9 ms·

The Montreal Protocol was a landmark environmental success

96 points by mcone 9y ago

amluto 9y ago
> Our global climate would be at least 25 per cent hotter today without the Protocol, said Garcia, a co-author of two world-avoided studies. Hmm, without the protocol, the average daytime temperature would be (287K)*0.25 = 71.75 K hotter [1]. Phew :) I wonder what the article is trying to say. [1] Using an average surface temperature of 14 degrees Celcius.
- danmaz74 9y ago
  The phrase isn't clear at all, but immediately afterwards they add: "By 2070 the world would have been 4.5 degrees F (2.5 degrees Celsius) hotter, a level most experts agree is disastrously high" So, I assume the actual increase the estimated for a situation without the treaty, in 2017, is somewhere between 0 and 2.5 C. Perhaps the 25% meant that the increase would have been 25% bigger than the increase we actually had?
imron 9y ago
> Without the Ozone Treaty You’d Get Sunburned in 5 Minutes Welcome to Australia.
- mafro 9y ago
  So true. Being from the UK, I was used to seeing UV of 4 or 5 on the weather report. I assumed this was a 1-10 scale. Then I got to Australia and UV is 13 or 14! The US EPA scale runs to 11 [1]. [1] https://www.epa.gov/sunsafety/uv-index-scale-1 https://www.epa.gov/sunsafety/uv-index-scale-1
  - imron 9y ago
    We dial it to 11, and then some!
- nrki 9y ago
  > Welcome to Australia. Yep. I actually wish the ozone hole was over a significantly populous region - maybe people would give more of a shit about the stuff we pump into the atmosphere then.
  - ant6n 9y ago
    Does Australia care about the stuff they pump into the atmosphere?
- daemin 9y ago
  Also true for New Zealand based on what I hear from my Kiwi co-worker.
apo 9y ago
Industry lobbied the Ronald Reagan White House and tried to get the Senate to deny ratification of the Protocol, warning of dire economic impacts resulting from a phase-down of their products. Not only did the lobbyists fail, they didn't get a single vote in the Senate: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/15/science/treaty-on-ozone-is-backed-in-senate.html http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/15/science/treaty-on-ozone-is... One important difference between the CFC ban and carbon emissions caps is the availability of inexpensive alternatives: HFCs. In a twist of irony, though, these HFCs themselves appear to be contributing as greenhouse gasses: http://research.noaa.gov/News/NewsArchive/LatestNews/TabId/684/ArtMID/1768/ArticleID/11414/HFC-greenhouse-gases-a-tale-of-two-or-more-futures.aspx http://research.noaa.gov/News/NewsArchive/LatestNews/TabId/6...
- Robotbeat 9y ago
  CFCs are also terrible greenhouse gases. The net result of the Protocol is positive for the climate, by a significant margin according to Estrada: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131110-montreal-protocol-global-warming-climate-change-cfc/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131110-montr...
- mindslight 9y ago
  If you want to work on a refrigeration system that uses R-134a, there are all sorts of laws about properly collecting and disposing of it, not just venting it into the atmosphere, etc. But if it's not used as a refrigerant, the exact same substance is labeled as HFC-134a. This is what is in most of those "compressed air" duster cans.
  - gjjrfcbugxbhf 9y ago
    This does allow the duster cans to be banned easily without affecting fridges if it is discovered the gas is toxic.
  - digikata 9y ago
    I don't know about this particular case, but a lot of times when one looks more deeply at two things that are the "exact same substance", one finds that they may be primarily the same substance, but there are a number of surrounding details that are different driving the separate products. It could be different marker smells or dyes, or that there is a bit of lubricant additive in R-134a, etc...
xxxdarrenxxx 9y ago
Fuck nuclear power, but the biggest reactor off them all is bae
systematical 9y ago
It amazes me that we humans were able to trust science, pass a law, and fix this problem. The Ozone Layer was a huge thing during my childhood in the late 80s and early 90s. Now faced with a similar threat, in the words of the great Jim Mora, we can't do "diddly". Even the Paris treaty doesn't go far enough or include the United States.
- ars 9y ago
  > were able to trust science That's not it. There are no good alternatives to CO2 emitting fuels. So it became a whole anti-human thing where people are told "you are horrible, stop consuming, look at Africa they use less energy than you", etc, etc, etc. All in order to make people feel guilty and thereby get people to reduce their usage. Once that happened there was a backlash, that backlash needed a target and the science was chosen. But it did not start by distrusting science. You see people saying "why don't you trust science, it's the same science that gives you computers", and wondering why that doesn't convince anyone. The reason it doesn't is because it has nothing to do with science, it has to do with making people feel guilty, about existing, about using things, about traveling, or having an A/C. If I could give once piece of advice re CO2: Stop making people feel guilty about using energy. Just focus on finding alternatives, and playing up how awesome plentiful cheap, clean energy will be. But completely stop the other side of things, it's not helping.
  - empath75 9y ago
    > Stop making people feel guilty about using energy. But you should feel guilty about using energy.
    - ars 9y ago
      > But you should feel guilty about using energy. No, I absolutely refuse. I refuse to such a degree I'm not even going to ask you why I should feel guilty. I have zero desire to live in that kind of world. The more energy we use the better the world becomes. We should spend our effort on finding good sources of energy (i.e. cheap, and clean). Not on using less energy. I don't mind spending some effort on efficiency, if it doesn't impact me (for example more insulation, but zero desire to drive less).
ars 9y ago
This treaty should also inform people on how to approach the current CO2 situation: You need an alternative! Telling people to not use the product (conserve) will NOT work. All those UN treaties about reducing this or that are a total waste of time, and are just there to make people feel like we are doing something. They should do one thing, and one thing only: Fund research on alternatives.
- vkou 9y ago
  There are alternatives to CO2 heavy fuels. I am told that the market magically will find them as soon as we start taxing carbon. (By people who oppose government investment into renewable research.)
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    The alternatives already exist, and are often very boring tech like "insulation" or labelling purchases based on efficiency, it's getting people to actually use them that requires the carbon tax.
- chc 9y ago
  There already are well-known alternatives to many causes of carbon pollution, so I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw here.
firebird84 9y ago
Instead (where I live) I get sunburned in 15. :)
- WillReplyfFood 9y ago
  Sidney?
yters 9y ago
I've read ozone is naturally created when atmosphere escapes through a hole.
neves 9y ago
Sorry that USA messed up all the other environmental treaties, like the Kyoto that they signed but the Senate didn't subscribed. Maybe we wouldn't have Irmas and Marias by now.
- okreallywtf 9y ago
  I think we would still be getting these hurricanes because a) they are likely strengthened by the temperature changes but not created and b) neither of those protocols would have actually affected the temperature by any significant amount by now. We have to be careful with what we say and how we say it - advocates for action on climate change need to be accurate most of the time, climate deniers only need to sow doubt by latching onto mistakes we make and using that the try and cast doubt on everything we say. I can echo the "sorry from the USA" sentiment though, I'm very embarrassed by our actions.

96 points by mcone 9y ago

> Our global climate would be at least 25 per cent hotter today without the Protocol, said Garcia, a co-author of two world-avoided studies. Hmm, without the protocol, the average daytime temperature would be (287K)*0.25 = 71.75 K hotter [1]. Phew :) I wonder what the article is trying to say. [1] Using an average surface temperature of 14 degrees Celcius.

danmaz74 9y ago
The phrase isn't clear at all, but immediately afterwards they add: "By 2070 the world would have been 4.5 degrees F (2.5 degrees Celsius) hotter, a level most experts agree is disastrously high" So, I assume the actual increase the estimated for a situation without the treaty, in 2017, is somewhere between 0 and 2.5 C. Perhaps the 25% meant that the increase would have been 25% bigger than the increase we actually had?

imron 9y ago

> Without the Ozone Treaty You’d Get Sunburned in 5 Minutes Welcome to Australia.

mafro 9y ago
So true. Being from the UK, I was used to seeing UV of 4 or 5 on the weather report. I assumed this was a 1-10 scale. Then I got to Australia and UV is 13 or 14! The US EPA scale runs to 11 [1]. [1] https://www.epa.gov/sunsafety/uv-index-scale-1 https://www.epa.gov/sunsafety/uv-index-scale-1
- imron 9y ago
  We dial it to 11, and then some!
nrki 9y ago
> Welcome to Australia. Yep. I actually wish the ozone hole was over a significantly populous region - maybe people would give more of a shit about the stuff we pump into the atmosphere then.
- ant6n 9y ago
  Does Australia care about the stuff they pump into the atmosphere?
daemin 9y ago
Also true for New Zealand based on what I hear from my Kiwi co-worker.

apo 9y ago

Industry lobbied the Ronald Reagan White House and tried to get the Senate to deny ratification of the Protocol, warning of dire economic impacts resulting from a phase-down of their products. Not only did the lobbyists fail, they didn't get a single vote in the Senate: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/15/science/treaty-on-ozone-is-backed-in-senate.html http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/15/science/treaty-on-ozone-is... One important difference between the CFC ban and carbon emissions caps is the availability of inexpensive alternatives: HFCs. In a twist of irony, though, these HFCs themselves appear to be contributing as greenhouse gasses: http://research.noaa.gov/News/NewsArchive/LatestNews/TabId/684/ArtMID/1768/ArticleID/11414/HFC-greenhouse-gases-a-tale-of-two-or-more-futures.aspx http://research.noaa.gov/News/NewsArchive/LatestNews/TabId/6...

Robotbeat 9y ago
CFCs are also terrible greenhouse gases. The net result of the Protocol is positive for the climate, by a significant margin according to Estrada: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131110-montreal-protocol-global-warming-climate-change-cfc/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131110-montr...
mindslight 9y ago
If you want to work on a refrigeration system that uses R-134a, there are all sorts of laws about properly collecting and disposing of it, not just venting it into the atmosphere, etc. But if it's not used as a refrigerant, the exact same substance is labeled as HFC-134a. This is what is in most of those "compressed air" duster cans.
- gjjrfcbugxbhf 9y ago
  This does allow the duster cans to be banned easily without affecting fridges if it is discovered the gas is toxic.
- digikata 9y ago
  I don't know about this particular case, but a lot of times when one looks more deeply at two things that are the "exact same substance", one finds that they may be primarily the same substance, but there are a number of surrounding details that are different driving the separate products. It could be different marker smells or dyes, or that there is a bit of lubricant additive in R-134a, etc...

xxxdarrenxxx 9y ago

Fuck nuclear power, but the biggest reactor off them all is bae

systematical 9y ago

It amazes me that we humans were able to trust science, pass a law, and fix this problem. The Ozone Layer was a huge thing during my childhood in the late 80s and early 90s. Now faced with a similar threat, in the words of the great Jim Mora, we can't do "diddly". Even the Paris treaty doesn't go far enough or include the United States.

ars 9y ago
> were able to trust science That's not it. There are no good alternatives to CO2 emitting fuels. So it became a whole anti-human thing where people are told "you are horrible, stop consuming, look at Africa they use less energy than you", etc, etc, etc. All in order to make people feel guilty and thereby get people to reduce their usage. Once that happened there was a backlash, that backlash needed a target and the science was chosen. But it did not start by distrusting science. You see people saying "why don't you trust science, it's the same science that gives you computers", and wondering why that doesn't convince anyone. The reason it doesn't is because it has nothing to do with science, it has to do with making people feel guilty, about existing, about using things, about traveling, or having an A/C. If I could give once piece of advice re CO2: Stop making people feel guilty about using energy. Just focus on finding alternatives, and playing up how awesome plentiful cheap, clean energy will be. But completely stop the other side of things, it's not helping.
- empath75 9y ago
  > Stop making people feel guilty about using energy. But you should feel guilty about using energy.
  - ars 9y ago
    > But you should feel guilty about using energy. No, I absolutely refuse. I refuse to such a degree I'm not even going to ask you why I should feel guilty. I have zero desire to live in that kind of world. The more energy we use the better the world becomes. We should spend our effort on finding good sources of energy (i.e. cheap, and clean). Not on using less energy. I don't mind spending some effort on efficiency, if it doesn't impact me (for example more insulation, but zero desire to drive less).

ars 9y ago

This treaty should also inform people on how to approach the current CO2 situation: You need an alternative! Telling people to not use the product (conserve) will NOT work. All those UN treaties about reducing this or that are a total waste of time, and are just there to make people feel like we are doing something. They should do one thing, and one thing only: Fund research on alternatives.

vkou 9y ago
There are alternatives to CO2 heavy fuels. I am told that the market magically will find them as soon as we start taxing carbon. (By people who oppose government investment into renewable research.)
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  The alternatives already exist, and are often very boring tech like "insulation" or labelling purchases based on efficiency, it's getting people to actually use them that requires the carbon tax.
chc 9y ago
There already are well-known alternatives to many causes of carbon pollution, so I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw here.

firebird84 9y ago

Instead (where I live) I get sunburned in 15. :)

WillReplyfFood 9y ago
Sidney?

yters 9y ago

I've read ozone is naturally created when atmosphere escapes through a hole.

neves 9y ago

Sorry that USA messed up all the other environmental treaties, like the Kyoto that they signed but the Senate didn't subscribed. Maybe we wouldn't have Irmas and Marias by now.

okreallywtf 9y ago
I think we would still be getting these hurricanes because a) they are likely strengthened by the temperature changes but not created and b) neither of those protocols would have actually affected the temperature by any significant amount by now. We have to be careful with what we say and how we say it - advocates for action on climate change need to be accurate most of the time, climate deniers only need to sow doubt by latching onto mistakes we make and using that the try and cast doubt on everything we say. I can echo the "sorry from the USA" sentiment though, I'm very embarrassed by our actions.