We have succeeded in shrinking the hole that's growing
Ever since its inventiondiscovery in 1985, the Ozone Hole has been hovering malevolently over our sore earth's southernmost spot, and like a cosmic hemorrhoid, it causes the earth great pain -- right in the axis!
Last year, the Ozone Hole was the biggest on record, according to NASA. (The biggest since 1985, of course.)
Ouch!
But to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Montreal Protocol, scientists are claiming "success." Apparently, success is not defined in terms of appreciable shrinking of the Ozone Hole, but by the promulgation of regulations which (it is asserted) will cause the Ozone Hole to shrink by reducing the chemicals said to cause Ozone depletion. Thus, regulation of anthropogenic global warming will work!
The hole still exists. Indeed, last year it was the biggest ever, spreading across more than 10 million square miles above Antarctica. Scientists do not expect it to recover for at least a half-century.
But the agreement, the Montreal Protocol, nonetheless has been hailed as an environmental success and a possible template for how global warming can be addressed.
"Twenty years ago, getting rid of ozone-depleting chemicals looked really hard," said David Doniger, climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"But it turned out to be quite easy. When we get serious about global warming, we're going to find that it wasn't as hard as it looked."
Certainly, it is possible to get rid of chemicals. Similarly, it is possible to reduce emissions from fossil fuels. Whether, and when, that will have any noticeable effect is debatable, except we're just supposed to take the regulators at their word that it will work.
By 2005, according to a U.N. report, more than 95 percent of the chemicals the protocol covers had been phased out.
The benefits, Doniger and others say, have been huge.
A recent EPA report concluded that 6.3 million skin cancer deaths may have been prevented by 2165 in the United States alone. It cited an expected $4.2 trillion worth of "societal health benefits" between 1990 and 2165.
May have been prevented? According to the EPA, the 6.3 million figure is a goal, listed under Objectives and "Strategic Targets":
By 2165, reduce the incidence of melanoma skin cancer to 14 new skin cancer cases avoided per 100,000 people from the 1990 baseline of 13.8 cases avoided per 100,000 people.
[...]
We estimate that from 1990 to2165, worldwide phase-out of ODS will save 6.3 million lives from fatal skin cancer, avoid 299 million cases of nonfatal skin cancers....
Need I point out that it is 2007, and not yet 2165? Since when does a goal 158 years in the future become an achievement?
Moreover, if Steven Milloy is right, there are no studies demonstrating a link between ozone depletion and skin cancer:
no scientific study has ever demonstrated a link between ozone depletion and such overexposure or any health effects.
A December 2003 article in the journal Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, for example, would only go so far as to say that "The potential health effects of elevated levels of ambient UV-B radiation are diverse, and it is difficult to quantify the risks."
But without any evidence that the regulations are doing anything to shrink the Ozone Hole (which is growing despite the 23 year CFC ban) the international commissariat of science is moving right along to phase out the interim replacement for CFCs.
Ravishankara said that ozone-depleting chemicals in the atmosphere have shown a measurable decline, although the ones still there would remain for as long as 100 years.
At meetings in Montreal next week, the United States will push for moving up the phase-out of HCFCs, the interim replacement for CFCs. DuPont supports the move.
Meanwhile, researchers will be getting their first glimpse of what this year's ozone hole looks like.
The sun, which prompts the chemical reactions in the stratosphere, is just making its annual appearance over Antarctica.
Considering its record size (since 1985) last year, The Hole probably grows and shrinks without any help from humans. (Which I suspect has been happening long before its discovery.)
It might prove embarrassing, though, if the hole fails to shrink or continues to grow despite the phasing out of chemicals said to be responsible.
I don't blame them for celebrating victory now.
UPDATE: My thanks to Clayton Cramer for linking this post.
posted by Eric on 09.14.07 at 11:04 AM
Comments
"Twenty years ago, getting rid of ozone-depleting chemicals looked really hard,"
Well, it is, because some CFC containing products are still commercially available, at least through the end of next year.
Anonymous · September 14, 2007 1:21 PM
Why does DuPont support the measure?
The patents have run out on the other stuff. However, they have new stuff patented.
Did i mention the new stuff is not as thermodynamically efficient, which leads to more energy production/CO2 output.
Thus, regulation of anthropogenic global warming will work!
Just for clarification, the ozone hole and global warming are two entirely different things. The ozone hole was (almost assuredly) caused by loose compounds which react with an oxygen allotrope which blocks a lot of 270 nm to 320 nm wavelengths of light. Anthropogenic global warming is thermal reflection off of certain molecules in the upper atmosphere.
In surprising twist, ozone actually provide a (very small) warming effect, while the chemical compounds that destroy it do not, meaning that fixing the hole could result in more warming in that area. Since CFCs and some Cl byproducts last decades before getting out of the atmosphere, though, this isn't a big worry.
gattsuru · September 14, 2007 5:44 PM
In surprising twist, ozone actually provide a (very small) warming effect,
Actually the warming effect "thing" that warms the earth is not "ozone," it's the Sun.
In fact I would be so bold as to claim unequivocally, that even if the whole atmosphere was 100% ozone, if our celestial body were to vanish overnight, the Earth would freeze.
"Considering its record size (since 1985) last year, The Hole probably grows and shrinks without any help from humans. (Which I suspect has been happening long before its discovery.)"
Not likely. It is well known chemistry that CFCs deplete the ozone layer. It's also well known that stratospheric cooling, the fingerprint of an increased greenhouse effect, is exacerbating the current effects.
And Milloy's point is just stupid (but expected from him). There hasn't been enough ozone depletion over populated areas to measure any effect. However, the science is clear, less Ozone = more UV = more skin cancer. That said, estimating the number of lives saved contains too many uncertainties to be of any real use.
Is the reverse true? Warmer weather will shore up the Ozone hole?
“From September 21 to 30, 2006, the average area of the ozone hole was the largest ever observed, at 10.6 million square miles,” said Paul Newman, atmospheric scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.
The size and persistence of the 2006 ozone hole area with its record ozone mass deficit of 40.8 megatons can be explained by the continuing presence of near-peak levels of ozone-depleting substances in combination with a particularly cold stratospheric winter, the WMO said.
Low temperatures in the first part of January prompted a 20 percent loss in the ozone layer over the Arctic in 2006, but the ozone loss was not as large as that seen in 2005.
Dr. Neil Harris who helped compile the WMO's first Arctic Ozone Bulletin, issued in September 2006, said, “Thankfully the Arctic ozone loss was not too large in 2006. However with the cold winters becoming colder, it is important to use the international observing network to continue monitoring the Arctic stratosphere each year, so that there can be early warning of large losses.”
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
"Twenty years ago, getting rid of ozone-depleting chemicals looked really hard,"
Well, it is, because some CFC containing products are still commercially available, at least through the end of next year.