Hacker News Reader

For all the environmental damage they caused, I'm not convinced that CFCs were a net negative. We have better alternatives now, but the refrigerants R12 replaced at the time were really really nasty; how many lives would you be willing to sacrifice to avoid damaging the ozone layer?

View on HN

The question is how many lives were lost due to a damaged ozone layer? (increased risks of skin cancer, etc).

The point is that regulation is important. Whether you have good regulation, bad regulation or no regulation it has impact and the discussion is important.

Right. My point is just that people tend to condemn CFCs based on their costs while completely ignoring the benefits they brought at the time.

I mean every narrative about the invention of CFCs is basically found a great thing, didn't realize the great thing has downsides.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com