NASA Study: First Direct Proof of Ozone Hole Recovery Due to Chemicals Ban

[jpak]

Source: NASA

Measurements show that the decline in chlorine, resulting from an international ban on chlorine-containing manmade chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), has resulted in about 20 percent less ozone depletion during the Antarctic winter than there was in 2005 — the first year that measurements of chlorine and ozone during the Antarctic winter were made by NASA’s Aura satellite.

“We see very clearly that chlorine from CFCs is going down in the ozone hole, and that less ozone depletion is occurring because of it,” said lead author Susan Strahan, an atmospheric scientist from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

CFCs are long-lived chemical compounds that eventually rise into the stratosphere, where they are broken apart by the Sun’s ultraviolet radiation, releasing chlorine atoms that go on to destroy ozone molecules. Stratospheric ozone protects life on the planet by absorbing potentially harmful ultraviolet radiation that can cause skin cancer and cataracts, suppress immune systems and damage plant life.

Two years after the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985, nations of the world signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, which regulated ozone-depleting compounds. Later amendments to the Montreal Protocol completely phased out production of CFCs.

<more>

Read more: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/nasa-study-first-direct-proof-of-ozone-hole-recovery-due-to-chemicals-ban

[Tommy_Carcetti]

1. You mean multinational environmental treaties actually work?

You don't say.

[Igel]

4. Mostly that's a strawman.

Still, the accords went into effect in 1989. My father was still easily getting new canisters of banned chemicals in 2002. Mexico was producing far, far more of the stuff than needed for local consumption. So the ban was phased in over a rather long period of time. As my father said at the time when I argued about it, he could spend $1200 on replacing equipment, and then $150 per canister to refill it when it inevitably lost coolant, or he could spend $40 on something smuggled in from Mexico. Since he lived in Phoenix and was retired, he chose the cheaper path.

While one country paid to reduce emissions, another country profited from increasing outputs. That kind of accord strikes a lot of people--seldom the people who benefit, of course--as unfair. And it makes people more eager to find reasons to oppose them. My (R) father and my (D) mother were united on this point. At least she could say it was Reagan's fault.

Take CO2. One country argued for being granted exemptions. In the course of the next 10 years, that countries increase vastly exceeded the amount that the US limited its output. One consequence as it expanded its economic base wasn't just prosperity, but intimidation of surrounding countries. Fortunately, most of the US' reduction in emissions has little to do with economic coercion, and more with how private companies decided to do things. That's usually a better way of doing things in a democracy. Unfortunately, it's likely a lot of coercion would have been needed to meet the voluntary Paris Accord target for the US. Even more unfortunately, those targets are far short of what's needed.

A second take-away is that the consequence of a pact that was a response to "we're all going to die next week" rhetoric was very small for well over a decade. Partly that was because the phase-in allowed emissions to not decline as quickly as the US media suggested in selling the pact. Partly it was because every projection over time said that the chemicals are persistent in the atmosphere, and only due, in part, for the effect. Other chemicals contributed, and natural or perhaps changing (the jury's still out on that one) weather conditions contributed. In you read the small print of paragraph 18 of the article, continued from the front page to page 8 and then continued again onto page 23, you'd see this mentioned. But the first paragraph would usually lead the casual reader to think that the pact would solve the problem. Quickly. Journalists' and advocates' CYA maneuver's were notably lacking in transparency and lack of guile. They spun, framed, pitched, and branded things until they were blue in the face. Honesty in a democracy is good.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

2. Chemicals Ban to be Eliminated in 5 ... 4 ... 3 .... NT

[lagomorph777]

3. Why, that sounds like a bunch of evidence-based fake news.

Pruitt will get right on that; next week expect to see a requirement that all aerosol cans emit tons of CFCs.

[SWBTATTReg]

5. and further evidence that mankind is having an effect on mother nature!!