you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 249 points 5 months ago (74 children)

Kids these days don't even know about the hole in the ozone later.

  • source
  • hideshow 74 child comments
  • [–] 214 points 5 months ago (25 children)

    It's kinda our last big environmental win.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 125 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (12 children)

    There's been some conservation wins that I know of. Okaloosa Darter fish came off of endangered status, and eventually off of threatened The Red Cockaded Woodpecker was elevated from endangered to threatened a few years ago.

    Controlled burns in the US long leaf pine forests have also lead to a return of the quail population.

    Just trying to sprinkle a little good news out there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 51 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Cockaded Woodpecker

    Now your just making shit up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Winner of the "most penis euphemisms in one name" award.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    Top contenders:

    Red-cockaded Woodpecker — "cockaded" refers to a ribbon or rosette ornament once worn on hats, not anatomy.

    Cock-of-the-rock — sounds like a tavern name invented by a teenager.

    Dickcissel — often cited as the funniest North American bird name. "Dick" was historically a common nickname for a male bird.

    Bush Thick-knee — not penis-related, but frequently gets laughs.

    Rufous-naped Lark — harmless, but "rufous-naped" is often misread at a glance. Shag — in British English, perfectly normal; elsewhere, not so much.

    Cockatoo — contains "cock," though the name comes from Malay, not English.

    Woodcock — another classic.

    Black-cockatoo and other cockatoos — bonus points for stacking "cock" into longer names.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 29 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    American Bison, too. The repopulation of American bison (often mistakenly called buffalo) is one of the most successful repopulation efforts in history. The reason you’re able to order buffalo (again, not actually buffalo) burgers at your local hipster burger joint is because American bison is no longer endangered. The population has come from less than 1000 total bison (all privately owned by a handful of conservationists) to over 400k today.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    The irony of all ironies is how similar the words "conservation" and "conservative" are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago*

    That's because the root of both is to conserve. To keep things the way they are.

    Politics gets in the way of that reality since they don't actively want to keep it the same, they actually want to regress back to previous times they can exploit personally.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    I can add to that: the cormorant population in my country, Denmark, used to be endangered and now they are fucking everywhere. We also used to almost have the stork go extinct. For many years we had like 6 breeding pairs left. Now we have 26!

    And we brought back beavers. Our otter population is growing too and we have wolves now, which sadly, is a controversial subject. A lot of lobbyist in the farming community (farmers are basically the closest we get to the marfia here) are trying to convince the population that wolves don't belong in Denmark and should be eradicated. People fall for it because they are scared for their kids. Meanwhile I'm over here like: 🫠 you guys are aware that the only reason they've started coming closer to cities is because some of you retarded fucks are feeding them and also, farmers are killing our nature so there's less food for wildlife in the countryside. That's why wolves are moving closer to cities.

    I still have great hopes for our wolf population. Our newly elected government is planning on cracking down hard on farming after 40 years of these assholes fuckign around and destroying my country with their poisons and pigshit and penicillin abuses etc etc. Finally, someone is gonna hold these psychos accountable. I am very excited for our wildlife because we still have time to save it. But if we don't do something now, I fear that within the next 10 to 20 years, our natural ecosystems will be erased. It is insane to have grown up in a time where we used to have a much healthier nature and gradually I have seen species disappear completely. Species that used to be everywhere.

    But there are still many passionate people who are fighting to preserve and save nature and they are having way more wins in recent years than they have had for decades. So yay!

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    iirc ~1/4 of the worlds energy production is renewable. More than 90% of all new electricity capacity worldwide came from renewable sources in 2024. Doomers want you to believe it can't happen again while we are in the very decade that is likely to change the world. Public policy doesn't even matter at this point, renewable energy is cheaper, so nearly all new investments are in renewables.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Energy sources are only part of the issue (albeit a major one) and enormous damage has already been done to a disastrous point, calling people "doomers" with an intent to ridicule their angst, worries and experiences is akin to climate change denial.

    Also, public policy is constantly used in an expensive way if that it suits the ruling classes, markets are not some neutral forces in a vacuum.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    I'm concerned about climate change. But if you ask most people how much progress we've made they would say "barely any". That belief that we can't do it, is the main thing aside from public policy slowing us down. When people think things are hopeless, they often don't see the point in fighting or changing their behavior. I also think most people don't realize that renewable energy adoption has accelerated so quickly the last few years. Every year we have had massive growth over last year in adoption.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Tbf, its not even yet a win technically.

    TCO is expected to return to 1980 values around 2066 in the Antarctic, around 2045 in the Arctic, and around 2040 for the near-global average (60°N-60°S). - Source

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    So is that good news, that we’re moving in the right direction?

    Though the very next sentence from that linked source says

    The assessment of the depletion of TCO in regions around the globe from 1980-1996 remains essentially unchanged since the 2018 Assessment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    2018 to 2022 didnt see much change (and given how far until its fully returned to normal, I think you can see qhy - it takes a long time to fully heal), but we're certainly pretty far into success compared to where we were.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 63 points 5 months ago (12 children)

    I just told my kid about how we fixed acid rain through regulation just this morning

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 5 months ago* (10 children)

    Well it's understandable, the concept of being able to actually cooperate and do something about the environment on a world scale instead of just blindly pretending it's not a thing until it kills us all is a bit hard to believe for younger generations for obvious reasons.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    I don't understand, why would it sound implausible? Isn't that what governments are FOR?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 32 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    It was the Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that were used as the primary propellant in aerosol sprays. More commonly known by the brand name Freon. Notice that basically every aerosol can manufactured today has a “CFC Free” badge somewhere. Refrigerant systems also moved away from using actual Freon, and now use alternative refrigerants.

    CFCs were actually invented by the same guy who invented leaded gasoline, Thomas Midgley Jr... He is probably the single most environmentally destructive chemical engineer in history.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 26 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    We managed to dial things back a bit, so that became a smaller problem.

    We used to see regular news reports of actual rivers on fire. Things are still way too bad, but we forcefully throttled some things as we saw how quickly the damage was compounding.

    Women’s hair doesn’t defy gravity without lots of help.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    Oh my god I needed your comment for it to finally click, I was thinking "they stopped putting their hair up to protect their shoulders from the increased UVs"? But of course, it was referencing the sprays!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    ozone later

    Well that's because we're at now, not at later.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    We've had one ozone yes, but what about later ozone?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Well not to worry, all these internet swarm satellites might cause another one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Video overview: https://youtu.be/oKK0dgDIxKY

    There's many studies, so here's two:

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024GL109280

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2025EF007229

    Article: https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/how-elon-musks-dying-satellites-could-hurt-the-ozone-layer

    tl;dr: the massively increased rate of rocket launches and re-entry satellite burn-ups is creating a significant amount of pollution that is probably damaging the Ozone layer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago* (4 children)

    in australia they absolutely do

    we take skin cancer very seriously down here

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Most don't know that we have an ozone layer let alone that there is a hole in it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    One of my coworkers insists that the hole in the ozone layer is an iris that expands and contracts for regulation. When I asked him what it was regulating, he just shrugged and gave a look that said "I don't know, you tell me"

    He also claimed that believing that humans were capable of changing the global climate was pure hubris, despite the USSR deleting the Caspian sea decades ago.

    And he thinks the wind turbines that have been installed in the past 10 years are making tornadoes worse, contradicting his claims that humans can't change the climate

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I think your coworker may be a lost cause, do you think you could convince him that anti-freeze and turpentine will make him see god?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    Engineering a death by misadventure doesn't seem ethical to me

    Just wait for the people he follows on the internet to tell him

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago

    in a situation in which harm increase over time, like the rise of far right, anti-science, environmental damage, etc… perhaps that “wait” is a less ethical solution than to solve the problem

    now, perhaps causing harm isn’t the way to go, but… the lesser of 2 evils may still be somewhat problematic

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)