The Environmental Thread
 

Here in the UK it has been all over the news for some time that very soon we are going to be up to our ears in flood waters, environmental refugees and deserts (or ice sheets).. & everyone needs to produce less cO2 as we are changing a very fine environmental balance that allows us to live comfortably.....

dont get me wrong... I am not being flippant... My Car does 62.9 mpg... nothing electrical is ever left on if its not in use, everything gets recycled... and so on... I do more than my far share.

But the view we get fed by the media in the UK is that we should aspire to be more like Eastern Europeans & Australians that have been recycling, using Bio-Fuel and generally being environmentally aware for years... and less like the Hummer driving Americans that have a very energy hungry/High carbon economy.

Whats it like in your part of the world?.... is the environment a big issue...? Is it constantly on the news? does anyone have any interesting perspectives?

One thing I thought was interesting was the idea that other nations... effected by environmental changes... may sue the developing nations for causing the changes to their environment..

It's starting to gain headlines here (I wish it got more). But I will tell you this, I wish they would stick to the facts and cut it with the hyperbole. If the world does flood from global warming it will take a very long time. On the other hand, dying from smog inhalation is a very real possibility, and yet it's never discussed.

that makes me think..... remember the hole in the Ozone layer? What ever happended to that?

Oh, it's still there, as a matter of fact most scientists theorize that the hole over Antarctica has always been there. Soon after that discovery the furor over it's size dissipated dramatically. I still think Ozone depletion can be an issue, it's just not as big of an issue as they once thought.

CFCs were phased out of refrigerator coolant, aerosol cans, etc. in many countries, which may explain why ozone layer deterioration slowed.

Climate change is going to be just like the ozone and Y2K problems. Society will take corrective actions, but even if everything turns out OK the debate will still not end, because nobody will be able to determine whether the eventual nonappearance of the crisis was because it was a fake crisis, or because it was a real crisis and the countermeasures worked.

to be honest, we can all try our best to help stop global warming etc, but untill Bush decides to do something about the climate nothing too major will happen. I think if bush does do something, other countries will follow.

It's not just Bush, though. Blaming Bush is too easy. I am NO fan of Bush, but let's face it. If someone claims to want to stop global warming, but drives the same number of miles as 5 years ago, and doesn't even question getting on an airplane themselves, they aren't helping. It's a difficult thing. I am seriously trying to drive less. Do I really not take that vacation on a plane, or skip that conference on the other coast? Not an instant decision. If we really believe global warming exists and we want to do something about it, the real difference will be made by billions of individuals' decisions no matter what the politicians do. But it's very hard.

most other countries are doing something already!.. :D

but you dont have to wait for your Texan Oil Baron of a Presedant to tell you what to do.. Arnie isn't!... and I understand alot of US states are signing up individually to Kyoto.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4548406.stm

Well, i think that by the time Bush & Blair & friends (& foes) realise that the Earth, the only planet in the solar system that we can currently live on's atmosphere is on its last legs and try to stop all CO2 etc, it will be too late and by then we will have a few centuries or so to go before the atmosphere gives up the ghost and we all die like eggs (fried/poached).

Thats my opinion.

I will probably not be liked too much for this, but I come in kind of from the other side on this issue.

Don't get all mad yet: I think we should recycle whenever possible, I drive a reletively fuel efficient car (by American standards), and I even have those super efficient light bulbs. I do think we need to cut back emissions and cut back on the way we pollute the Earth. I'm interested in living in a clean place just as much as the next guy.

Now with that being said, I think the hype in the media about Global Warming is a load of crap. I know that global warming is happening; that is a simple fact. What I have not been convinced of is one, the human specie's role in this warming and two, how bad the effects will really be.

The sun has been very active for the past 10-20 years, burning at a higher temperature than usual. I think that would warm us up quite a bit in a very quick fashoin.

I have read reports that the Earth was warmer during the middle ages. And I also try not to forget that the Earth was in what the scientists had called a "little ice age" that ended only a century or two ago. After a "little ice age" ends, I kind of expect the Earth to warm up a little bit. (indeed, wouldn't that signify the end of it?)

The Earth's climate changes in cycles. It always has and always will. There has been massive warmings and coolings in the past, and I think there are more to come in the future.

I am somewhat of a skeptic by nature, and usually the last person to jump on the bandwagon. I just think we need to consider very carefully the consequences of making decisions that could be economically devastating before we really know if those decisions will even slow the warming of the earth.

jonjonc... I am kinda in the same boat...

I think Blair and Bush have mislead and con'd their public so many times that people are naturally sceptical of anything they say... I on the other hand have no problem visualising mans environmental influence on the planet... I can see a thousand cars a minute go past Warwick on the M40... and thats Warwick... a tiny town in the middle of no where in the middle of a tiny country.. if you image all the other billions of cars in every little village, town & city in the UK, France, Germany, US, Austrailia, Norway, South Africa, India, Brasil.....and so on......... soon you start to wonder where all the materials and fuel comes from to sustain this activity... and what effect it is having.

ps... whats fuel efficient by American standards?..
I remember hearing on some documentary that American cars were more fuel efficent 40 years ago than they are today!

I don't know what what kind of efficiency we were geting 40 years ago. My car gets 33 or 34 mpg on the highway, which is far better than all the SUV's and trucks speeding around these days. I would consider that pretty good by American standards. Not great, but good. I used to drive a Ford Explorer that got about 18 or 19 mpg on the highway, about average for a SUV.

I have actually applied for an internship with Tesla Motors. They manufacture completely electric cars, and recently decided to open their next plant in my hometown of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Their Roadster gets the equivalent of about 135 mpg. Check out their site, that car is amazing.

I probably see a lot more trucks and SUV's than other people though; I live in an agricultural area and go to a college whose mascot is the Aggies. Consequently, there are quite a few HUGE pickup trucks driving around all the time. What I want to know is where all these other college students are getting the cash to shell out $60-70 to fill up their tanks every other week or so!

WRT all the cars driving around: Obviously, I am not a scientist qualified to give a statement on how they affect the atmosphere. All I can state is that I have read many reports, all from supposedly very respected individuals in their fields, that say very contradicting things.

I have found reports ranging from one end of the spectrum to the other. Reports that were practically toting the flag for environmentalists and saying that humans have completely destroyed the planet and no longer deserve to live here. I found reports that said human's have had no effect on the environment and we should not change how we live at all. Reports that claimed either of these perspectives I pretty much throw out of the window right off the bat.

I have also found reports that say humans probably have affected the atmosphere in a bad way, but the extent of which cannot be accurately measured because there are other factors at work (such as the increased sun activity that I mentioned earlier). I find these reports to be much more reasonable.

Here is a more concise version of what I was trying to get across earlier: I agree with attempts to cut back emissions and decrease pollutants as long as these attempts do not have serious economic backfires that result in job losses, inflation of our money, or other foreseeable consequences. There are many politicians and activists (i.e. Al Gore, Greenpeace) out there who think any possible action should be taken without regard to the consquences. I am too cautious for that.

EDIT: I changed my post to say that the Tesla Roadster gets an equivalent of 135 mpg in terms of energy consumption, seeing as you put no gasoline into the vehicle.

If the global warming and peak oil theories are true, then the countries who will be most economically successful are the ones who have the cleanest and most fuel-efficient equipment. The rest of the world will line up to buy it. The countries who persist in holding on to 20th century technologies will be the ones left behind, economically. If your competitor nation has lower health care costs due to cleaner air and water, and lower operating costs due to higher-efficiency equipment and lower waste management costs, they (and their military) have a competitive advantage over you.

Therefore, any true capitalist must strive for maximum efficiency and minimum pollution, regardless of whether climate change is our fault or not. You can spot the fake capitalists - they're the ones complaining because they're looking only at the short term profits.

Bush is starting to change his tone, but it isn't enough
 

You don't necessarily need Bush to do anything as he will be gone next year. California and Massachusetts are already adopting measuring to reduce green house emissions. Unfortunately, this is occurring in the more liberal states.

On another note, China is expected to exceed the U.S. output in green house gases in by the next decade so even if Americans reduce their output of these gases, China will offset any changes in reductions by the American.

Humans are responsible for global warming and that is a unrefutable fact by all respectable global scientist around the world.

Yeah, I know of a good National Geographic article for anyone who is not well aquatinted with humans role in global warming. Are they 100% sure, no. But it seems to be around 95% certain to be honest...

At any rate, the biggest reason I want to cut emissions is far more pragmatic. Recent studies have shown that air in my area is so bad that it's like we're all smoking out here (well...on a bad day anyway, we have a good 20 of those a year it seems.) I would very much like that to stop.

Point being, global warming is kind of a secondary thought to me. Personally I think that even if it is getting warming, and even if it is humans faults...I mean, what are you going to do about it? If it does get warmer then all it really means is that we have to plant crops a bit differently, that's how it's always been throughout all the major climate changes in known history. Take the "Fertiile Cresent" that ain't so fertile anymore, they just moved crop production north, that's all. Same goes for Ethiopia, which was very fertile at one point (circa 1000AD). And what about places that have changed from bad for growing to good? Thus, I'm not to worried about it getting a bit warmer...

What I am worried about is getting cancer from breathing carcinogens. And I think everyone should be quite a bit more worried about it like these fine physicians. I don't understand why we are so concerned for something that may take hundreds of years to develop when, frankly, we are all dying from something preventable right now.

Well I guess the way I approach global warming is to think about it in terms of an ecologist. Maybe not all of global warming is due to human impact but certainly we would agree that some or most of it is due to global warming. If this is the case, we are still responsible for some or most of the CO2 that we are emitting into the atmosphere. As Zalister points out global warming is only part of the picture. Particulate and pollution is another problem. Some people have already pointed out other effects such as the ozone layer being harmful to humans.

Basically, to environmentalist, global warming, particulate and pollution, over harvesting, habitat destruction, species invasion is driving species into extinction and hurting humans at the same time. All of this is mostly a result of global human population growth. So this trend is expected to increase until humans reach their carrying capacity. Carrying capacity is the amount of human being that the earth is able to support; at carrying capacity, global human population growth will either stabilize or began to decrease slightly. At the same time that we are able to continue to grow exponentially, other species populations growth are going into decline and either ending up on the threaten or endanger species lists while yet some are going extinct. Some ecologist refer to this as the 6th mass extinction and these are clearly being driven by human impact and population growth.

So in order to address this issue, we really must address human population growth and the way we use resources, land, water, air on this planet. Global warming, ozone layer, pollution are only the tip of the iceberg as far as the problems we will experience. Unfortunately, these calamities are necessary in order to put global human population in check because NOTHING and I mean NOTHING can experience exponential growth indefinitely in a world where certain resources are finite. Regrettably, some species will be loss as the climate and other factors kick in to put human growth in check.

The bottom line is that even if we are to curve global warming, we are not really solving the real problems of global population growth that are responsible for the problems we are facing today and the problem yet unseen in the future.

The thing is though, we cant blame china for becoming the biggest polluter as they are the biggest populated country, it was gonna happen sooner or later.

and you also have to remember that China have very little to do with the current climate... its the West that has had 8 or 9 industrial revolutions.

thank God bush and blair are leaving in the next year or so, i know blair is doing something with climate change, but him and bush are hindering a lot of change which needs to be done

Environment vs Economics ... Economics will win most of the time
 

Agreed, but others countries with large populations will start to follow China's model. So this problem of pollution, pesticides, etc.... will likely worsen before it gets better. It is simply economics driving these changes.

In the end, we can't have it both ways. It is illogical for the West to tell others countries that they can't industrialized because it harms the environments when in fact the West first harmed the environment through expansion and the industrial revolution. Other developing countries will simply ignore this advice.

The argument from the West is well during our expansion and industrial revolution we didn't know that we were harming the environment and now we know better because we have data to show that this is harmful. Other country aptly point out that this may have been the case, however, it wouldn't matter because economics generally drives expansion and industrial revolutions at the expense of environmental concerns.

Unfortunately, we'll go on debating about whether or not it's real, and who's causing most of it, or whether we have the technology to do anything about it until it's affects are undeniable. Yes it will worsen, because humans don't react until they feel pain, and by the time we start to feel real pain it will be too late to avoid severe trouble.

I've seen lots of people argue against Global Warming (should be Global Climate Change), but I've never seen anything that refutes any of these facts:

1. Apply enough force to anything, and its position will change. Yes, this includes weather.

2. Burning fossil fuels adds millions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every day, and this is a significant force being applied to our weather patterns.

3. We have plenty of technology to reduce CO2 emissions. The use of solar and wind power is barely in it's infancy, and electric motors are far more efficient than combustion engines. Even without further technological improvements that would surely follow, switching to these technologies can significantly reduce our emissions while reducing our need for oil.

Global warming is not a debate, as I stated, most of the respective scientist around the world are in agreement about this and it is primarily due to CO2 emission. The only debate is how do we minimize its human and ecological effects around the world. People that disagree are in the same camp as the scientists that were trying to argue that smoking isn't bad for your health. As we found out these scientist were being paid to skew their data in this way.

The last 5 years were the highest recorded global temperatures on records which strongly correlates with CO2 emissions and data modeled by scientists. If the CO2 isn't there, the recorded temperature would have been lowered.

I agree with this in the abstract, but it is when you try to apply this, however, that a problem arises.

I am a student of Industrial Engineering. My career will be to maximize productivity while at the same time minimizing waste (which includes pollution and CO2 emissions these days). The thing about it is, you don't just take these kinds of measures overnight. The capital investment along with trying to keep up regular business would put many companies under and cause massive layoffs for others.

And I am looking at short term profits. I look at them because they are important! But I am not looking only at short term profits. In order to have long term success, it is necessary to have some kind of short term success as well. Think what would happen if all the sudden, 30-50% (or more) of American companies were no longer turning an annual profit! Our economy start going downhill very fast.

I argue that making the changes is necessary, but trying to do so quickly is not a rational act.

To Zalister: I agree with you as well that breathing in pollution on a daily basis is definitely a bad thing. That is one of the reasons that I want to work for Tesla Motors (an electric car company mentioned in my earlier post). I really believe that they have a product that is not only good for the environment, but one that is economically feasible. Another reason I want to work for them is because of a problem I believe to be huge that no one really brings up (yet).

Have you ever thought of the impact plastic has had on our society and economy? You know what plastic is made from? Oil. I think we need to take steps towards stopping wasting all of our oil on stupid cars. I would much rather have plastics in my house than a muscle car in my garage.

Unfortunately, science is not a democracy. It is about finding out what is happening, and then proving it.

That is exactly what they are doing... New data is coming in everyday and all of it is pointing in the direction that humans are responsible for global warming. This is based on scientific data and not just heresay.

All other explanations to explain global warming without human interaction don't stand up under the scrutiny. Again, you can ignore the data but that would put you in the same camp as those scientist who state that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer.

At any rate, I am glad that people and the world communities realizes that this a problem and are working out ways to resolve it. So the data is in and continues to come in, communities are organizing and thinking of ways to resolve this issue. More money is being given to Global Warming association than any other environmental issues even at the expense of other pressing environmental concerns.

I am glad to see that in your profession you will be working on ways to minimize CO2 emissions. You can't prove these things like mathematical theories. In science, you develop hypotheses and test them with data. You assign error and risk to the results. If the hypotheses stands up to the scrutiny, debate, and ridicule with a small error rate and risk then it is likely to be accepted in the scientific community. I will back this kind of scientific method any day of the week because it has proven so robust and reliable over the last 200 years or so.

It's still there, although reportedly decreasing due to the lessened use of CFCs etc. Prediction is for it to decrease to pre-1980's levels by 2060 or so. (i.e. it is getting better, but slowly)
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_hole

.
The Easter holiday is almost over here in Norway, with most people returning to work tomorrow. Before every major exodus of skiers to the sun-bathed mountains, there are dire warnings to use sun blockage or high-factor sun protection -- far more so than when I was a kid. No, that’s not just modern dermatological research. So, yes; decreased ozone protection is a big deal.

However, decreased use of chlorofluorocarbons is an environmental success story, and the very gradual "repair" of the ozone holes is a clear benefit of our "sacrifice".

I thought I would mention another success story while I’m at it: decrease of acid rain, at least here in Northern Europe. Two decades ago, hundreds of lakes in Norway were unable to support fish life. British and German industries are no longer spewing out NOx and other pollutants at 1980’s levels, and the fish have returned to most of the lakes once affected.

British success story: Fish are swimming in the Thames again! :)

China and Russia...
 

True -- nevertheless I certainly do blame China. And Russia. I have been told that China is opening coal-burning power plants at the rate of one a week. And to attain pollutant-reducing value for your environmental dollar, they are best invested in these countries. (Mind you, I’m not to be misconstrued as calling for abstention in the West!) Norway has tried to do so with the metallurgical industries in Nikel, Russia. Unfortunately, rampant corruption makes it difficult to put money to effective use.

We got Russia to tear down that wall, and China just wants to have the same prosperity that we do, so they're adopting our economic system while maintaining their political system. We keep preaching about Capitalism without paying any attention to its downside. Sure, it's the best system out there, but it isn't perfect, and if we aren't willing to do something about its failings, how can we expect the newcomers to take action?

So you fancy trying a local London delicacy from the Thames? How does 'Jellied eels' sound?.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jellied_eels

just the thought of it turns my stomach!


EITHER WAY?

Arctic... whats it like in Norway for being 'green'? I understand you guys are light years ahead of the rest of the world (when your not broad-siding it around a forrest in a suped up Fjord Focus) :)

I wouldn’t say that; in fact there are times when I’m rather embarrassed about the noise/measures ratio served by our authorities. There’s a heckuva lot more that could be done here.

All in all I have the impression that Germany, for instance, is doing more. Even Arnie is on the right track...

Fjord Focus, huh? Nice pun.

thanks, I have been working on that for a while now :D

The Germans seem to be a very well organised bunch... the same cant be said for a lot of the UK... I get a recycling box form Warwick DC picked up once every 2 weeks... all they take is paper, alu and glass... thats it. If I want to do card, plastics, green waste and so on I have to drive to the local tip! Which on a mass scale.... kinda defeats the point!

A bit off the topic... did anyone hear the statistic that 'cows farting creates more CO2 than your average family car?'... perhaps cows need to be fitted with catalitic converters :D

No, but I once saw a cartoon that showed a brilliant solution to America’s energy crisis. It showed a glass bubble in place over Washington DC, with pipes distributing the hot air to the various parts of the country where it might be needed.

...I’m sure we could implement similar solutions with London or Oslo as hot air hubs. ;)

yaay everyone in england would love it to be warm all the time, infact a load of my friend think that since global warming is making the country warmer, that its a good thing :)

They're being misled by the name Global Warming. One theory is that the warming we're experiencing could melt enough glacial ice from Greenland and the arctic cap that the resulting cold fresh water could stop the flow of the warm Gulf Stream that keeps western Europe from dipping into an ice age. The scary thing about this theory is that if it happens, the ice age begins within a 10 year period.

Global Climate Change may have some temporary benefits, but you can be sure that the longer it occurs, the worse it will be for us.

yeh... I saw that on the Al Gore movie.... eek!

then the English would really be justified in complaining about the weather all the time :)

lol, but im confused now, so do the ice caps melt then theres an ice age? what about the oceans rising dronwing alot of land and some countries

Both can happen at once.

The ice melts, but is still cold, and it's fresh water. Very large quantities end up in the northern seas, where it floats instead of sinking like cold water normally does, because fresh water is lighter than salt water.

The act of melting and flowing into the sea raises sea levels, then the floating cold water stops the warm water from flowing north. This causes western europe to enter into an ice age, and as the ice layers build, the sea will lower again.

Some people bring up potential ice ages as being the opposite of Gobal Warming, but they're not different at all. What's wrong is the name Global Warming. It's really Global Climate Change, and that's what we should be fearing. We may be setting ourselves up for rapid swings in climate that we won't be able to adjust to. If we can't adjust, we can't survive. Evolution doesn't care if we do. The planet will be fine without us: so-called tree huggers aren't worried about the tree so much as what will happen to us if we lose it.

Letting our children’s children pay the price?
 

.
That’s right; the term Global Warming is more than a bit misleading, as is the overfocus on CO2. What we are seeing is a gradual amplification in the disturbance of global weather patterns -- and it does not bode well.

The retreat of glaciers, the fading ice cap on Mount Kilimanjaro, the weakening of the Gulf Stream, more frequent Carribean hurricanes, alterations in tradition precipitation patterns in many parts of the world, advancing deserts some place, increased floods other places... Few intelligent people believe these to be coincidence.

We can argue until we are blue in the face about precisely to what extent this is induced by humankind. Whatever natural factors there may be, such as cyclical variations in solar activity, climate experts are virtually unanimous in pointing to the cumulative consequences of our activities since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

Measures are called for. Some of these may be "bad for business"; but does that mean a few more New Orleans-wreaking hurricanes are better? Or that we should let change continue unabated while sticking our heads in the sand, perhaps gloating about "new business opportunities" that then might arise?!

I don’t think so. Such a wringing of the hands is a political disgrace that future generations will remember. For they will surely pay tenfold whatever price we refuse to pay today.

If there is to be a raise in sea level, the Solomon Islands will have one less thing to worry about. Check this out, the entire island was raised up 10 feet out of the ocean.

Unfortunately, many of the coral reefs there were destroyed. Some of the reefs that were destroyed were among the most coveted in the world.

There's plenty of hype in the media, and few facts. The facts I do see come from scientific journals and they don't seem to have a clear answer. There is nothing near a consensus that global warming is a fact, or that it's tied to humans at all.

Meanwhile I found these comparisons very interesting:

LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.

HOUSE # 1:

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South.

HOUSE # 2:

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.

HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you WON'T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an inconvenient truth."

.
Clearly the term environmentalist is disambiguous.

Strangely enough I had heard of the impressive technology implemented in the President’s Texas ranch house. Read all about it in a very liberal-minded Norwegian newspaper. ;)

Let's not forget that house #2 is in Texas, the most polluted state in the union, and its owner is at least partially responsible for that fact. House #1 is an old home that is being retrofitted to be more efficient. Gore has had to fight just to be allowed to add solar panels, so it will take time. Remodeling is a long, expensive process, but in the end it is better than building new because it takes a house that is wasting energy and makes it permanently more efficient.

A moral question – with easy answers
 

.
I still remember the progressive building code of Davis, California, where I attended university. Thanks to just a few simple rules about overhangs over windows etc, housebuilders were "compelled" to build homes that made sound, common-sense use of passive solar energy. Not complicated, not draconian.

I am told that in the 1950s a lot of American buildings/homes had solar water heaters on their roofs: glass-covered boxes lined in black, through which water pipes ran. Somehow, those "disappeared".

There are a lot of sensible things that can be done that require hardly any money at all, and certainly not high-tech inventions. My own energy bill fell by about 40% or so after we installed two heat pumps five years ago.

The way I look at it is simple: We are all sitting at a shared table. I was taught to not help myself to more than I could eat, nor more than my fair share. I believe that applies to countries as well as individuals.

That makes our choice of energy policy, cars, etc a moral issue.
And we do, thankfully, have the freedom to make those choices.

well, it simply got bigger and it become more dangerous for our planet :(

Wow! I thought that the hole was shrinking, but it seems that the CFC ban has only slowed the destruction, not reversed it.