"Earth's protective ozone layer is well on track to recovery in the next few decades, owing largely to the phase-out of certain chemicals used in refrigerants and aerosol cans, according to a new UN report.
Without the Montreal Protocol and associated agreements, atmospheric levels of ozone depleting substances could have increased tenfold by 2050, according to a summary document of the Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2014.
The Protocol will have prevented 2 million cases of skin cancer annually by 2030, averted damage to human eyes and immune systems, and protected wildlife and agriculture, according to UNEP."
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/ozone-layer-on-track-to-recovery-un-report/1287892
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Ozone Layer on Track to Recovery According to UN Report
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 25 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Theophrastus on Friday September 12 2014, @04:07PM
...the state of the global atmosphere; for good or bad.
so we ought to be encouraged that we're able to manage the next (already) identified threat to us being stuck on this one world ..? ("they're essentially hairless apes, but don't turn your back on them, they can adapt if convincingly threatened")
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bucc5062 on Friday September 12 2014, @04:38PM
I had a similar thought, here was have a direct result of science identifying "something bad" we are doing to the planet, mankind collectively changes its behavior to correct and the correction works. What a concept.
How is it then that when science say "hey guys,we're dumping waaaaaaaaayyyyyyy to much CO2 in the atmosphere and if we don't change that direction it could be *very bad* for us all" mankind this time round goes "shut up science, you're just trying to scare us.". It seems this time round that we may not adapt quite in time.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 0, Troll) by Snow on Friday September 12 2014, @04:54PM
Because if you want to listen to the scientists, everyone would be riding bikes and heating their house with hopes and dreams. Sure, they may be right, but who wants a cold house?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bucc5062 on Friday September 12 2014, @05:06PM
That does not make sense. The general expansion of humanity has been based on listening to and acting upon scientists and science proof. Science does not provide me a cold house, it provides me a warm house that could do less harm to the world. It does not require me to ride a bike, it provides the means for engineers to develop better modes of transportation.
The world you describe is not based on science, it is based on capitalist assholes that would shit on their own plate if they felt it would make them an extra dollar.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday September 12 2014, @06:46PM
The general expansion of humanity has been based on listening to and acting upon scientists and science proof.
Bullshit.
Its only in the last hundred years that we had anything approaching science proof, and we are still bickering about that. 200 years ago we were still practicing blood letting, and occasional ritualistic sacrifice, not all of it with animals. Expansion of humanity has historically been bases on seemingly inexhaustible resources just over the horizon. We've run out of horizons.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Friday September 12 2014, @09:02PM
soooo, Euclid, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton; these guys were hacks?
The only way to do anything with those resources would have been even rudimentary scientists explaining something new, discovering something new and showing how it could not only exploited, but improved. You sir, need a happy pill.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 1) by RedGreen on Friday September 12 2014, @10:50PM
And you sir need a reality check. What planet are you living, on this one scientists have had to fight tooth and nail to get their ideas across for most of our/their existence on it. Copernicus, Galileo, among others were persecuted during their lifetime for their works it is only after many years later were their theories accepted/proven as fact.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 2) by Theophrastus on Friday September 12 2014, @05:09PM
you might want to do a careful observation of those folks who are fully espousing: "everyone would be riding bikes and heating their house with hopes and dreams"; i'd declare that they statistically tend not to be "scientists" of the "proper" Frink sort (are "social scientists" scientists? (is "political science" science? (how about "Christian science"? (at one point 'science' just meant 'knowledgeable', so it was a term in some danger early on))))
(Score: 5, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Friday September 12 2014, @05:31PM
Stop talking sacrifice crap. Maybe you think giving up incandescent bulbs and CRTs is some sort of horrible sacrifice? As for home heating, we have lots of ways and they've been getting better. Houses are still built so badly that they need way more heating and cooling than they should. There's a lot of low hanging fruit that's being ignored, real simple stuff like locating the A/C on the east side of the house where it will be out of the afternoon sunlight. But builders throw houses together any old way, and which side the A/C unit ends up on is totally random. The fireplace has been a joke of a heating method for over 3 centuries now, isn't it long past time it was improved, particularly when the improvements are so incredibly easy to do and cost next to nothing? In fact, the best improvement would be to not have a fireplace at all, rather than the crap builders tack on to houses! How much would that lower the price of a house? $5000? $10000? Then there are cars. Cars still don't have smooth undersides.
Burn your own money if you're so eager to waste it on inferior garbage. Use that expensive turntable to listen to music on vinyl records. Have fun cleaning out the ashes in that fireplace. Run around with your guts visible to the world, like the typical car's guts. Me, I want the best I can get. That they also save energy so my bills are lower is part of what makes them better. But even if they took more power, most new technologies blow the old ones away. Flat screens are now way better than CRTs. LED lights are still pricey right now, but they're coming down. You burn your fingers on those hot incandescents that you have to change a few times a year because they don't last.
If better also helps with the climate, so much the better.
(Score: 3) by Tork on Friday September 12 2014, @06:35PM
Because if you want to listen to the scientists, everyone would be riding bikes and heating their house with hopes and dreams. Sure, they may be right, but who wants a cold house?
You should take a minute to listen to those scientists, because the voices in your head that are telling you that's what the scientists want are all wrong.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday September 12 2014, @05:04PM
In the case of CO2, the problems are:
1. It's staggeringly expensive to do anything effective.
2. Those that have control of the resources to do the staggeringly expensive but effective things make a ton of money by doing nothing effective. Some also mistakenly believe we have things under control.
3. Many engineering types are convinced that some sort of technology will be developed that will save everybody in time. They are most likely wrong, not because of their innovative abilities but because of the expense involved in turning that technology into something large-scale enough to make a real difference.
4. Everyone else is extremely ignorant about what they could do that might help. They're constantly distracted by greenwashing campaigns that convince them that the right thing to do is buy something.
That's why I'm reasonably convinced we're screwed. I live far from the coasts near a very very large source of fresh water, so I might have a chance, but it's going to get very ugly.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by morgauxo on Friday September 12 2014, @05:09PM
There are a couple of pretty big differences between the ozone hole and global warming.
We knew that losing the ozone layer would make the Earth pretty much unlivable. We don't know how bad to expect global warming to get. What is going to happen for sure? We will lose some coast land. There are some pretty big cities with reasons to worry but we don't ALL live near there. Weather will get worse. How far from the equator can will a hurricane be able to go? Some food producing areas will become too hot. I wonder if any of the previous permafrost areas will be good for producing food? It's hard to imagine these things harming us peronally for those of us living hundreds of miles inland in an area that is still frozen half the year. Well... at least it is for me. Or is it beyond that? Will the whole planet will become a new Venus? If it's that bad then if someone can discover and prove it maybe we will see the necessary changes.
Then there is the cost. Giving up CFCs... not that big a deal to the average person. So.. I can't legally do certain things to my own A/C unit anymore and getting a broken one fixed is a bit more expensive. That's about all I can identify that changed for me as a normal individual.
Fixing global warming... I don't see how that can be done short of massive energy rationing. No, you can't fix it by moving everyone closer to work and taxing drivers more. Cars aren't even what are producing the vast majority of the CO2! It's the electric plants and manufacturing that release most of it. Nearly every individual would need to consume less stuff, turn the lights out and not to mention the computers! As far as I can tell fixing global warming would mean that the first world must give up a significant portion of the lifestyle that makes it the first world and the third world would have to give up the dream of one day enjoying that same lifestyle the first world enjoys today.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bucc5062 on Friday September 12 2014, @05:57PM
As far as I can tell fixing global warming would mean that the first world must give up a significant portion of the lifestyle that makes it the first world and the third world would have to give up the dream of one day enjoying that same lifestyle the first world enjoys today.
That is going to happen at some point to both if we don't make a change. Even smalls ones to start would be good.
As to the "I'm safe because I live way inland" argument for doing nothing, consider a few points.
1 - The displaced people have to go somewhere and you're property looks useful
2 - Take look at California and consider what happens when that food source "dries up", then expand it around the world. You might be getting a little hungry
3 - Hotter temps mean more demand on the grid which means more carbon (if we don't change), but it also mean the potential for losing the grid...Could get a little bit uncomfortable in land
4 - When all this happens to less than civil countries they may start to look else where for resources and not be asking. You really want WWIII just because we thought reducing our production of CO2 was a little inconvenient.
You know the difference between a real entrepreneur and the blood sucking leeches that call themselves that? The real ones understand the need to invest in the future for long term gains. The rest just suck your life blood till you die. Sadly these days, the world has too many leeches, little to no entrepreneurs.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 2) by morgauxo on Friday September 12 2014, @10:06PM
"You really want WWIII"
Nope. I'm just pointing out the difference between fixing global warming and ozone depletion. I never said we shouldn't fix it. I'm just pointing out the difference. It's easier to convince the world to do something that is relatively painless in order to avoid a certain bad fate. We know global warming will be bad but we don't know how bad. People will suffer and die but we aren't all sure that it is us. Nor do we know just how to fix it. (It's not sunny and windy everywhere!) But we do know fixing it will be very expensive and I am talking expensive to our acustomed lifestyles not just a monetary number.
That makes the comparison between fixing the ozone layer and fixing global warming (which is what I was replying to) look pretty bad.
" just because we thought reducing our production of CO2 was a little inconvenient."
A "little" inconvenient? Did you even read what you were replying to? I think I wrote it was anything but a LITTLE inconvenient.
"1 - The displaced people have to go somewhere and you're property looks useful"
So all the ice will melt at once and all the coasts will be abandoned imediately? Well.. maybe if there is a really big tipping point and a WHOLE lot of methane is released or something. I don't know, is that possible? More likely people are forced inland a little bit at a time. Maybe some don't come in at all. I wonder if a NY sky scraper might be made to last sticking up out of the water like the old buildings in Venice?
"2 - Take look at California and consider what happens when that food source "dries up", then expand it around the world. You might be getting a little hungry"
So far global warming has done more to increase plant production than the opposite. The equator isn't all desert. Most of the land is closer to the poles than that. Even if we lose food production close to the equator we should get more elsewhere. Maybe more food is grown in Canada?
"3 - Hotter temps mean more demand on the grid which means more carbon "
So does increased computer use. Look at us now.
"(if we don't change)"
What would you like to change? If there was a clear answer as to how to fix this without going back 100 years in technology and lifestyle we would have done it already. That's how it's different from ozone depletion. That was my point.
"You know the difference between a real entrepreneur and the blood sucking leeches that call themselves that? The real ones understand the need to invest in the future for long term gains. The rest just suck your life blood till you die. Sadly these days, the world has too many leeches, little to no entrepreneurs."
Entrepreneurs are going to save the world. Great! I'm not sure how they came into the conversation but I sure am glad they have it all taken care of. Was there something about business in a grandparent post or something? What are we even talking about?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday September 12 2014, @06:14PM
Why did you need this example to prove what has already been proven with Air pollution and the subsequent cleanup in just about every city on earth, or the clean up of polluted rivers and lakes to the point we actually forgot how bad they use to be?
The real question is if this is meaningful at all, since the often feared increase in cancers never materialized, and the increase in CO2 is every bit as good a shield as ozone.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Sir Garlon on Friday September 12 2014, @06:42PM
Perhaps you're not aware, the increase in cancers was measured in Chile [thelancet.com] (referenced link is from 2002 and is an abstract; full article paywalled, sorry). Southern Chile is (was?) affected by ozone depletion near Antarctica.
And ... think of the penguins, you insensitive clod! :-)
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday September 12 2014, @07:10PM
those are all local, and even today i'm still hearing people claim, "there's no way humans could affect something a global scale"; well, the depletion and restoration of the ozone layer is an example of humans affecting something on a global scale. the long timeframes involved also prove that we need to act immediately and not expect results immediately, and should in fact expect things to continue to get worse for up to a decade or longer before they start getting better; the lack of instant results will be suggested as a reason for abandoning trying to improve things, and the ozone layer is a perfect example of why thats an idiotic suggestion.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday September 13 2014, @03:39AM
Air pollution was far from Local. US pollution and Acid Rain was affecting Europe, Chinese air pollution is still measured on the West coast of North America.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @06:58PM
(Score: 1, Troll) by khallow on Friday September 12 2014, @08:22PM
Where's this "direct proof"? If you read the blurb, you see that they don't actually present evidence that human activity led to changes in the ozone layer. Instead, they merely assumed it did. And this whole supposition is based on a bit over 30 years of data. As far as we know, ozone holes of the extent and degree observed over the past few decades at both poles may be the norm going back millions of years. Sure, it's a "God of the gaps" style argument, but you have to admit that the gap is rather large. They also merely hope that things will get better, again without evidence to support that.
And of course, there's the claim that the Montreal Protocol will prevent 2 million cases of skin cancer per year, which is roughly what WHO says [who.int] occurs annually. You have to wonder what numbers and assumptions they're using in this report to get claims so divergent from what the professionals are estimating.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @07:04PM
From TFS:...averted damage to human eyes and immune systems
I thought we would just evolve past this one with no harm done. Maybe depopulate the poor evolvers. Or maybe there is no faith in evolution anymore?
Posting as AC because evolutionists evolve to anger quickly, rather than communication.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday September 12 2014, @07:16PM
it seems you don't understand what evolution actually is. evolution isnt actually a "thing", its a description of an observed multi-generational effect. people dont evolve, species do, and they only do so over the course of multiple generations.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Tork on Friday September 12 2014, @07:50PM
...evolve past this one with no harm done. Maybe depopulate the poor evolvers...
I have a pretty good idea why evolutionists get short with you.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @08:17PM
Without the Montreal Protocol and associated agreements, atmospheric levels of ozone depleting substances could have increased tenfold by 2050, according to a summary document of the Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2014.
So, Montreal Protocol was bad or is this a terrible typo ?
The reality is this is much worse. Ozone levels could have been basically gone by 2020 without Montreal Protocol and we would have a nice lethal UV Index of 65 instead of current singing 10 or almost benign by comparison 5-7 before CFC emissions. If ozone was hone, this would last at least 2 generations. Of course, industry was very against controlling CFC emissions at the time,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon#Regulation_and_DuPont [wikipedia.org]
The critical DuPont manufacturing patent for Freon ("Process for Fluorinating Halohydrocarbons", U.S. Patent #3258500) was set to expire in 1979. In conjunction with other industrial peers DuPont sponsored efforts such as the "Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy" to question anti-CFC science, but in a turnabout in 1986 DuPont, with new patents in hand, publicly condemned CFCs.
Remind you of anything? (ahem... global warming ... ahem)
Here's a link to NASA article from a few years ago, which I think is much better,
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/world_avoided.html [nasa.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @08:19PM
sorry, can't read thanks to sentence construct... "ozone depleting substances increased X fold"... that is kind of a stupid statement since we only care about "ozone levels" anyway.