For all the noise and fury about climate change there is simply no alternative energy source that works very well.
Everything else: climate denial, climate alarmism, it's all noise and means nothing.
Neither the politicians (both for and against), nor the activists (again, both for and against) have any effect whatsoever.
Without any effect on the atmosphere and the global agreement on it's detriment you would be certainly be using all these banned gases in your fridges and airconditioners. They are vastly superior from an engineering perspective which is why they were chosen in the first place.
That one is the kicker though. What do you think the support for this is amongst the extinction rebellion crowd and the likes of Greta "I see CO² with my naked eye"[1] Thunberg? This problem would be solved already if people were actually interested in solving it as opposed to politicking about it by doing things like demanding the end of economic growth in the west.
[1] https://www.afrinik.com/my-daughter-can-see-co2-with-the-nak...
> She can see carbon dioxide with the naked eye. She sees how it flows out of chimneys and changes the atmosphere in a landfill.
I mean maybe US, Europe and China can do this but can the rest of the world?
South Africa has problems getting conventional coal plants up and running [1][2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medupi_Power_Station#Delays_an... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kusile_Power_Station#Delays_an...
And there is no real interest in mass roll out of solar and wind in South Africa - people would just be all to happy to get some reliability in electricity supply. So sure, the rest of the world will have problems - with nuclear and just about anything else.
The problem still remains that energy storage is not a solved problem and wind and solar can maybe generate enough electricity but not in right places and not at the right times.
> Eyesight, unaided by equipment such as a telescope or microscope.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/naked-ey...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naked%20eye
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/the-nak...
Saying X and then later saying that when you said X you obviously did not mean X is the textbook definition of gaslighting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
> Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, gaslighting involves attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's beliefs.
> Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. In rhetoric, it is also sometimes known as auxesis (literally 'growth'). In poetry and oratory, it emphasizes, evokes strong feelings, and creates strong impressions. As a figure of speech, it is usually not meant to be taken literally.
Since everyone knows gaseous CO2 is invisible to the naked eye, this is clearly an example of hyperbole. Presumably Greta's mother just gave people enough credit to realize that.
I'm pretty sure when her mother said "She can see carbon dioxide with the naked eye", what she meant was "She can see carbon dioxide with the naked eye" and I base this belief on the fact that "She can see carbon dioxide with the naked eye" is verbatim what she said. I don't see why you are berating me for claiming someone said something which they said without qualifying that they did not mean what they said. If she did not mean what she said she also can clearly say that instead of trying to gaslight people.
This would be like Bloomberg trying to defend themselves in that case where they were fined by France for publishing fake news by claiming clearly it was not fake news but hyperbole because everybody knows it was not true - which - if it is not clear to you - would be absurd.