Silvanus said:
To be clear: you're contesting that the energy crisis (and accompanying scarcity of oil & petroleum) resulted in the degradation of the ozone layer, & that by extension we'd have been better suited to making financial arguments to fix that issue?
Was my writing in any conceivable way ambiguous?
Comparative petroleum scarcity and cost during the energy crisis contributed to the continued proliferation and use of ozone-depleting chemicals less-reliant on petroleum-based precursors, and when that scarcity was alleviated by the end of the energy crisis the transition was to cheaper, safer, and easier to manufacture products. This would be why
halocarbon replacements are
hydrocarbons. Which is why the "sanctions" in the Montreal Protocol -- such as they were, pointless -- never "had" to be evoked.
The Montreal Protocol was smoke and mirrors, a nominally-binding resolution absent meaningful consequences for offending states, a lesson we should have taken to heart when it was discovered last year China was breaking the protocol on the down-low and nothing has been done, and the US has been fracking for over a decade with zero fucks given by anyone outside the environmental lobby. Hence why, despite headlines, ozone repletion is and remains stunted. It's a "feel good" letter designed to quiet discontent, not fix problems.
Which, thinking about it, I'd add "acid rain" to my list of "shit you should have thought about, but didn't". Really, it speaks volumes to the level of awareness and sincerity of the environmental lobby in general, so little attention is drawn to the acid rain program during carbon taxation debates of the past twenty years.
I thought your approach was to tailor your argument towards what convinces other people? Not to try to change the terms of the debate.
This is why you should actually be talking to conservatives, not banging your head against what your perception of conservatives is. Petrodollars is out of the
popular lexicon; conservatives can and do still care about it, albeit through the post-9/11 filter of radical Islamist terror. Itself a popular topic of wokescolding and polarization by way of "Islamophobia" or just straight "racism", as a convenient well-poisoning strategy to prevent meaningful discussion on a topic.
For example, know how any and all criticism of Israeli policy and Israel's role in the Israel-Palestine conflict is quickly and mercilessly shouted down as antisemitism by the Zionist right and left? Know how annoying that is? Same shit; just because
your side employs the strategy, whilst oil companies benefit (and they do), doesn't make it correct, necessary, proper, or really anything but useful idiocy to toxic interests.
Which is my point: the left's entire regime for climate change debate is a top-down state of controlled opposition and useful idiocy of, by, and for the fossil fuels industry. Head-banging against a firewall, using decades-old and well-countered talking points by rote, indoctrinated to the point of refusing to understand their designed-to-fail nature, nor the irony of continuing to play by a book dictated in no small part by the fossil fuels industry itself. What I'm saying, is stop being a goddamn useful idiot.
Where was this "specific citation" exactly?
Perhaps you might read again what you just wrote.
