Women are severely affected by punitive sentencing laws, including incarceration, conspiracy laws, and separation from families. The crime of conspiracy was created to counter the special dangers incident to group activity reaching back to incipient stages of criminal behavior. Under the federal conspiracy statute, a conspiracy conviction is punishable by up to five years imprisonment in addition to fines. Prosecutors commonly charge conspiracy as an inchoate crime.
The COVID-19 pandemic has illuminated how conspiracy beliefs can severely affect women’s lives. Conspiracy law seeks to counter the special dangers incident to group activity reaching back to incipient stages of criminal behavior. The punishment for conspiracy varies from state to state, with misdemeanor regardless of crime agreed upon.
The focus of conspiracy law is on oppression, celebrating and values differences between men and women, victims rights, and advocacy to prevent sexual and physical violence. There are five main underlying justifications of criminal punishment considered briefly here: retribution; incapacitation; deterrence; rehabilitation, and more.
In the Circuit Court of appeals, there are 11 federal circuits and 12 DC circuits, with judges appointed for various reasons. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of understanding the relationship between conspiracy theories and the severity of punishments.
📹 Ugly History: The U.S. Syphilis Experiment – Susan M. Reverby
Dig into the unethical Tuskegee Syphilis Study, which spanned 40 years and lied to its participants about receiving treatment for …
📹 Why you don’t hear about the ozone layer anymore
Finally, some good news about the environment. Subscribe and turn on notifications so you don’t miss any videos: …
You should also cover the Plutonium files, in 1945, the Oak Ridge laboratory tested the effects of radiation on unknowing American citizens, ranging from the disabled to pregnant women, most of them poor. The tests lasted fifteen years, where hundreds of people across the country were exposed to radiation.
This kind of underhanded dehumanising activity was also happening in the UK, where people with haemophilia(blood disorder – blood won’t clot properly) were given tainted blood contaminated with Hepatitis C, HIV and several other diseases as the blood had been bought cheaply from american prisons. With no testing procedure present at the time (1960s-1970s) It was only found that a batch of blood products was infected when the patient was examined by their doctor during regular checkup, at which point the doctors realised the problem. Against the best interests of their patients, they withheld the information that they were infected for as long as possible until it was no longer possible to conceal it. One reasoning behind this was because Hepatitis C at the time was an unknown disease, described by medical professionals as “Not A, Not B” and they decided to take this opportunity to observe the symptoms of this disease. To this day it has been a constant battle to get compensation out of the Government for the victims with an Enquiry currently ongoing to expose the full extent of the damage done, with many documents and patient files mysteriously shredded before and during the enquiry clearly there is intent to conceal the full extent of the misdeeds, after all, no one would want to see their doctor for a checkup only to walk out the door with HIV, Hepatitis C or another potentially lifelong disease.
I first learned about this experiment back when I was in elementary school. I was unsure of any of the ethical or personal rights that were being violated during this experiment, but I knew something wasn’t right about it. If I could understand as a child with an undeveloped brain that something was wrong with this experiment, then the scientist themselves knew what they were doing was wrong. Today I’m aware of those ethical principles and the basic rights that every individual has, and it makes the experiment a thousand times worse. There was no informed consent. There was no informative session regarding the risk and benefits. Most of the targeted individuals couldn’t read. Treatment was denied in some patients so that the dangers and progression of the disease could be observed. The cure was withheld even after it was widely available. The study concluded twenty-five years after the cure was available to the public and it was still withheld. Withholding the cure killed twenty-eight people and another hundred from related diseases acquired from the weakened immune system. Source. The principle of deception is clearly a violation of the ethical principle of autonomy, which is the patients right to choose what happens to their body and the right to make decisions in regard to their own health care. It can easily be seen that the participants of this study endured deception as they were under the impression that they would be getting free treatment for the government to help cure their syphilis.
What scientific use could seeing how race affected progression when treatments were already available possibly serve? Isn’t the point to figure out how to get rid of the disease? They weren’t even experimenting with new alternative treatments, they were just tracking untreated progression, what use could that possibly have? Do they think untreated disease progression might yield some kind of unexpected positive result, like that guy who got a head injury in such a way he simply lost the need to sleep anymore with no apparent downsides, or that other guy who got a different head injury that gained him weird synesthesia and the ability to learn any language fluently within a week?
As a Guatemalan and American when I hear what was done to my own people in Guatemala I feel really sad, the United States is which is another country I love and respect and have in a special place in my heart, but we also have to learn about the dark and painful history made by our own mistakes and take different decisions in the future. Let’s work for a better future together not as nations but as humanity, with a common purpose and common values.
Nowadays going to a doctor is like going to a casino. If you are lucky you will get a good doctor with the will and ability to help you. If you are not lucky, you will end up with some inept person without skills or some “professionls” without ethics. Inept people without a vocation are those doctors who, due to lack of skills, laziness or apathy, do not treat you well, give bad diagnoses (sometimes exaggerated, on other occasions not treating delicate cases), and in the end they do not solve anything at all and you remain the same than before going to the doctor. The “professional” without ethics can be someone with knowledge and skills; but he is not interested in helping people but rather profiting from them. The longer you are sick the better for them, so they make more money at the expense of your health. These people end up causing a lot of distrust among the population. There are also the depraved ones wearing doctor suits who use their profession to abuse children, women or other men. If you have had a good doctor you are considered privileged. All of this applies to both general health and mental health. As if that were not enough, there are also many scammers who also seek to make profit from health.
The volunteers in this experiment were not given the opportunity to give their informed permission, as was described in the film. Informed consent is the process of fully disclosing the potential risks and benefits of a surgery or treatment to study participants (or even medical patients) so they can decide for themselves whether to proceed with that course of treatment. Studying the disease’s long-term effects while there is no established cure is one thing, but withholding treatment from the study participants when a cure is available is morally repugnant. This experiment serves as a stark reminder of the prejudice and exploitation that formerly pervaded the world of scientific inquiry. The ethical considerations of conducting experiments or studies on living human subjects at the time were still only philosophical principles that researchers were encouraged to abide by not legally binding requirements. Modern study subjects are fortunate to have a stronger legal framework to hold researchers accountable for any harm they may have inflicted on them. This is not to imply that researchers still take advantage of study participants, whether on purpose or accidentally. In order to protect the integrity of research and, more crucially, the safety of study participants, there are at least many more layers of control in place currently.
This experiment is a huge ethical violation, as mentioned in the article, the participants were denied informed consent. Informed consent being the practice of informing the study participants (or even medical patients) of all the possible risks and benefits of a procedure or treatment so that the patient can make their own decision on if to proceed with that course of care. It’s one thing to study the long term effects of the disease while no proven treatment exists, but denying the people in the study treatment when a treatment is available is horribly wrong. This experiment is a glaring example of racism and exploitation that existed in the fields of scientific research. At the time the ethical considerations of performing experiments/studies on live human subjects were still just philosophical concepts researchers were encouraged to follow, not legally enforceable guidelines. Thankfully, participants in modern studies have more of a legal framework to hold researchers accountable for any harm caused during the experiment. This not to say that there aren’t still researchers who intentionally or unintentionally exploit the study participants. At the least now there are much more layers of oversight to ensure the protection of studies integrity, but more importantly to ensure the safety the people who participate in these studies.
Hi! Christina here — I wanted to share NASA’s World Avoided scenario with you. As a child of the ’80s, the threat of the ozone hole was always something I was aware of, but this model really helped me understand the catastrophe we would’ve faced had we ignored it: earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/WorldWithoutOzone Thanks so much for perusal our article! Let us know what you think in the comments below.
I guess she needed to add a fourth P to the story: Producers. Back then they directly attacked the producers of the chemical, and therefore went straight to the source. These days the narrative is aimed at the consumers and personal responsibility, a narrative invented by stakeholders such as BP. This ensured that for decades the big players stayed out of the picture. Change isn’t possible if that remains the case.
Ozone layer recovery is an environmental success story! It shows that collective action, guided by science, is the best way to solve major global challenges. This kind of good news should inspire all of us to join forces on keeping the earth’s rising temperature as low as possible. How awesome would it be if our editors could skip all the flooding/wildfires/extinction stories and could go straight to “How humanity achieved the 1.5 target and saved biodiversity hotspots”.
what this article forgets to mention is that the Chlorine bits fuse with hyrogen and sinks out of the ozone layer, and gets diluted by the water molecules weakening it BUT into acid rain. Hydrocholoric acid rain which gets dumped out over the artics. but it’s weakened. the oxygen molecules are then allowed to fuse back into each other after ultraviolet I think UV-b blasts a oxygen molecule into two oxygen bits (which which fuse back together eventually, but sometimes a loose oxygen disemodied particle fuses with an already formed oxygen bonded to form 3 oxygens. Or super oxygen, very very dangerous on earth we breath that it breaks up our lungs. But it’s perfect to form as a shiled up there as ozone. With less and less CFC’s being flushed away in the rain (as it sinks down as hydrocholric acid molecules it still exists but as weakened form. Gets flushed again, weaker and weaker. And that’s why our ozone is also healing. What’s not cool though is these carbon is extremely destructive and punching weaker holes into the ozone slowing this healing up. Forest fires for instant, volcano eruptions and emissions. so let’s say Green house gases are a big hoax and Greta is a spastic freak (she’s not) and entertain these oilphiles. There’s still the fact that the carbon is acidifying our oceans, and… destorying our ozone… now if we can produce more trees they absorb the carbon (to make more tree tissue), allows less carbon into the atomsphere, and more air molecules for the process of making 3 oxygen air molecules, also allows our seas to detox and start using carbon to build up it’s structures, coral, shell fish their shells.
i remembered that ozone layer was one of the most specific science subject was put into our grades syllabus. The ozone layer explained that by using certain product can caused the ozone layer to teared apart. It even made into a subject for younger generation. Which i think they needed to emphasis this matter more than just why and the impact. But also the substances involves in it that let them know more about it. What can be done in a project to mitigate besides perusal our government solve it but make a project where anyone who can solve the issues scientifically can be rewarded like how they reward a spaceship inventions.
I just want to say, honestly as someone that’s still rlly young, I’m really really thankful elders before me stepped up to do this. If the generations before me didn’t take action, perhaps I wouldn’t be enjoying the sun the way I can now. It inspires me to look out for future generations as well. So thank you, to everyone that pushed for this and VOX for sharing this 🙂 Like someone said in the comments, I hope one day you’d make a article abt “why we don’t hear about climate change anymore”.
That was taken care of literally more than 20 years ago. Humanity as a whole should be smarter than ever with anything concerning our planet. It’s just so unfortunate to see so many people choosing to be ignorant about the recent situation in the environment while big corporations aren’t being held accountable for the damage they’re doing just so they can cut costs.
1989, when this treaty was signed, was a very hopeful year. I remember feeling that the future might actually be brighter. perusal the wall come down, so many countries establishing democracies, acid rain receding and a plan for meding the ozone layer. Looking back now, the relief was all too short and the downwards trend has picked up speed ever since 2001. Shame we couldn’t get our act together in the long run.
the one thing that it overlooked is that replacing CFCs as aerosol propellants was relatively easy. replacing the CFC used as refrigerants was a little more difficult, but was done. The one thing that I did not like at the time was how CFCs were painted as being evil incarnate. When I talked about this in my introduction to engineering classes (particularly how decisions made with technology may have unintended consequences) is what the CFCs replaced as a refrigerant which was propane and ammonia. The initial development of CFCs did a lot for improving health and nutrition as food could be frozen with little loss in nutrients and food could be kept unspoiled for a longer period of time. This situation is much different than dealing with the GHG problem as what we are looking for is a substitute for an energy source.
Actually so nice to learn about this. Ever since I read about CFCs in 8th grade and how they increase due to the use of refrigerators and ACs, I started having massive guilt and tried to use as little as possible. My anxiety and guilt only grew more and more, over the years but now I know that I was simply so misinformed. I thought CFCs were the biggest problem because they threatened the ozone layer, unaware that the ozone layer was rapidly being fixed. Thanks Vox, love your articles. Thank you Christina.
My father in the 1960’s and early 1970’s was a scientist at Australia’s CSIRO and he was tasked to measure the ozone layer. The ozone issues were first raised back then and papers with proof showing the ozone depletion and the cause being CFC’s. No one back then wanted to listen so the depletion went on and a hole developed. Only then, people started to listen and take note.
If ozone layers had “dropped by 50%” in 1987 yet the levels of the cfc’s “will live between 50 and 150 years in our atmosphere” and “every year what you use the year before is almost entirely there” then how is the rapid decline which began just 20 years from 1987 possible? Can someone explain with facts?
We did come together and reduced the use of CFC in deodorant, however, A/C units still use it. If you could snap your fingers and make the entire ozone layer disappear, like a magician, it would return in thirty days. The ozone layer is created by the sun interacting with oxygen (O) in the upper atmosphere. The O=O bonds are broken. The two individual O atoms bond with an O=O creating O-O-O, or ozone. The poles get less direct sunlight, therefore the ozone layer is naturally weaker there.
I remember being scared by all the news reports hammering down each day that led to many changes in how we do things and go about living together each day. My father owned a contracting company that built custom home environment control systems. He was required to purchase an expensive machine that captured freon from air conditioning units and refrigerators as well as other devices. Hairspray was another item affected by legislation affecting our chlorofluorocarbon production
How about a shout out to the HVAC/R technician’s that have been recovering million’s of ton’s of CFC’s, primarily r22, from old cooling equipment for the last 30+ year’s. Vintage cars and refrigeration/freezer’s needed CFC r12 recovered. After CFC r12 phase out in the 90’s, HFC’s, r134, have been used widely in car’s and refrigerator’s until the last 5 years or so. R134 is also present in many commercial refrigerator’s/freezer’s or blended with other refrigerant’s for use in Hospital/research lab equipment that need to be recovered. Several year’s ago lab grade propane (r290) became the replacement for r134 – with result that service technician’s now deal with a different hazard of potential fire or explosion. Hurray to the HVAC/R service technician’s that do the refrigerant recovery work in this earth saving effort.
7:53 – I’m pretty sure (correct me if I’m wrong) that this is a nuclear power plant’s steam cooling towers shown here. I get you want to share a message about climate change but please do better than showing images of non-carbon emitting power generation plants implying that these stations are releasing CO2 into the air.
The Ozone Layer problem was solved so quickly because there were easy practical methods in which to do so. Stop using CFCs, start using HCs (hydrocarbons) in aerosol and change the compound of refridgerant. I grew up with this and learned about it at school. Climate Change/Global Warming isn’t so easy to change as this. It needs a change of energy infrastructure of an unprecedented scale, that would initially cost trillions of dollars. Despite that renewable energy does offer a complete return of investment, that return is very slow, and governments simply do not want to spend that money when coal, gas and oil are still an available and cheap resource. There’s no conspiracy, there’s no made up thing on fear keeping us in control. If you believe that you’re as blind as those who create the problem. It’s about money, guys. That’s all it is. Money.
The problem with human kind is that we insist on forcing rule without recognition; keep reading to learn why. If CFC’s used in the 80’s caused this issue, how did they make their way to the south pole? I’m not a meteorologist, but I am aware of the global windstream patterns. Majority of CFC’s would’ve been used in the northern hemisphere, I.E. USA, UK, and other first world countries throughout North America, Europe, and Asia. If those fumes transcended into the atmosphere, how was the north pole not affected? The only reason this treaty was signed is that political leaders are not capable logical thought or questioning. They were scared, and did what they thought would appease the majority they represent. If you actually analyze the graphs they present, there is no TRUE correlation between numbers. Yes, we may contribute to climate change; however we are not the reason it is occurring. There are other forces at hand that we fail to acknowledge because we insist on forcing rule without recognition. Just like every dictator and tyrant to ever rule. THAT is the down fall to humanity.
You know, one of my fears with climate change was that “scaring people into action” would result in backlash that would damage progress more than help . . . I was right. A shame we changed tactics when we went from the ozone layer to climate change. It’s one thing to inform the public, quite another to do it in a way that creates division. To this day, I don’t understand why we took the approach we did to climate change, now we have all sorts of conspiracy theorists and it’s very difficult to push for change.
Basically, when the problem causing the environmental issue isn’t being backed by massive corporations with their hands in almost every political sphere, we can actually get stuff done. Have you ever heard of CFC political lobbying? Until big oil and other main contributors admit fault we’re going to continue destroying our planet, and that won’t happen anytime soon.
The really hard part about solving climate change is the lack of practical solutions. While we can try to build solar panels, wind power, and hydroelectric power but even these harm the ecosystems they’re in. On top of this there are so many more parts to climate change its unlikely anyone will take legitimate action until we are cornered
I think about a similar ecological disaster we faced in the 80s and 90s: acid rain. It was a result of sulphur dioxide from coal-fired power stations and other similar emissions. These stations installed “scrubbers” to greatly reduced the emissions. Same for catalytic converters in car exhaust for nitrogen oxide emissions. We’re seeing a similar issue now with emissions from shipping. But it’s a solvable issue, just like the ozone layer. And I firmly believe that climate change COULD be solved, but we need major, global, immediate action. It needs mobilization from world leaders on a similar scale to WW2.
When we were kids, there was chocolate company which offered a scheme – “if you collect outer plastic packaging of our chocolates and send it to our po box, we will reward you with 1 bucks for every 20 piece of plastic wraps” It was printed with a slogan “we produce it so we take care of it”. They would recycle the wraps. Thats what happened with ban of cfcs. The manufacturers of cfcs were targeted more, I think that’s why it was possible to fix the main issue. So the those who produce these things should be questioned more than often.
I remember perusal a article on Y2K, the original legitimate computer science concerns about the date change, and how they were solved before the year 2000. Then the ridicule around the concept ever since. Someone in the comments said “just goes to show if a bunch of people work really hard to solve a problem, many others will conclude that problem never existed.”
I just want to contribute to this that scientists have defined a framework of planetary boundaries, these are matters that are seriously important. Ozone depletion is one of them, and fortunately we’ve all done amazing work to fix this problem. Climate change is one of the other environmental problems that have. Excessive discharge of nitrogen compounds into the environment is a problem because it causes eutrophication, messing up our ecosystems. Another problem is non-circular use of phosphorus, which is vital for our DNA and if it runs out the efficiency of global food production could decrease by 50%. Biodiversity loss is also a great problem, as ecosystem degradation affects us all. I don’t want to worry you, I just want to say that scientists worldwide are doing amazing work at trying to solve these problems, trust and support them. The most tiring thing is hearing people say “it’s always something, now it’s climate change, 10 years ago it was the hole in the ozone layer. You don’t hear anything about that anymore do you?”
To everyone perusal this, can we start lessening the use of single use plastic? Improper garbage disposal is easily one of the most important things that we neglect to do. We should be more aware of our actions especially ones that affect our surroundings so that we may preserve the beauty of nature and its life. Have a great day and a massive thank you for those who read this comment and decided to take part in preserving the earth.
That wonderful graph showing the ozone layer getting better on average certainly doesn’t reflect the uv values that continuously increase every year. Why not show a few graphs of the UV levels on average, as that is what is really important. I’m surprised the graph shows levelling off and improvement of the ozone layer in such a short time given the fact that chlorine is there for 50 to 150 years.
Lovely article. I don’t believe that we haven’t passed all of the tipping points yet, though. It’s good to remain hopeful and positive, but a pinch of realism is always good to keep in reach. The world seemed to slow down during Covid, yet our emissions just hit a new record. We’ve known about climate change for longer than I’ve been alive, yet all we get is talk, talk, talk, and no action. I’d say that the whole ozone layer story is one to make us feel good about ourselves while we go on destroying the very systems we depend upon for the sake of momentary comforts.
And here I was told they stopped talking about it because the Ozone hole was actually just “normal”. We should talk about successful interventions more so people don’t get crisis fatigue. We literally never hear about the success stories, it often feels overwhelming and like nothing can change because we don’t hear about the successes.
This is a great success story that needs to be mentioned more. It gives me a lot of hope. However, climate change (caused by carbon emissions) is a much bigger challenge than the ozone layer. The difference between these two environmental challenges is what gases are causing them. For the ozone layer, it was CFCs, which is a by product of producing refrigerants, cleaning, and foaming agents. For carbon emissions, it’s greenhouse gases, which is a by product of producing energy. Energy is much, much, much more essential to our lives than cleaning / foaming agents. We need energy to do literally EVERYTHING, and we are incredibly reliant on fossil fuels to do this. Our challenge is enormous, but we have no choice but to address it together. I would be really curious to hear why it was so easy to find a replacement for CFCs – Dr. Susan Solomon said it took only one year (!!!). Maybe we could get some inspiration for this, for finding replacements for fossil fuels.
Just a quick tip for people with “solutions”: we can’t just ban petroleum/ petrole from night to day, neither combustion cars. Unfortunately there are still places in the world where people don’t even have electricity inside their houses, banning those things would colapse entire countries and maybe continents.
“A lot of this green agenda is being pushed because someone somewhere is making a lot of money from it. Just like in COVID, when of course there was a great redistribution of wealth to the most richest people in the world and the biggest corporations. As well as power being taken away from the likes of you and I.” ~Robert Oulds
It sounds like we’re doing well to balance the ozone layer. Though most of nature isn’t so delicate either that it can’t recover from the things we’ve done so far. More of what we need to focus on is recycling and trash management now, because that’s something that is an issue. Materials aren’t being recycled effectively to be remade. In fact, It seems like the efforts are decreasing because the costs and benefits that people see are diminished. And what’s most ironic is that Green efforts seem like they’re pushing people to abandon it mostly… Trying to take away people’s options And forcing them to resort to Cheaper and less practical answers instead of using what’s already known effective, and can still filter out the damaging materials… They’re hyperfocused on trying to make people change things suddenly, instead of making the options better and more sensible…
When measuring the ozone began with satellites in 80’s it was depleting, but then healed. Problem is, empirically we don’t know what the long term status of the layer is and was in previous decades and centuries. Is it in constant state of growing and shrinking, or was it stable before the CFC’s? Without this knowledge, we can’t say what percentage these chemicals affect and what is a natural fluctuating.
You don’t hear about the ozone layer because it was a scam. Even at the very start of the article, you can see people failing to report that the “ozone layer” over the antarctic probably had a “hole” in it for tens of millions of years before the present. This is because the convection currents caused by the continental mass simply redistribute the O3 during the six months where no more O3 is created, because there’s no sunlight. This is a basic fact that any competent scientist knew, but they lied in order to literally scare up more funding as well as to help corporations profit: The ban on CFCs was a sham, corporations and regulators colluding to force people to use more expensive and dangerous, less effective chemicals in place of CFCs, because those bad chemicals were still under patent, making them more money. An equivalent of what we’ve seen in the past three years.
The difference between the Ozone layer problem and climate change is that solving the first one didn’t directly impact the way we live, it just required technological solutions (new chemicals). Solving climate change won’t come through technological changes alone, but mostly through sobriety and structural changes. That is way harder to acheive because no one wants to reduce its level of consumption by 8 (more if you are american or from saudi arabia, less if you are from pakistan or nigeria).
I think many people have heard so much about climate change for so long, they feel that we’re past the point of no return. Because of that they’ve become numb to it, not because they don’t care, but because they feel we can’t change. I remember learning about the ozone depleting as a kid, and ever since I’ve made it a habit to use as little aerosol products as possible. And yet, I had no idea we’ve actually been succeeding, that fact not only gives me hope where politicians have made countless empty promises, but it also makes me feel like I somehow helped (even if I didnt). That makes for a far better and more hopeful climate change message than anything I’ve heard, so I think it should be brought up far more often. If we realise and believe we can fix climate change like we have with the ozone, maybe there’ll be hope for us yet.
Since I’m a very thick-skulled Neanderthal, please explain to me why the ozone hole occurred in the place on earth that’s the most remote from where all the CFCs were being used. Since most weather systems don’t cross the equator, there must be something strange going on. And since the chemicals persist in the atmosphere for a hundred years, wouldn’t the best result of even a 100% drop in CFC usage be a levelling off? It would take decades to see any improvement.
I’m not so sure about this. A substitution was readily available? Or was it developed under those pressure? Was there any engineering advantage to use the new substitute anyway? The only sure reason we don’t hear about it anymore is that it’s no longer worsening. However, the only sure thing about this development is that a good solution was available and political pressure make it happens faster. You don’t just phase out something without another way out.
Antarctic ozone hole: all countries go in together, the public supported the measures. 20 years later the hole stopped growing, and another 10 years later the hole is started to shrink. Crisis adverted as long as we keep it up. Climate change: 20 years later and people are still bickering if it’s real or not, and which one entity should take sole responsibility. Why can’t we learn from our mistake and triumph of the past?
Even when we no longer use the ozone depleting products… Our Government/EPA programs still require new products. These products will cost million in businesses and millions more for homeowners who will no longer be able to maintain older products due to these changes (For example: AC, freezers etc). Why is this needed now? Government programs never shut down.. they just expand and waste more money and what best way to do that but create more rules and products.. Just slap a “Its for our health” or “Its for the environment” and waste everyone’s money.
Their all-climate hoaxes, it’s always a model never anything real (well our model shows). Yeah, yeah, yeah, well our model shows if you give us a bunch of money, we can come up with something new every 15 to 20 years to scare you with to give us even more money. We don’t get it directly from you, we just go to congress with our ” science experts”, and you believe everything we say.
So basically change happened because the pressure was put on the company’s? Not by taxing the poor, telling them to buy an electric car that they can’t afford, when the majority of electricity is made by burning coal and deliver that whole message by some 20 year old with rich parents pretending to be a child who is funded by large oil stakeholders?? Imagine my shock. This is why no one believes the agenda. If it is real then the solution would not be more taxes. The solution would be to gradually make it less profitable and let capitalism do all the work. Necessity is the mother of invention, if their bottom line is not effected then their will never be competition. Everyone in power knows electric cars is not a solution nor possible. There is not enough cobalt for everyone to drive an electric car, there is not enough nuclear or sustainable power sources to fuel it. Its all political agenda. They are just increasing the gap between rich and poor.
What I learned is if the media and government weren’t completely bought out these days we might have had a chance against climate change. Oh well let’s just keep having useless climate summits where we pretend we might eventually do something around the margins at some point in the future. I’m sure that will be sufficient.
It was recognized in the early 1970s. The Antarctic ozone hole opened up to cover NZ at it’s worst extent. It became quite a big problem for Friesian Dairy cows with bad sunburn on the udders as the breeding that produced an expanded udder reduced the melatonin, and protective hair cover on the udders. This is now a minor problem, but was causing thick black scabs on older cows at it’s worst. One would have to be doubtful that that cooperation could be achieved todays world of self interest.
I would really love to know, how much of the earth’s warming is related to the ozone hole. I still remember that getting skin cancer was not the only problem. UV-light is energy rich and since it is not getting reflected by the ozone layer is heating up the planet. I have. never found a study that would show how much of the warming comes from green house gases which is an ongoing topic and how much comes from ozone destruction, which is basically solved, but will need another 50 years to fix.
Climate change is an issue that is going to take so much time and effort though. Many countries that are still developing use the cheapest energy source there is which is coal or carbon, you aren’t going to tell a poor Namibian family to stop polluting and use solar panels, thats something that only Americans have the luxury of. With the situation in the article it was easy, you just ban the specific molecule that there is suitable replacement for and end of story. With Climate Change it’s so much more complicated
We have some practical solutions: showing wind generators and solar panels. These are not practical, we can’t store the energy from such unreliable sources yet. Therefore they increase CO2 emissions due to necessity of using coal when there is no wind or daylight. So, the best available alternative – nuclear energy, but it is time-consuming and costly to implement safely, though possible.
“In the ’80s, scientists discovered there was a hole in the ozone over the South Pole.” This sentence (and the article) just completely cuts out literally an entire decade’s worth of research in the 70’s that directly led to the discovery of the ozone hole, including work that wound up winning the Nobel Prize.
Question: When chlorine reacts with Ozone in a chain reaction, since chlorine is not used up, why would this chain reaction ever stop? My reasoning suggests it would never stop. Therefore why is the observed Ozone hole healing? Question2: Why over the south pole? Why not everywhere? I’m 72 years old. I observe no change in sea level by direct observation for the last 60 years. Question3: So why didn’t this giant hole in the atmosphere over Antarctica melt the ice making the sea level rise? Question4: So now that the hole is self healing, won’t the sea level fall as a result of freezing temperatures capturing more water as ice in Antarctica ?
Last time I checked, after years of the ozone hole receding however the size has stopped shrinking because Chinese manufacturerers in Western China have started using CFCs to make cheap foam products. It just goes to show that attacking global pollution on a country by country case has severe limitations. How can we tell emerging economies that their people need to remain poor agrarian societies without electricity, internet access, health facilities. We need to assist countries to advance their quality of life. African countries didn’t run copper phone cables they hopscotched to wireless systems.
interesting that the only place the ozone hole was at was the farthest one can get away from other people, and still be on the earth. to bad they never said anything about the volcano’s puking out chlorine gas by the ton each day and night non stop. in just a year it had put 100 times as much as humans had made in our entire history.
The biggest problem with climate change are the politics. Issues like climate, pandemics, etc give those in power a license to “do-whatever-I-want-however-I-see-fit” as there is no accountability. We are all shaking hands and shouting “Hooray! We fixed the OZone!!” When in reality, we do not have the empirical data to show we’ve made any impact whatsoever as the only solid data/evidence we have is 40 to 50 years old. We’ve experienced LIAs (Little Ice Age) throughout history in the pre industrial age as well as warming periods which do have counter arguments as far as causation on both sides… but we don’t really know. We are not yet capable of measuring the variables for what impact a specific causation or event had on overall climate change except for right after they occur… outside of cataclysmic events such as meteors, super volcanos, etc. and the clues they leave behind that is. Variables for climate change include everything from: -highs and lows in solar radiation due to solar events -nearby objects in space -sibling planet positioning in our solar system -volcanic activity -oceanic currents and circulation -periodical hatchings (such as cicadas) -periodical animal activities This list goes on and on and on and on. While the evidence is tantalizing (RIP Carl Sagan), we’ve just begun to scratch the surface on climate. That said, the argument for cleaner living and leaving less of a footprint on earth should stop at the fact that we know we can impact our environment (such as the dust bowl) so we should take it upon us to live clean lives- but not at the cost of our freedoms and nothing drastic or rash should be done.
You had me hooked until Greta showed up. She isn’t doing anything unlike other smaller present companies that are doing something for the environment, which steals the spotlight from them. It’s been a while since anything popped from her and the smaller people have already accomplished more than her words.
Great article! I wish everyone would see it! I think it would help if you re-named the clip into something that is less about the ozone layer and more about: Yay! Humans really ARE capable of finding and implementing solutions to solve an environmental crisis. This is to me the core conclusion of the article, and a very very important one! <3
It’s truly remarkable to think about the progress we’ve made in addressing climate change. Just a few years ago, it seemed like an insurmountable problem that would lead to the downfall of our planet. But thanks to the hard work of scientists and the media’s efforts to spread awareness, we’ve been able to turn things around.
Good job on ozone: sort of an anti-chemical industry pushback. CO2, you takin’ muh car? No, just making a really quiet one. I don’t believe hydroelectricity is clean: silting, cinnabar, flooded forests with deadheads, isolated fish stocks, never mind the tonne of CO2 per tonne of cement. Cost of lithium extraction and battery production and the risks to mechanics working on those abominations: your garage needs a mechanic and an electrician. Could be argued you need a computer programmer, too. Let me just say, there are many difficult variables going into these alternative energies that will be difficult to suss, and they’ll mostly be wrong.
At 8:11 “It’s not true that we can’t do it anymore…” We never did. My mom and dad supported this and so did we: We were only being asked to use roll-on deodorant instead of spray and to change the type of refrigerant in the A/C. We were never asked to stop using deodorant or live without A/C. Today, we are being asked to walk or bike instead of driving, to change how we live, where we live. You are asking families that have large pick up truck to stop taking their kids camping with the trailer. You are asking people with ranches, farms, country homes to move to the city so their kids can walk to school. The degree of the life style changes they are expecting from people are RADICAL, while none of the changes needed to protect the ozone layer can really even be called ‘changes’. the A/C still runs, the paint still comes out of the spray can, no life style change took place. On the other hand, the data about the ozone layer depletion was clear, only human made products were destroying it. While the data on what causes the climate to change is nowhere near clear past the point that it is changing. OK. But changed by us? Can you say that to the people that lived through 536 AD? The weather changed and there were no cars nor power plants around.
3:40 “The US had already moved away from CFCs in aerosol cans” 6:20 “Soon after, the world’s largest CFC producer began to phase them out”, with the headline “Du Pont will stop making ozone killers”. As Du Pont is (and was) a US company, these statements can’t both be correct. As the headline is referenced with a date, it seems more likely that’s correct, and so the first claim is not.
I was shocked when I recently learned of the oceans capacity for absorbing heat and how we have already reached the critical limit early. Why is no body making a big deal of this?? We have had a false sense of security with delayed surface temperatures. We have tech that would fix everything quickly if only we weren’t so concerned about wealth generation. Time for no one to be in charge and everyone to do what is right.
Well… That’s causing industry-wide issues, because each time one of those ozone-depleting or environment-harming substancies are dropped, business owners and companies are forced to replace entire industrial parks. There’s a side effect that’s under the iceberg and also harmful to the environment: e-Waste. They dropped CFC. Now HFC. Industries are going back to butane, as unsafe as it is, so they don’t need to drop millions, billions in gear each time a substance like CFC/HFC is deemed to be harmful to the environment. I’m not saying it was not necessary. I’m saying that, at the end of the day, there are no easy solutions and this side of the question is not shown here. Climate change issues will be no different.
First of all, HFCs are also already on the blacklist, but I see that the Americans don’t know about it, because – secondly – they have always been at the back of the queue when it comes to implementing environmental protocols (which is quite different from the narration in this article). In addition, there is no addendum about the next record ozone hole over the South Pole in 2023 – and such things should be updated with the passage of time, and if someone doesn’t want to, he shouldn’t make documentaries, but focus on feature films (it will be better for everyone).
Was never about “ozone-depleting substances” but is all about solar emissions and the terrestrial magnetic field. As the current “excursion” continues and this field weakens, the ozone is depleted by incoming solar wind and flares. Billions spent on changing spray-can propellants for no good reason. Much like man-made CO2 causing warming foolishness. This article is a lot of science that has nothing to do with CFCs.
“we” saved the world !!! How did we do it? We didn’t … although we did make the DuPont & Company a lot of money … DuPont had already developed a replacement for those “bad” CFCs well before “we” banned them… If man made CFCs were creating the hole in the ozone layer and they had a life-span of 50 years then they would remain a threat today. A threat that can be used to scare naive people until the year 2030 or so. But somehow the ozone hole got smaller after only 10 years or so…imagine “our” surprise when that happened.
Climate change is the biggest problem now guys I’ll tell you why I live in India and from the start of 2023 it was really showing that how fast the climate was changing and talking about the weathers it’s genrally very cold in January but it was not too cold like it used to be and we experienced summer like April may just in March and the Feb month which used to be my fav month coz it’s the time for spring season in india but we didnt experienced any spring season which made me feel like will we lose this awesome season just like this and that’s the time when it started concerning me and like its may now and it’s usually used to be super hot in northern india but like literally we are experiencing rainfall,storms for days and it feels so cold in the night time I really never experienced this like feeling cold in may month even the news said that after 6 year it was raining like this in india in the month of may and the may is feeling like december When I was a kid I attend one of these Montreal protocol program which was held in delhi in india and some students of govt, school were invited At that time I didnt know much about it but now hearing that its healing now makes me feel great I think we should do the same for climate change and I know that un and other organizations are already working on it but it doesnt seem effective to me ppl still dont believe that climate change is the real thing and it will affect each one us so even if they r trying I dont think its functional as it should be
You don’t hear about it because the powers that be managed to save the huge auto manufacturers from ruination by outlawing freon to keep the Minto freon vapor engine from being put into wide use. An engine that could be built in a home shop and be powered by clean burning fuels of most flammable materials. Doing away with transmissions, doing most of the braking by reversing valves, and removing the heavy engines and replacing them with light weight ones that almost never wear out. Small auto companies would have sprung up world wide and overall pollution would have dropped tremendously.