification: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/21/reagan-seeks-to-pr...

[DoneWithAllThat]

That is an extremely tenuous connection.

[refurb]

So basically coincidental information?

[pfdietz]

The bigger reason was because the benefit/cost ratio of phasing out ozone destroying substances was so large.

[FooHentai]

The same Ronald Reagan that had the White House solar panels taken down. Kinda ironic (to me, at least).