12/12/2025 at 2:56:19 PM
by hannob
12/12/2025 at 3:58:31 PM
Reads like parody - nothing can explain this other than corruption. Did regulators never once audit their emissions? A factory that produces that exact gas? A similar thing happened in the Netherlands with cocoa factories in Zaandam.by yunohn
12/12/2025 at 6:11:44 PM
Interesting to read that there is little to no legal action that can be taken to halt operations at the plant, which means that unfortunately it may take a long time for this to be resolved.by abbracadabbra
12/12/2025 at 9:39:11 PM
The most ethical thing to do would be Musk to tweet “it’s ours” and see it shut in 60 minutes.by dzhiurgis
12/12/2025 at 4:56:37 PM
I understand it’s “damaging”, but how stable is it? CO2 is bad because it doesn’t just go away. Methane, while being more “damaging”, eventually breaks down into CO2 and water.by montjoy
12/12/2025 at 5:02:26 PM
> Over a 100-year period, SF6 is 23,500 times more effective at trapping infrared radiation than an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide (CO2). SF6 is also a very stable chemical, with an atmospheric lifetime of greater than 1,000 years.https://www.epa.gov/eps-partnership/sulfur-hexafluoride-sf6-...
by hrimfaxi
12/12/2025 at 9:23:00 PM
When F grabs onto something it ususally never lets go.by scotty79
12/12/2025 at 7:27:54 PM
The "damage" part of damage already accounts for that.by moralestapia
12/12/2025 at 4:40:38 PM
Written by Hanno Böck. Our Hanno Böck? https://github.com/hannob Looks like so.by rurban
12/12/2025 at 7:10:27 PM
It does say the link is submitted by hannob...by pixelpoet