Changing people's minds on climate change

You have correctly pointed out a common starting place,"air pollution", and I don't have any problem with starting there. Use what works and hope for the best.

When I've looked at the postings of @mojo, I realize there is something more pathological going on. It is not ignorance but willful denial of reality, objectively measured facts and data. Imagine standing with someone at dawn who claims the sun is rising in the West ... that is what we are dealing with @mojo.

Many years ago, TV shows would have hynotists who would 'put people under' and have them act as if reality were different on the TV stage:

What I would suggest is our individual ability to deal with reality is pretty shallow. A simple hypnosis session could cure @mojo and sad to say, corrupt @bwilson4web. Our understanding of empiricism is so shallow, an artifact of our personal history ... anyone could become something else ... just as I was once a Marine. But reality has a cold, impersonal, effect that some hear and the others ... are deaf.

Bob Wilson

 

Why would anyone deny climate change? It happens all the time and has throughout history...

 

Seriously BW cites a scientific theory which is half wrong and believes it anyway.What kind of a delusional fool, doesnt understand that scientific theory has to be correct to be believed.

"bwilson4web said: ↑
I'm less concerned with the finer details of global warming as much as the fun of watching polar ice loss. The one thing all climate models agree on is warming will be fastest at the poles and that certainly is true in the Arctic. Antarctica remains curious."

 

Clean air. California has (supposedly) been working on it for the past 25 years or more. "California air resources Board", and all that. CARB. Supposedly, we set the standard for the rest of the country. We have winter blend gas, and summer blend gas.

The air does appear to have gotten a little cleaner over the years. And "smog alerts" seem to be fewer than before. However, the population and traffic keeps increasing, so I don't know if the air quality quality will ever improve that much. When I go up on a hill, and look down into the LA basin, you can still see that ugly brown haze hanging over the area every day. (Hopefully, it's not as bad as it once was.)

 

even pollution is hard to get into peoples heads. if they weren't affected by the love canal, or even our own right here in woburn mass a few decades ago, then they aren't going to change their lifestyle voluntarily. not to be negative, i think any and every tactic is worth trying.

the local activists have done great things with boston harbor, the charles river and many other areas in our state, and much work still needs to be done. i'm sure that's true for much of the country.

 

Serious question from a limey. What's the love canal, or is it a euphemism?

 

Love Canal - Wikipedia

Bob Wilson

 

OK, thanks. Sounds a bit like Hollywood film plot.

 

For mobile sources of air pollution, catalytic converters were most important thing by far. I take every opportunity to whine that 'those guys' should have received Nobel Prize for Chemistry.

There have been many other success stories, most accompanied by "It'll bankrupt the industry" or such like. Quite the opposite happens. Those are probably what should be looked at for understanding what works.

Where externalities are local to regional, there have been many successes. Fewer at the global level. Atmospheric test ban treaty, banned chlorofluorocarbons. Can anyone think of others?

My point is that scale matters. If you use successful local-scale 'tactics' to confront a global-scale issue, you'll probably not succeed.

 

In the USA, it's very political, that's the whole problem.
I don't think other countries are as divided as we are in the USA.

I assume things like particulates, SOx. NOx, and other things may contribute to ice melts and ocean acidification, so there is merit to clean air vs. the pit bull focus on mainly CO2. Also EPA is on the right track worrying about the strange man-made chemicals we are putting in the air regarding air conditioner HCFC's. We've gone from strange molecules (CFC's) that destroyed ozone to strange chemicals (HCFC's) that have enormous climate change implications. I feel we need to worry more about strange man made molecule additions to atmosphere. I view CO2 we can try to reduce but I agree other pollutants should not be ignored, in fact reducing other pollutants may be the lower hanging fruit with good payout.

 

In many other places, the air has become much cleaner.

But we have also reached a point that much of the population was born too late to have first-hand experience with the worst pollution, and is now of age to be in Congress and deny that we ever had the bad pollution that lead to these modern regulations.

 

Toxic. Somewhat explosive. Ingredient for making stronger explosives. Ingredient for illegal manufacture of methamphetamine, which has ravaged many communities.

 

Carbon dioxide can be used as a refrigerant.

The explosive part is likely the main reason ammonia didn't transition to consumer level products.

 

I don't know why ammonia and CO2 are not used more in cars/homes. But the new substitutes are very fancy man-made molecules with more thought to ozone and climate, possibly with a little more toxicity to man.

 

CO2 heat pumps work at higher pressures, which means heavier components at a higher price. It also needs a higher lift temperature to work. "A standard gas- or oil-fired boiler may deliver 180°F water for hydronic heating, and return water in the heating loop at a temperature of 150°F after delivering it’s heat through baseboard radiators. So the boiler has to “lift” the water from 150°F to 180°F. That isn’t enough lift for a CO2-based heat pump. The EcoCute needs a minimum of about 45°F of lift to function effectively." - A Heat Pump Using Carbon Dioxide as the Refrigerant | BuildingGreen
That article is 3 years old, so there might be mini-split heat pumps for homes using CO2 on the market now.
This article is more technical on CO2 for refrigeration. CO2 As Refrigerant: The Transcritical Cycle

"Ammonia is considered a high health hazard because it is corrosive to the skin, eyes, and lungs. Exposure to 300 parts per million (ppm) is immediately dangerous to life and health. Ammonia is also flammable at concentrations of approximately 15% to 28% by volume in air. When mixed with lubricating oils, its flammable concentration range is increased. It can explode if released in an enclosed space with a source of ignition present, or if a vessel containing anhydrous ammonia is exposed to fire. Fortunately, ammonia has a low odor threshold (20 ppm), so most people will seek relief at much lower concentrations."
That is OSHA's general statement on ammonia. Safety and Health Topics | Ammonia Refrigeration | Occupational Safety and Health Administration
It is also corrosive to copper. The tanks we have are stainless steel, so the equipment might cost more.