No More A-Hole-I mean O-Hole!

[Undivided_Attention]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Earth's protective ozone layer, which was notably thinning in 1980, may be fully recovered by mid-century, climate scientists said on Wednesday.

Ozone in the stratosphere, outside the polar regions, stopped thinning in 1997, the scientists found after analyzing 25 years worth of observations.

The ozone layer shields the planet from the sun's harmful ultraviolet radiation, but human-made chemicals -- notably the chlorofluorocarbons found in some refrigerants and aerosol propellants -- depleted this stratospheric ozone, causing the protective layer to get thinner.

The scientists said the ozone layer's comeback is due in large part to compliance with an 1987 international agreement called the Montreal Protocol, which aimed to limit emissions of ozone-depleting chemicals.

"These results confirm the Montreal Protocol and its amendments have succeeded in stopping the loss of ozone in the stratosphere," said Eun-Su Yang of the Georgia Institute of Technology, who led a team that analyzed the data.

"At the current recovery rate ... the global ozone layer could be restored to 1980 levels -- the time that scientists first noticed the harmful effects human activities were having on atmospheric ozone -- sometime in the middle of this century," Yang said in a statement.

While ozone is a beneficial shield in the stratosphere, some six to 31 miles above Earth's surface, the ozone encountered at ground level can be damaging to lung tissue and plants and is a major component of smog.

The analysis was published in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres.

Researchers from
NASA and other agencies reported in June that the so-called ozone hole over Antarctica would recover by around 2068, which is some 20 years later than previously expected.

The Antarctic ozone hole is a massive loss of ozone that occurs each spring in the Southern Hemisphere.

A similar, though smaller and less severe, ozone hole has been reported in the Arctic.

SOURCE. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060830/sc_nm/environment_ozone_dc)

[Guns R Cool]

The liberals will find a way to claim victory for this.

[earthtoned]

i don't know if the liberals have, but this was a victory for the environment through the sensible regulation of chemicals, and cooperation between the US and other countries in meeting these requirements, through the pressure of environmentalists worldwide.


The scientists said the ozone layer's comeback is due in large part to compliance with an 1987 international agreement called the Montreal Protocol, which aimed to limit emissions of ozone-depleting chemicals.

"These results confirm the Montreal Protocol and its amendments have succeeded in stopping the loss of ozone in the stratosphere," said Eun-Su Yang of the Georgia Institute of Technology, who led a team that analyzed the data.

hmm...why does this sound familiar? ohhh the kyo......*ahem*

but hey, i'll give president reagan credit where its due, he supported it..makes me lonely for the days when the parties could come together in support of common goals

[Guns R Cool]

Liberals have been arguing that toxic chemicals in the atmosphere are at an all-time high. So you can't say that the o-zone is shrinking because of regulations.

[Wadi66]

The US isn't even the one dumping toxins into the atmosphere, its the Chinese. Why don't they go after them. Oh I know, China is a communist country beholding to no one.

[Guns R Cool]

This was posted somewhere else without a link.


Hong Kong’s chronic air pollution is hurting business in the territory, a senior government adviser said on Monday in the first official admission that worsening air quality is affecting companies’ investment decisions.

“Up to a year ago [pollution] really hadn’t hit our pocketbook,” said Victor Fung, chairman of the government-backed Greater Pearl River Delta Business Council. “But now people are not coming to Hong Kong to take that job because their kid has asthma,” he said at a briefing.

Mr Fung’s comments follow an American Chamber of Commerce survey published this weekend that found 60 per cent of 140 senior executives polled were “very worried” about the effect pollution was having on their health.

Almost 40 per cent said Hong Kong’s worsening air quality made it difficult to recruit overseas staff, while 80 per cent said they either knew someone who had left the territory, or was thinking of doing so, because of the air pollution.

Mr Fung chairs both Hong Kong’s airport authority and Li & Fund, the trade sourcing company and is one of the most vocal figures on issues bearing on the territory’s links to its manufacturing heartland in the Pearl River Delta, in China’s southern Guangdong province.

Most of Hong Kong’s air pollution is created by factories across the territory’s border in Guangdong (Red China).

“The desire to do something about [pollution] is very real,” said Mr Fung, who cited a “clear air charter” initiative and other voluntary codes of conduct that the council was promoting.

Mr Fung said the 90,000 Hong Kong-owned factories operating in the Pearl River Delta, and trading companies such as Li & Fung, should embrace socially responsible manufacturing and sourcing policies.

“The emphasis has been a bit more on labour [standards], but environmental issues are going to become more important,” he said. “It’s not only the right thing to do, its also good business.”

[earthtoned]

ozone depleting chemicals? no, those have been reduced dramatically. its carbon that is the issue now, which relates in no way to ozone depletion

ozone depletion as caused by CFC's such as freon and older aerosol propellants which have since been heavily regulated and mostly replaced by non CFC chemicals (chloro-flouro-carbons)

ive seen a number of people talk interchangeably about ozone depletion and global warming..they are completely unrelated. ozone depletion was more of a skin cancer risk and altered the oceans levels of plankton and therefore sea health. it related very littel to global warming issues

as far as the US outpacing the chinese on carbon emmissions, its not even close, i could have sworn we already had this debate.

[earthtoned]

The US isn't even the one dumping toxins into the atmosphere, its the Chinese. Why don't they go after them. Oh I know, China is a communist country beholding to no one.

actually china has signed the kyoto protocol. and if you can find any statistics that show how china is outpacing us in carbon emmissions, i'd love to see them. The air quality in most cities around the world is awful becuase they don't have catalytic converters on their cars or systems that remove soot from their smokestacks..these are awful for the people that live in the cities and also contribute to acidic rain, but do not affect global warming much if at all.

that said, give china 15 years, and theyll be the worlds largest polluter unless they are able to find cleaner ways to create electricity than coal burning power plants

[Guns R Cool]

Chinese pollution has reached the US. I know I have the link somewhere, but to be honest I don't really feel like looking for it right now.

[thumbelina]

This was posted somewhere else without a link. Link here: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f54b006a-36aa-11db-89d6-0000779e2340.html but I suggest doing a Yahoo! web search of HK admits pollution is hurting business to bypass the subscriber page because http://bugmenot.com/ will not work. :icon_smil

[earthtoned]

Chinese pollution has reached the US. I know I have the link somewhere, but to be honest I don't really feel like looking for it right now.

well it depends on what pollutants. industrial waste? smog? ground water contaminination? i'd be surprised if china doesnt lead at least some categories, especially industial pollutants at this point. I've been to china, and the air quality in their cities would make LA seem like a paradise. i'd have to think that their lung cancer rates are rising like mad. But when youre talking about greenhouse gases, and specifically CO2, they just havent reached the same level of total energy consumption to catch us on that one. of course, it's interesting to note that that CO2 isn't labelled as a pollutant under the current EPA. In a way they are correct, in that it is more or less a harmless gas given off by decaying leaves, exhaling of breath and the burning of fossil fuels alike. But that assessment doesnt adress reality. it is not the co2 per se , but how much of it. a balanced level of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is what regulates our temperature. but if those levels rise suddenly through the releasing of additional carbons that have been locked underground for millions of years through fossil fuel burning, it ends up trapping too much heat and creating an upward temperature trend.

[earthtoned]

this is also interesting, and hardly surprising



Sins of Omission?

The most alarming failure of greenhouse gas emissions reporting is thought to have occurred in China, the world's second largest emitter. In the late 1990s, when its economy was growing by 10 per cent a year, the Chinese government reported a dramatic fall in CO2 emissions to the UN climate change convention. It declared that, after a long period of steep increases, emissions had fallen from 911 million tonnes of carbon a year in 1996 to 757 million tonnes in 2000, a drop of 17 per cent.

China said the fall in emissions was achieved by burning less coal, an assessment it based on a decline in coal production. Some analysts praised the country for using coal more efficiently, but that picture was called into doubt when declared coal production and emissions estimates resumed their fast rise. Estimates for 2004 put China's CO2 emissions above 1200 million tonnes.

Most analysts now conclude that the drop in emissions was entirely illusory. It coincided with major changes in the organisation of the Chinese coal industry, which replaced state targets with a market system. "Emissions figures before 1996 were inflated because mine officials had production targets to meet, and declared they had met them when they had not," one analyst told New Scientist. By 2000, this effect had gone, and "subsequent figures for CO2 emissions are probably more accurate as a result." While the Chinese government may not have intentionally misled the international community over its emissions at the time, the incident reveals how easy it could be to fiddle official figures.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025574.000-kyoto-promises-are-nothing-but-hot-air.html