Ozone depletion and global warming and the lack or success in receiving global regulation on these environmental challenges have been compared in various studies.
Background
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Radiative-forcings.svg/400px-Radiative-forcings.svg.png)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Sources_stratospheric_chlorine.png/280px-Sources_stratospheric_chlorine.png)
As with carbon dioxide and methane, there are some natural sources of tropospheric chlorine, as e.g. sea spray however tropospheric chlorine is irrelevant; Chlorine from ocean spray is soluble and thus is washed by rainfall before it reaches the stratosphere. It is stratospheric chlorine that affects ozone depletion. Only methyl chloride, which is one of these halocarbons, has a mainly natural source,[1] and it is responsible for about 20 percent of the chlorine in the stratosphere; the remaining 80% comes from man made sources. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), in contrast, are insoluble and long-lived, allowing them to reach the stratosphere. In the lower atmosphere, there is much more chlorine from CFCs and related haloalkanes than there is in HCl from salt spray, and in the stratosphere halocarbons are dominant.[2]
Many ozone-depleting substances (ODS) are also greenhouse gases, some thousands of times more powerful agents of radiative forcing than carbon dioxide over the short and medium term. Thus policies protecting the ozone layer have had benefits in mitigating climate change. In fact, the reduction of the radiative forcing due to ODS probably reduced climate change effects of other GHGs, and was responsible for the "slow down" of global warming from the mid-90s.[3] Policy experts have recently advocated for efforts for a closer linking of ozone protection efforts and climate protection efforts.[4][5]
Ozone depleting chemicals are also often greenhouse gases. The increases in concentrations of these chemicals have produced 0.34 ± 0.03 W/m2 of radiative forcing, corresponding to about 14% of the total radiative forcing from increases in the concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases.[6] The long term modeling of the process, its measurement, study, design of theories and testing take decades to document, gain wide acceptance, and ultimately become the dominant paradigm. Several theories about the destruction of ozone were hypothesized in the 1980s, published in the late 1990s, and are currently being investigated. Dr Drew Schindell, and Dr Paul Newman, NASA Goddard, proposed a theory in the late 1990s, using computational modeling methods to model ozone destruction, that accounted for 78% of the ozone destroyed. Further refinement of that model accounted for 89% of the ozone destroyed, but pushed back the estimated recovery of the ozone hole from 75 years to 150 years.
The same CO
2 radiative forcing that produces global warming is expected to cool the stratosphere.[7] This cooling, in turn, is expected to produce a relative increase in ozone (O
3) depletion in polar area and the frequency of ozone holes.[8]
Conversely, ozone depletion represents a radiative forcing of the climate system. There are two opposing effects: Reduced ozone causes the stratosphere to absorb less solar radiation, thus cooling the stratosphere while warming the troposphere; the resulting colder stratosphere emits less long-wave radiation downward, thus cooling the troposphere. Overall, the cooling dominates; the IPCC concludes "observed stratospheric O
3 losses over the past two decades have caused a negative forcing of the surface-troposphere system"[9] of about −0.15 ± 0.10 watts per square meter (W/m2).[6]
One of the strongest predictions of the greenhouse effect is that the stratosphere will cool.[7] Although this cooling has been observed, it is not trivial to separate the effects of changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases and ozone depletion since both will lead to cooling. However, this can be done by numerical stratospheric modeling. Results from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory show that above 20 km (12 mi), the greenhouse gases dominate the cooling.[10]
Policy approach
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Robert-Watson.jpg)
There are various linkages and major differences between ozone depletion and global warming and the way both challenges have being handled. While in the case of the Ozone depletion, global regulation based on the Montreal Protocol has been successful, in a climate of high uncertainty and against strong resistance[11] climate change regulation attempts as for the Kyoto Protocol have failed.[12] The Vienna convention and the Montreal Protocol were both signed by only some member states (43 nations in case of the Montreal protokol 1986) while Kyoto attempted to have a world wide agreement from scratch. The consensus about the scientific assessment of CFC was reached long after the first regulation steps were taken. As of 29 December 2012, all countries in the United Nations, the Cook Islands, Holy See, Niue and the supranational European Union have ratified the original Montreal Protocol[13]. These countries have also ratified the London, Copenhagen, and Montreal amendments. The Beijing amendments had as of April 2014 not been ratified by two state parties.[14]
After the Montreal Protocol the halocarbon industry shifted its position and started supporting a protocol to limit CFC production. US manufacturer DuPont acted quicker than their European counterparts.[15] The EU shifted its position as well after Germany, which has as well a suitable chemical industry, gave up its defence of the CFC industry[11] and started supporting more regulation. Government and industry in France and the UK tried to defend their CFC producing industries even after the Montreal Protocol had been signed.[16]
The Montreal and Vienna conventions were installed long before a scientific consensus was established.[11] To the contrary, till the 1980ies EU, NASA, NAS, UNEP, WMO and the British government had issued further different scientific reports with dissenting conclusions.[11] Sir Robert (Bob) Watson, Director of the Science Division of at National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) played a crucial role in the process of unified assessments.[11]
Public Opinion
The IPCC was to orchestrate global (climate) change research to shape a worldwide consensus.[17] Based on the experience of Bob Watson with the dissenting government science reports in the Ozone case, the IPCC architects started earlier with an an unified reporting and assessement process on the science findings for government agencies.[11] Later on the consensus approach has been dubbed more a liability than an asset in comparision.[18][11] A linear model of policy-making, based on a more knowledge we have, the better the political response will be did not apply on the Ozone case. To the contrary, the CFC regulation process focused more on managing ignorance and uncertainities as base of political decision making, as the relation between science, public (lack of) understanding and policy was better taken into account.[12] [18] [19]
In the meanwhile, an player in the IPCC process as Michael Oppenheimer concedes some limitations of the IPCC consensus approach and ask for concurring, smaller assessments of special problems instead of the large scale approach as in the previous IPCC assessment reports.[20] It has become more important to provide a broader exploration of uncertainties.[20] Others see as well mixed blessings of the drive for consensus within the IPCC process and ask to include dissenting or minority positions[21] or to improve statements about uncertainties.[22][23]
The metaphors used in the discussion (ozone shield, ozone hole) reflected better with lay people and their concerns. The ozone case was communicated to lay persons "with easy-to-understand bridging metaphors derived from the popular culture" and related to "immediate risks with everyday relevance", while the public opinion on climate change sees no emminent danger. [19] The ozone hole was much more seen as an "hot issue" and emminent risk compared to global climate change[18], as lay people feared a depletion of the ozone layer (ozone shield) was risking to increase severe consequences such skin cancer, cataracts,[24] damage to plants, and reduction of plankton populations in the ocean's photic zone. This was not the case with global warming.[11]
Cost benefit assessments and industry policy
Cass Sunstein and others compared the United States different approach versus the Montreal Protocol versus its rejection of the Kyoto Protocol. Sunstein assumes that the costs / benefits assessments of climate change action for the USA were instrumental for the redrawal of the US participation in Kyoto.[12] Daniel Magraw, as well a lawyer, considers governmental motivations besides relative costs and benefits as of being of higher importance.[12] Peter Orszag and Terry Dinan took an insurance perspective and assume that a assessment which predicted dire consequences of climate change would be more of a motivation for the USA to change its stance on global warming and adopting regulation measurements.[12]
DuPont had already lost some of the zeal defending its products after a stratecic manufacturing patent for Freon was set to expire in 1979. Not by chance, the United States banned the use of CFCs in aerosol cans in 1978.[25]
Government and industry in France and the UK tried to defend their CFC producing industries even after the Montreal Protocol had been signed.[16] The European Community rejected proposals to ban CFCs in aerosol sprays for a long time. The EU shifted its position as well after Germany, which has as well a suitable chemical industry, gave up its defence of the CFC industry[11] and started supporting moves towards regulation. Germany as well, namely then secretary of the environment Angela Merkel prevented a possible failure of Kyoto. [26] After regulation was more and more enforced, DuPont acted quicker than their European counterparts as they may have feared court action related to increased skin cancer especially as the EPA had published a study in 1986 claiming that an additional 40 million cases and 800,000 cancer deaths were to be expected in the U.S. in the next 88 years.[27]
Further reading
- Benedick, Richard Elliot; World Wildlife Fund (U.S.); Institute for the Study of Diplomacy. Georgetown University. (1998). Ozone Diplomacy: New Directions in Safeguarding the Planet (2nd ed.). Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-65003-9. (Ambassador Benedick was the Chief U.S. Negotiator at the meetings that resulted in the Montreal Protocol.)
- Chasek, Pam, David L. Downie, and J.W. Brown (2013). Global Environmental Politics, 6th Edition, Boulder: Westview Press.
- Dotto, Lydia; Schiff, Harold (1978). The Ozone War. New York: Doubleday. ISBN 0385129270.
- Downie, David L. (December 1993). "Comparative Public Policy of Ozone Layer Protection". Political Science. 45 (2): 186–197. doi:10.1177/003231879304500203. ISSN 0032-3187.
- Downie, David L. (2011). "Ch. 16: The Vienna Convention Montreal Protocol, and Global Policy to Protect Stratospheric Ozone". In Wexler, Philip (ed.). Chemicals, Environment, Health: A Global Management Perspective. CRC Press. pp. 243–260. ISBN 978-1-4200-8469-6.
{{cite book}}
: External link in
(help); Unknown parameter|chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (help) - David L. Downie (2013) "Stratospheric Ozone Depletion". The Routledge Handbook of Global Environmental Politics. New York: Routledge.
- Grundmann, Reiner (2001). Transnational Environmental Policy: Reconstructing Ozone. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-415-22423-9.
- Litfin, Karen (1994). Ozone discourses: Science and politics in global environmental cooperation. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-08137-5.
External links
- Ozone layer at Curlie
- UN Chronicle Unlayering of the Ozone: An Earth Sans Sunscreen
- NOAA/ESRL Ozone Depletion
- The Ozone Hole
- The MACC stratospheric ozone service delivers maps, datasets and validation reports about the past and current state of the ozone layer.
References
- ^ Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 10659845 , please use {{cite journal}} with
|pmid=10659845
instead. - ^ ozone-depletion FAQ, Part II, section 4.3
- ^ Estrada, Francisco et al.|year=2013|url=http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n12/full/ngeo1999.html%7Ctitle=Statistically derived contributions of diverse human influences to twentieth-century temperature changes|publisher=Nature Geoscience
- ^ Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 19822751, please use {{cite journal}} with
|pmid=19822751
instead. - ^ Norman CS, DeCanio SJ, Fan L (2008). "The Montreal Protocol at 20: Ongoing opportunities for integration with climate protection". Global Environmental Change. 18 (2): 330–340. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.03.003.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ a b "IPCC/TEAP Special Report on Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons (summary for policy makers)" (PDF). International Panel on Climate Change and Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 21, 2007. Retrieved 2007-03-04.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help) - ^ a b Hegerl, Gabriele C.; et al. "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change" (PDF). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. p. 675. Retrieved 2008-02-01.
{{cite web}}
: Explicit use of et al. in:|author2=
(help) - ^ Ozone depletion. UNEP/DEWA/Earthwatch
- ^ "Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis". Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Work Group I. 2001. pp. Chapter 6.4 Stratospheric Ozone.
- ^ "The Relative Roles of Ozone and Other Greenhouse Gases in Climate Change in the Stratosphere". Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. 2007-02-29. Retrieved 2007-03-04.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ a b c d e f g h i Technische Problemlösung, Verhandeln und umfassende Problemlösung, (eng. technical trouble shooting, negotiating and generic problem solving capability) in Gesellschaftliche Komplexität und kollektive Handlungsfähigkeit (Societys complexity and collective ability to act), ed. Schimank, U. (2000). Frankfurt/Main: Campus, p.154-182 book summary at the Max Planck Gesellschaft Cite error: The named reference "RG" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ a b c d e Of Montreal and Kyoto: A Tale of Two Protocols by Cass R. Sunstein 38 ELR 10566 8/2008
- ^ "EUROPA – PRESS RELEASES – Press Release – Environment: European Union hails universal ratification of the Montreal Protocol on protecting the ozone layer". Europa.eu.
- ^ "Status of Ratification – The Ozone Secretariat". Ozone.unep.org.
- ^ Shabecoff, Philip (5 November 1986). "U.S. Report Predicts Rise in Skin Cancer with Loss of Ozone". The New York Times. p. A1. Retrieved January 10, 2013.
- ^ a b Grundmann, Reiner, Transnational Envionmental Policy, London: Routledge, ISBN 0-415-22423-3 Cite error: The named reference "ReferenceA" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ [[Aant Elzinga]], ”Shaping Worldwide Consensus: the Orchestration of Global Change Research”, in Elzinga & Landström eds. (1996): 223-255. ISBN 0-947568-67-0.
- ^ a b c Environmental Politics Climate Change and Knowledge Politics REINER GRUNDMANN Vol. 16, No. 3, 414–432, June 2007
- ^ a b [Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture: climate change versus the ozone hole, by Sheldon Ungar, doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/306 Public Understanding of Science July 2000 vol. 9 no. 3 297-312 Abstract
- ^ a b Michael Oppenheimer et al, The limits of consensus, in Science Magazine's State of the Planet 2008-2009: with a Special Section on Energy and Sustainability, Donald Kennedy, Island Press, 01.12.2008, separate as CLIMATE CHANGE, The Limits of Consensus Michael Oppenheimer, Brian C. O'Neill, Mort Webster, Shardul Agrawal, in Science 14 September 2007: Vol. 317 no. 5844 pp. 1505-1506 DOI: 10.1126/science.1144831
- ^ Lessons from the IPCC: do scientific assessments need to be consensual to be authoritative? Mike Hulme, in (eds.) Doubelday,R. and Willesden,J. March 2013, page 142 ff
- ^ Do scientific assessments need to be consensual to be authoritative? Curry, JA and PJ Webster, 2012: Climate change: no consensus on consensus. CAB Reviews, in press, 2012
- ^ "Climate heretic: Judith Curry turns on her colleagues". NatureNews. 1 November 2010. Retrieved 22 December 2010.
- ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7528.1292-d, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with
|doi=10.1136/bmj.331.7528.1292-d
instead. - ^ Morrisette, Peter M. (1989). "The Evolution of Policy Responses to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion". Natural Resources Journal. 29: 793–820. Retrieved 2010-04-20.
- ^ Leaders & Visionaries Angela Merkel, ANDREW PURVISWednesday, Oct. 17, 2007
- ^ Shabecoff, Philip (5 November 1986). "U.S. Report Predicts Rise in Skin Cancer with Loss of Ozone". The New York Times. p. A1. Retrieved January 10, 2013.
]