The 'Montreal Protocol' Designed To Heal the Ozone Layer May Have Also Fended Off Several Degrees of Warming (technologyreview.com) 44
James Temple writes via MIT Technology Review: In 1987, dozens of nations adopted the Montreal Protocol, agreeing to phase out the use of chlorofluorocarbons and other chemicals used in refrigerants, solvents, and other industrial products that were breaking down Earth's protective ozone layer. It was a landmark achievement, the most successful example of nations pulling together in the face of a complex, collective threat to the environment. Three decades later, the atmospheric ozone layer is slowly recovering, preventing additional levels of ultraviolet radiation that cause cancer, eye damage, and other health problems. But the virtues of the agreement, ultimately ratified by every country, are more widespread than its impact on the ozone hole. Many of those chemicals are also powerful greenhouse gases. So as a major side benefit, their reduction over the last three decades has already eased warming and could cut as much as 1C off worldwide average temperatures by 2050.
Now, a new study in Nature highlights yet another crucial, if inadvertent, bonus: reducing the strain that ultraviolet radiation from the sun puts on plants, inhibiting photosynthesis and slowing growth. The Montreal Protocol avoided "a catastrophic collapse of forests and croplands" that would have added hundreds of billions of tons of carbon to the atmosphere, Anna Harper, a senior lecturer in climate science at the University of Exeter and a coauthor of the paper, said in an email. The Nature paper, published August 18, found that if production of ozone-depleting substances had continued ticking up 3% each year, the additional UV radiation would have curtailed the growth of trees, grasses, ferns, flowers, and crops across the globe.
The world's plants would absorb less carbon dioxide, releasing as much as 645 billion tons of carbon from the land to the atmosphere this century. That could drive global warming up to 1C higher over the same period. It would also have devastating effects on agricultural yields and food supplies around the globe. The impact of rising CFCs levels on plants, plus their direct warming effect in the atmosphere, could have pushed temperatures around 2.5C higher this century, the researchers found. That would all come on top of the already dire warming projections for 2100.
Now, a new study in Nature highlights yet another crucial, if inadvertent, bonus: reducing the strain that ultraviolet radiation from the sun puts on plants, inhibiting photosynthesis and slowing growth. The Montreal Protocol avoided "a catastrophic collapse of forests and croplands" that would have added hundreds of billions of tons of carbon to the atmosphere, Anna Harper, a senior lecturer in climate science at the University of Exeter and a coauthor of the paper, said in an email. The Nature paper, published August 18, found that if production of ozone-depleting substances had continued ticking up 3% each year, the additional UV radiation would have curtailed the growth of trees, grasses, ferns, flowers, and crops across the globe.
The world's plants would absorb less carbon dioxide, releasing as much as 645 billion tons of carbon from the land to the atmosphere this century. That could drive global warming up to 1C higher over the same period. It would also have devastating effects on agricultural yields and food supplies around the globe. The impact of rising CFCs levels on plants, plus their direct warming effect in the atmosphere, could have pushed temperatures around 2.5C higher this century, the researchers found. That would all come on top of the already dire warming projections for 2100.
Joy (Score:5, Insightful)
Gloom
This is an entirely positive story. Actions we've carried out in the past that were good, well intended and successful have yielded further positive results over what we had planned. Good triumphs but needs to remain vigilant. Celebrate.
Re:Joy (Score:4, Interesting)
It's hardly surprising that fouling our own nest a little less had unexpected benefits.... or equivalently that shitting in your own bed has unexpected costs.
Re: (Score:2)
No, continuing to increase external pressures on the system even while see the cracks forming and widening does not exactly constitute the "doing nothing" option you seem to insinuate. Stopping emissions dead IS the conservative option as far as the climate is concerned. Just not for the short term economy, and especially not for some very rich and powerful companies.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck them? No
I am an incel with asthma, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Joy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
There's no reason to put a spin on what is an otherwise positive article by sourcing an unlikely "dire projection".
Re: (Score:3)
Yes.
There's no reason to put a spin on what is an otherwise positive article by sourcing an unlikely "dire projection".
Some people have reasons in that this story doesn't suit the narrative that's being pushed by people trying to stop things getting things done. We've been through "there's nothing happening" which doesn't work now that everyone can see the world changing in front of them [usatoday.com]. We've been through the "it's nothing to do with us" - even the least scientifically educated are beginning to understand that and many people worldwide see through. There are a bunch more messages that are ongoing. Currently there seem t
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely good news & cause for celebration. The world united & acted & we're still reaping the benefits & in unexpected ways. It's also proof that we can work together & solve global problems like climate change.
If we do manage to transition quickly enough to low & zero carbon technologies, I bet we'll see all kinds of unexpected benefits too. Apart from the obvious ones like quieter, cleaner towns & cities, lower particulate pollution in our food supply, less carcinogenic wate
Re:Captain Obvious (Score:5, Informative)
As if the Montreal Protocol was designed to achieve something else.
The Montreal Protocol was aimed at preventing erosion of the ozone layer so as to limit harmful solar radiation affecting life on earth, so that far yes this is as intended. It wasn't focused on limiting global warming so any knock on effect it has had in that direction is a bonus.
Re: (Score:2)
The ozone depleting gases are also extremely potent greenhouse gases. They constituted several percent of the man-made greenhouse contribution at the time, even tough the actual volumes were tiny compared to CO2. This "low hanging fruit" on greenhouse reduction was well known and an indeed an extra selling point. But sure, it was not the primary objective, and would probably not have been enough to drive an agreement on its own.
But the CO2-releasing effect of UV is news.
Could the Montreal Protocol be passed today? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or would the anti-science club and lobbyists destroy any possibility of passing it, dooming us to a massive surge in skin cancer, etc. Or the Clean Air Act, and the effects of acid rain, etc.
Re:Could the Montreal Protocol be passed today? (Score:4, Insightful)
You'd probably have industry spin doctors spread conspiracy theories about how those luddites want us to no longer have refrigeration, spinning it as a plot from the food industry to make our food spoil faster and increase their profits, with some loonies deliberately spraying HCFCs because "they" want to take it away from us so it has to have some kind of property that keeps us from being mind controlled.
Re: (Score:2)
We did have a lot of naysayers at the time. They were mostly in the minority. The typical complaint about loss of profits. Or having to use pumps for hair spray, which was a trivial complaint but mostly have the average voter thought about. Air conditioners and refrigerators were a bigger deal, but those were replaced over time and not a sudden ban.
There were always conspiracy theories for just about everything, but these were very fringe and not very influential, compared to today where conspiracy nuts
Re:Could the Montreal Protocol be passed today? (Score:4, Insightful)
Today we can't even get people to admit the earth is round. I mean the ancient Greeks calculated the circumference thousands of years ago.
I like to imagine what would happen if only today it was found that asbestos caused cancer. People would have having asbestos rallies and snorting contests.
Fake news fake news they screamed! I did some "research" and found a "doctor" who claims asbestos is good for you.
Re: (Score:3)
Fake news fake news they screamed!
And those who complain are communists! This was the fake news put out by Turner and Newall [independent.co.uk] as they tried to discredit asbestos campaigners.
Re: (Score:2)
Religiion trumps science when it comes to politics. And the flat earthers have a strong basis in a religious view, even if the adherents aren't appearing religious. That is, it's ok if the moon and sun and planets are round, but the Earth is super special and is not round. They don't see that as a problem. In fact, bizarrely, there is geocentrism group, which is opposed to flat earth because they think the earth is spherical, but they also agree with the flat earthers that the earth is the center of eve
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Thatcher was probably the last UK prime minister to have the vaguest clue about science. None of them since have had any useful qualifications.
Though it doesn't always help - Angela Merkel has a chemistry doctorate but that didn't stop her shutting down germanys nuclear power stations and substituting them with brown coal and gas from russia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
Not saying we should not be doing that, just that it is not always a win-win as with CFCs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Listen to Experts and create policy around data? (Score:3)
I do miss the old days when experts and scientists were listened too, and not assumed that they are somehow being politically motivated to make up data, for some crazy off the wall conspiracy theory.
We as expert had dedicated our lives and had put a lot of thought and work into such findings, to have politicians and the general public, who watched a 5 minute youtube video on a counter argument, to feel like they know what they are talking about without listening to us, and making policy despite the science and facts is much more scary then the current problems we face.
Re: (Score:3)
Experts and Scientists
Plural, meaning more than one. An important part of the scientific process is review of the data provided. Not just they hypothesis of a small group of people.
And Yes the Experts can be wrong, that is life deal with it. However they are going to be more correct than the person who never gave it any thought.
Now the times where Experts tend to get off track is cases where they are complacent in their hypothesis and they stop studying and researching to prove themselves wrong.
In terms
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I also would like to think there were "good old days" where science was, generally speaking, correct. But the United States is special in this regard, because for 87 years after our founding, public policy was based on science. Science which stated unequivocally that blacks were inferior to whites, and were actually helped by slavery. Remedying that mistake of science was the costliest war our country has ever faced.
And now we learn that we are in a pandemic which could very well have been created by
Re: Listen to Experts and create policy around dat (Score:2)
What a load of crap. Anything you personally do is practically meaningless. If Gore had given up everything sure some would be inspired and do the same, but far more would not have heard his message and done nothing. I can give up styrofoam, my car, my AC, all of which will do absolutely nothing. But if we change one business like Chik fil a to stop using styrofoam that will save billions of cups and containers and will make a difference. The only way out of this mess is policy, laws, fines, taxes, for
This is one of the big problems (Score:2)
Now, ignoring that the global cooling thing was one very badly written article by Time magazine with debunked sources, we made changes that slowed the damage to the environment and bought us some time.
But try explaining a nuanced position like that to somebody who doesn't want to believe in climate change because they're afraid you'
Re: (Score:1)
we could let civilization collapse for the bottom 90-95%, leave the top 5 or 10% living in luxury and the problem would solve itself when 95% of the population goes back to the stone age.
You mean the republicans ARE actually working to fix global warming, just in their own special way?
Nah, that's just winger derp (Score:2)
Who's "they"? Sounds like the (completely imaginary) canard that scientists were afraid of global cooling in the 70's (they weren't). And climate change has been costing the US alone hundreds of billions each year. Floods, fires, droughts, blizzards dumping two feet of snow, deadly heat waves. There're a lot of Ayn Rand whackjobs in the Pacific Northwest (Pudge), but
May have (Score:2)
speculation
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory Canadian comment (Score:2)
You're welcome, eh?
At least it's a change from -Worse than we thought (Score:1)
Like every climate alarm story that word 'may' is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Several degrees of warming, FFS.