typos |
Polentarion (talk | contribs) |
||
(21 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Ozone depletion and global warming''' and the lack or success |
'''Ozone depletion and global warming''', as well '''Ozone hole and global warming''' and the lack or success of global regulation on these environmental challenges have been compared in various studies. |
||
== Background == |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
There are some parallels of both cases regarding the dealings with athmospherical chemistry and anthropogenic emissions and in the political regulation attempts. As the Montreal Protocol has been sucessfull and the Kyoto protokol failed, some efforts are being untertaken assess the reasons and to use synergies, e.g. with regard to data reporting and policy design and further exchanging of information.<ref>International Environmental Agreements July 2001, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 357-377, Linkages between the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols – Enhancing Synergies between Protecting the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate, von Sebastian Oberthür</ref> |
|||
⚫ | As with carbon dioxide and methane, there are some natural sources of tropospheric chlorine, as e.g. [[sea spray]] |
||
There is widespread scientific interested in allowing for better regulation of climate change, ozone depletion and air pollution as in general the human relationship with the biosphere is deemed of major [[Historiography|historiographical]] and political significance.<ref>[http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/928 2010, Review of Joachim Radkau, ISBN:978-0521616737, [[Joachim Radkau]]s Nature and Power: A Global History of the Environment] reviews in history by [[David Christian (historian)|David Christian]] 2010 </ref> Already 1994 just the legal debates about respective regulation regimes on climate change, ozone depletion and air pollution were being dubbed as "monumental" and a combined synopsis provided.<ref>[http://www.brill.com/climate-change-ozone-depletion-and-air-pollution Alexander Gillespie. Climate Change, Ozone Depletion And Air Pollution: Legal Commentaries Within The Context Of Science And Policy 1994]</ref> |
|||
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.<ref>Estrada, Francisco et al.|year=2013|url=http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n12/full/ngeo1999.html|title=Statistically derived contributions of diverse human influences to twentieth-century temperature changes|publisher=Nature Geoscience</ref> Policy experts have recently advocated for efforts for a closer linking of ozone protection efforts and climate protection efforts.<ref>{{cite pmid|19822751}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Norman CS, DeCanio SJ, Fan L |title=The Montreal Protocol at 20: Ongoing opportunities for integration with climate protection |journal=Global Environmental Change |volume=18 |issue=2 |pages=330–340 |year=2008 |doi=10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.03.003 }}</ref> |
|||
Ozone depleting chemicals are also often greenhouse gases. The increases in concentrations of these chemicals have produced 0.34 ± 0.03 W/m<sup>2</sup> of radiative forcing, corresponding to about 14% of the total radiative forcing from increases in the concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases.<ref name="spm_ozone" /> 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 {{chem|CO|2}} radiative forcing that produces global warming is expected to cool the stratosphere.<ref name="ipcc2007">{{cite web | url= http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf | format=PDF | title=Understanding and Attributing Climate Change | work=Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change | accessdate=2008-02-01 | publisher=[[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] | last=Hegerl | first=Gabriele C. |author2=et al. | page=675}}</ref> This cooling, in turn, is expected to produce a relative ''increase'' in ozone ({{chem|O|3}}) depletion in polar area and the frequency of ozone holes.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20100116051422/http://earthwatch.unep.net/emergingissues/atmosphere/ozonedepletion.php Ozone depletion]. UNEP/DEWA/Earthwatch</ref> |
||
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 [[Ozone|{{chem|O|3}}]] losses over the past two decades have caused a negative forcing of the surface-troposphere system''"<ref name="wg1_223">{{cite web |url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/223.htm |title=Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis |pages=Chapter 6.4 Stratospheric Ozone |year=2001 |work=[[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] Work Group I}}</ref> of about −0.15 ± 0.10 [[watt]]s per square meter (W/m<sup>2</sup>).<ref name="spm_ozone">{{cite journal |title=IPCC/TEAP Special Report on Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons (summary for policy makers) |publisher= [[International Panel on Climate Change]] and Technology and Economic Assessment Panel |year=2005 |url=http://www.ipcc.ch/press/SPM.pdf |format=PDF |accessdate=2007-03-04 |archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20070221055911/http://www.ipcc.ch/press/SPM.pdf |archivedate = February 21, 2007}}</ref> |
|||
One of the strongest predictions of the greenhouse effect is that the stratosphere will cool.<ref name="ipcc2007" /> 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 {{convert|20|km|mi|abbr=on}}, the greenhouse gases dominate the cooling.<ref>{{cite web |title = The Relative Roles of Ozone and Other Greenhouse Gases in Climate Change in the Stratosphere| publisher = Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory |url = http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/aboutus/milestones/ozone.html | date = 2007-02-29 | accessdate = 2007-03-04}}</ref> |
|||
== Policy approach == |
== Policy approach == |
||
Line 21: | Line 9: | ||
[[File:Robert-Watson.jpg|thumb|[[Robert Watson (scientist)|Sir Robert Watson played an important role in both cases]]]] |
[[File:Robert-Watson.jpg|thumb|[[Robert Watson (scientist)|Sir Robert Watson played an important role in both cases]]]] |
||
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<ref name = RG/> climate change regulation attempts as for the [[Kyoto Protocol]] have failed.<ref name=cass/> |
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<ref name = RG/> climate change regulation attempts as for the [[Kyoto Protocol]] have failed.<ref name=cass/> |
||
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 |
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 formal consensus in form of the [[Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion]] 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 union|supranational]] [[European Union]] have ratified the original [[Montreal]] Protocol.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1328&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en |title=EUROPA – PRESS RELEASES – Press Release – Environment: European Union hails universal ratification of the Montreal Protocol on protecting the ozone layer |publisher=Europa.eu |date=}}</ref> 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.<ref name="ozone.unep.org">{{cite web|url=http://ozone.unep.org/Ratification_status/ |title=Status of Ratification – The Ozone Secretariat |publisher=Ozone.unep.org |date=}}</ref> |
||
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.<ref>{{cite news |author=Shabecoff, Philip |title=U.S. Report Predicts Rise in Skin Cancer with Loss of Ozone |url=http://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/05/us/us-report-predicts-rise-in-skin-cancer-with-loss-of-ozone.html |newspaper=The New York Times |date=5 November 1986 |page=A1 |accessdate=January 10, 2013}}</ref> 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<ref name = RG/> 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.<ref name="ReferenceA">Grundmann |
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.<ref name="Shabecoff, Philip A1">{{cite news |author=Shabecoff, Philip |title=U.S. Report Predicts Rise in Skin Cancer with Loss of Ozone |url=http://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/05/us/us-report-predicts-rise-in-skin-cancer-with-loss-of-ozone.html |newspaper=The New York Times |date=5 November 1986 |page=A1 |accessdate=January 10, 2013}}</ref> 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<ref name = RG/> 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.<ref name="ReferenceA">[[Reiner Grundmann]], ''Transnational Envionmental Policy'', London: Routledge, ISBN 0-415-22423-3</ref> |
||
⚫ | The Montreal and Vienna conventions were installed long before a scientific consensus was established.<ref name = RG>[[Reiner Grundmann]] [http://www.mpifg.de/pu/mpifg_book/mpifg_bd_39.pdf ''Technische Problemlösung, Verhandeln und umfassende Problemlösun''g, (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 [http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/faces/viewItemFullPage.jsp;jsessionid=1F12495443EF6AC95BFF12F29F3C4829?itemId=escidoc%3A1235032%3A2&view=EXPORT book summary at the Max Planck Gesellschaft]</ref> To the contrary, till the 1980ies EU, NASA, NAS, UNEP, WMO and the British government had issued further different scientific reports with dissenting conclusions.<ref name = RG/> [[Robert Watson (scientist)|Sir Robert (Bob) Watson]], Director of the Science Division of at [[NASA|National Aeronautics and Space Administration]] (NASA) played a crucial role in the process of unified assessments.<ref name = RG/> |
||
== Different role of consensus == |
|||
⚫ | The IPCC attempts to orchestrate a global (climate) change research to shape a worldwide consensus.<ref>[[Aant Elzinga]], ”Shaping Worldwide Consensus: the Orchestration of Global Change Resehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sertenarch”, in Elzinga & Landström eds. (1996): 223-255. ISBN 0-947568-67-0.</ref> 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.<ref name = RG/> Later on the consensus approach has been dubbed more a liability than an asset in comparision.<ref name =PAR >[http://stsclimate.soc.ku.dk/papers/grundmannclimatechangeandknowledgepolitics.pdf Environmental Politics Climate Change and Knowledge Politics [[Reiner Grundmann]], Vol. 16, No. 3, 414–432, June 2007]</ref> 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.<ref name=CLT>[http://csi.sagepub.com/content/58/6/897.abstract Climate Change: What Role for Sociology? A Response to Constance Lever-Tracy], [[Reiner Grundmann]] and [[Nico Stehr]], doi: 10.1177/0011392110376031 Current Sociology November 2010 vol. 58 no. 6 897-910, see [http://csi.sagepub.com/content/56/3/445.abstract Lever Tracys paper in the same journal]</ref> 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.<ref name=cass/><ref name="PAR" /><ref name = Ungar>[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 [http://pus.sagepub.com/content/9/3/297.short Abstract]</ref> 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.<ref name=MO>[[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</ref> It has become more important to provide a broader exploration of uncertainties.<ref name=MO/> Others see as well mixed blessings of the drive for consensus within the IPCC process and ask to include dissenting or minority positions<ref name=hu>[http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/media/uploads/files/1/fdsaw.pdf 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</ref> or to improve statements about uncertainties.<ref name=nocon>[http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/22/do-scientific-assessments-need-to-be-consensual-to-be-authoritative/ 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</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.html | title=Climate heretic: Judith Curry turns on her colleagues | publisher=NatureNews | date=1 November 2010 | accessdate=22 December 2010}}</ref> |
||
⚫ | The Montreal and Vienna conventions were installed long before a scientific consensus was established.<ref name = RG>[http://www.mpifg.de/pu/mpifg_book/mpifg_bd_39.pdf ''Technische Problemlösung, Verhandeln und umfassende Problemlösun''g, (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 [http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/faces/viewItemFullPage.jsp;jsessionid=1F12495443EF6AC95BFF12F29F3C4829?itemId=escidoc%3A1235032%3A2&view=EXPORT book summary at the Max Planck Gesellschaft]</ref> To the contrary, till the 1980ies EU, NASA, NAS, UNEP, WMO and the British government had issued further different scientific reports with dissenting conclusions.<ref name = RG/> [[Robert Watson (scientist)|Sir Robert (Bob) Watson]], Director of the Science Division of at [[NASA|National Aeronautics and Space Administration]] (NASA) played a crucial role in the process of unified assessments.<ref name = RG/> |
||
== Public Opinion == |
== Public Opinion == |
||
{{main|Public opinion on climate change}} |
{{main|Public opinion on climate change}} |
||
The two atmospheric problems have received significant levels of understanding in the public opinion.<ref name = Ungar/> This implies both the basic science and policy issues.<ref name = Ungar/> People have limited scientific knowledge about global warming and tend to confuse it <ref>Students' perceptions of global warming International Journal of Environmental Studies, Volume 42, Issue 4, 1992, DOI:10.1080/00207239208710804, Edward Boyesa & Martin Stanisstreeta pages 287-300</ref> |
|||
or see it as a subset of the ozone hole.<ref>Compare Sheldon Ungar, 2000 and variuos web sites as [[Gavin Schmidt]]s realclimate complaint in [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/ozone-depletion-and-global-warming/Ozone depletion and global warming 2005] or the [http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ozone-hole-and-gw-faq.html UCS FAQ on the topic]</ref> Not only on the policy level, ozone regulation went much better than climate change. Americans voluntarily switched away from aerosol sprays before legislation was enforced, while climate change has failed in achieving a broader scientific comprehension and to raise comparable concern. <ref name = Ungar/> |
|||
The IPCC was to orchestrate global (climate) change research to shape a worldwide consensus.<ref>[[Aant |
|||
⚫ | The metaphors used in the CFC discussion (ozone shield, ozone hole) reflected better with lay people and their concerns.<ref name = Ungar/> 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.<ref name = Ungar> [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 [http://pus.sagepub.com/content/9/3/297.short Abstract]</ref> The ozone hole was much more seen as an "hot issue" and emminent risk compared to global climate change,<ref name="PAR" /> as lay people feared a depletion of the ozone layer ([[ozone shield]]) was risking to increase severe consequences such [[skin cancer]], [[cataract]]s,<ref name="Dobson2005">{{cite doi|10.1136/bmj.331.7528.1292-d}}</ref> damage to plants, and reduction of [[plankton]] populations in the ocean's [[photic zone]]. This was not the case with global warming.<ref name = RG/> |
||
Elzinga]], ”Shaping Worldwide Consensus: the Orchestration of Global Change Research”, in Elzinga & Landström eds. (1996): 223-255. ISBN 0-947568-67-0.</ref> 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.<ref name = RG>[http://www.mpifg.de/pu/mpifg_book/mpifg_bd_39.pdf Technische Problemlösung, Verhandeln und umfassende Problemlösung, (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 [http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/faces/viewItemFullPage.jsp;jsessionid=1F12495443EF6AC95BFF12F29F3C4829?itemId=escidoc%3A1235032%3A2&view=EXPORT book summary at the Max Planck Gesellschaft]</ref> |
|||
Later on the consensus approach has been dubbed more a liability than an asset in comparision.<ref name =par > [http://stsclimate.soc.ku.dk/papers/grundmannclimatechangeandknowledgepolitics.pdf Environmental Politics Climate Change and Knowledge Politics REINER GRUNDMANN Vol. 16, No. 3, 414–432, June 2007] </ref><ref name = RG>[http://www.mpifg.de/pu/mpifg_book/mpifg_bd_39.pdf ''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 [http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/faces/viewItemFullPage.jsp;jsessionid=1F12495443EF6AC95BFF12F29F3C4829?itemId=escidoc%3A1235032%3A2&view=EXPORT book summary at the Max Planck Gesellschaft]</ref> 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.<ref name=cass/> <ref name =par/> <ref name = Ungar> [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 [http://pus.sagepub.com/content/9/3/297.short Abstract]</ref> |
|||
== Personal Risk assessment and knowledge == |
|||
⚫ | 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.<ref name=MO> |
||
[[Image:NASA and NOAA Announce Ozone Hole is a Double Record Breaker.png|thumb|Image of the largest [[Antarctic]] ozone hole ever recorded (September 2006), over the Southern pole]] |
|||
[[Image:Atmosphere layers-en.svg|thumb|right|upright|Layers of the atmosphere (not to scale). The Earth's ozone layer is mainly found in the lower portion of the stratosphere from approximately 20 to 30 kilometres (12 to 19 mi) above Earth.]] |
|||
Sheldon Ungar, a Canadian sociologist, assumes that while the quantity of specialized knowledge is exploding, scientific ignorance of lay people in comparision is the norm and even increasing. The public opinion failed to tie Climate change to concrete events which could be used as a threashold or beacon to signify immediate danger.<ref name = Ungar/> Scientific predictions of an temperature rise of two to three degrees Celsius over several decades do not respond with people,e.g. in north America, that experience similar swings during a single day.<ref name = Ungar/> As Scientists define global warming a problem of the future, a liability in "attention economy", pessimistic outlooks in general and assigning extreme weather to climate change have often been discredited or ridiculed (compare [[Gore effect]]) in the public arena.<ref>Sheldon Ungar Climatic Change February 1999, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 133-150 Is Strange Weather in the Air? A Study of U.S. National Network News Coverage of Extreme Weather Events</ref> Even when [[James Hansen]] tried to use the [[1988–89 North American drought]] as call to action, scientists kept claiming, in line with the IPCC findings claim that (even extreme) weather is not climate respectively.<ref name = Ungar/> While the greenhouse effect, per se, is essential for life on earth, the case was quite different with the [[Ozone hole]] and other metaphors about the ozone depletion. The scientific assessment of the Ozone problem had as well large uncertainities, both the ozone content or its depletion is rather complicated to measure and assess and the link between ozone depletion and rates of enhanced skin cancer rather weak. But the metaphors used in the discussion (ozone shield, ozone hole) reflected better with lay people and their concerns. |
|||
⚫ | 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. |
||
{{"|The idea of rays penetrating a damaged “shield” meshes nicely with abiding and resonant cultural motifs, including “Hollywood affinities.” These range from the shields on the Starship Enterprise to Star Wars, ... It is these pre-scientific bridging metaphors built around the penetration of a deteriorating shield that render the ozone problem relatively simple. That the ozone threat can be linked with Darth Vader means that it is encompassed in common sense understandings that are deeply ingrained and widely shared.<ref name = Ungar/> |
|||
|author= Sheldon Ungar}} |
|||
The CFC regulation attempts end of the 1980ies profited from those easy to grasp metaphers and the personal risk assumptions taken from them. As well the fate of celebrities like President [[Ronald Reagan]], which had skin cancer removal from his nose in 1985 and 1987 was of high importance.<ref>Ungar (2000) compares the similar important role of [[Rock Hudson]] and [[Magic Johnson]] for the public perception of AIDS</ref> In case of the public opinion on climate change no emminent danger is perceived.<ref name = Ungar>[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 [http://pus.sagepub.com/content/9/3/297.short Abstract]</ref> |
|||
== Cost benefit assessments and industry policy == |
== Cost benefit assessments and industry policy == |
||
{{main|Economics of global warming}} |
{{main|Economics of global warming}} |
||
[[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.<ref name=cass> |
[[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.<ref name=cass>[http://law.vanderbilt.edu/files/archive/Sunstein-2008.pdf Of Montreal and Kyoto: A Tale of Two Protocols] by Cass R. Sunstein 38 ELR 10566 8/2008</ref> [[Daniel Magraw]], as well a lawyer, considers governmental motivations besides relative costs and benefits as of being of higher importance.<ref name=cass/> [[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.<ref name=cass/> |
||
⚫ | DuPont had already lost some of the zeal defending its products after a stratecic manufacturing patent for Freon was [[Chlorofluorocarbon#Regulation and DuPont|set to expire in 1979]]. Not by chance, the United States banned the use of CFCs in aerosol cans in 1978.<ref name="Morrisette1989">{{cite journal|title=The Evolution of Policy Responses to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion|journal=Natural Resources Journal|year=1989|first=Peter M.|last=Morrisette|volume=29|issue=|pages=793–820|id= |url=http://www.ciesin.org/docs/003-006/003-006.html|accessdate=2010-04-20 }}</ref> |
||
⚫ | Government and industry in France and the UK tried to defend their CFC producing industries even after the Montreal Protocol had been signed.<ref name="ReferenceA">Grundmann, Reiner, ''Transnational Environmental Policy'', London: Routledge, ISBN 0-415-22423-3</ref> 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<ref name = RG/> and started supporting moves towards regulation. Germany as well, namely then secretary of the environment [[Angela Merkel]] prevented a possible failure of Kyoto.<ref>[http://content.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1663317_1663319_1669897,00.html Leaders & Visionaries] Angela Merkel, ANDREW PURVISWednesday, Oct. 17, 2007</ref> 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.<ref name="Shabecoff, Philip A1"/> |
||
== Science background == |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
There are various links between both fields of human -athmospheric interaction. Policy experts have advocated for a closer linking of ozone protection and climate protection efforts.<ref>{{cite pmid|19822751}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Norman CS, DeCanio SJ, Fan L |title=The Montreal Protocol at 20: Ongoing opportunities for integration with climate protection |journal=Global Environmental Change |volume=18 |issue=2 |pages=330–340 |year=2008 |doi=10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.03.003 }}</ref> |
|||
[[Drew Shindell]] has used climate models to assess either climate change and ozone depletions. He claims that while recent research was more about the chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions impact on stratospheric ozone, the future will be more about the interaction between climate change and ozone feed back.<ref name =shin/> Ozone is a greenhouse gas itself. 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.<ref>Estrada, Francisco et al.|year=2013|url=http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n12/full/ngeo1999.html|title=Statistically derived contributions of diverse human influences to twentieth-century temperature changes|publisher=Nature Geoscience</ref> The increases in concentrations of these chemicals have produced 0.34 ± 0.03 W/m<sup>2</sup> of radiative forcing, corresponding to about 14% of the total radiative forcing from increases in the concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases.<ref name="spm_ozone" /> |
|||
Already the natural ozone variability in the stratosphere seems to be closely correlated with the 11-year solar cycle irradiance changes and has, via a dynamical coupling between the stratosphere and troposphere, a significant impact on climate.<ref name =shin> Solar Cycle Variability, Ozone, and Climate, Drew Shindell et al, Solar Cycle Variability, Ozone, and Climate (Science, vol. 284. no. 5412, pp. 305 - 308, 9 April 1999) </ref> |
|||
⚫ | As with carbon dioxide and methane, there are some natural sources of tropospheric chlorine, as e.g. [[sea spray]]. Chlorine from [[salt spray|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 [[halocarbon]]s, has a mainly natural source,<ref>{{cite pmid|10659845 }}</ref> and it is responsible for about 20 percent of the chlorine in the stratosphere; the remaining 80% comes from man made sources. [[Chlorofluorocarbon]]s (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 [[haloalkane]]s than there is in HCl from salt spray, and in the stratosphere halocarbons are dominant.<ref>[http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/stratcl ozone-depletion FAQ, Part II], section 4.3</ref> |
||
⚫ | DuPont had already lost some of the zeal defending its products after a stratecic manufacturing patent for Freon was [[Chlorofluorocarbon#Regulation and DuPont|set to expire in 1979]]. Not by chance, the United States banned the use of CFCs in aerosol cans in 1978.<ref name="Morrisette1989">{{cite journal|title=The Evolution of Policy Responses to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion|journal=Natural Resources Journal|year=1989|first=Peter M.|last=Morrisette|volume=29|issue=|pages=793–820|id= |url=http://www.ciesin.org/docs/003-006/003-006.html|accessdate=2010-04-20 }}</ref> |
||
⚫ | The same {{chem|CO|2}} radiative forcing that produces global warming is expected to cool the stratosphere.<ref name="ipcc2007">{{cite web | url= http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf | format=PDF | title=Understanding and Attributing Climate Change | work=Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change | accessdate=2008-02-01 | publisher=[[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] | last=Hegerl | first=Gabriele C. |author2=et al. | page=675}}</ref> This cooling, in turn, is expected to produce a relative ''increase'' in ozone ({{chem|O|3}}) depletion in polar area and the frequency of ozone holes.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20100116051422/http://earthwatch.unep.net/emergingissues/atmosphere/ozonedepletion.php Ozone depletion]. UNEP/DEWA/Earthwatch</ref> Conversely, ozone depletion represents a radiative forcing of the climate system.<ref name="wg1_223">{{cite web |url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/223.htm |title=Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis |pages=Chapter 6.4 Stratospheric Ozone |year=2001 |work=[[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] Work Group I}}</ref> of about −0.15 ± 0.10 [[watt]]s per square meter (W/m<sup>2</sup>).<ref name="spm_ozone">{{cite journal |title=IPCC/TEAP Special Report on Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons (summary for policy makers) |publisher= [[International Panel on Climate Change]] and Technology and Economic Assessment Panel |year=2005 |url=http://www.ipcc.ch/press/SPM.pdf |format=PDF |accessdate=2007-03-04 |archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20070221055911/http://www.ipcc.ch/press/SPM.pdf |archivedate = February 21, 2007}}</ref> |
||
⚫ | Government and industry in France and the UK tried to defend their CFC producing industries even after the Montreal Protocol had been signed.<ref name="ReferenceA">Grundmann, Reiner, ''Transnational Environmental Policy'', London: Routledge, ISBN 0-415-22423-3</ref> 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<ref name = RG/> and started supporting moves towards regulation. Germany as well, namely then secretary of the environment [[Angela Merkel]] prevented a possible failure of Kyoto. |
||
== Further reading == |
== Further reading == |
||
Line 54: | Line 66: | ||
* [[David L. Downie]] (2013) "Stratospheric Ozone Depletion". ''The Routledge Handbook of Global Environmental Politics''. New York: Routledge. |
* [[David L. Downie]] (2013) "Stratospheric Ozone Depletion". ''The Routledge Handbook of Global Environmental Politics''. New York: Routledge. |
||
*{{cite book |first=Reiner |last=Grundmann |title=Transnational Environmental Policy: Reconstructing Ozone |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=FYyVDlRhBvEC |year=2001 |publisher=Psychology Press |isbn=978-0-415-22423-9}} |
*{{cite book |first=Reiner |last=Grundmann |title=Transnational Environmental Policy: Reconstructing Ozone |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=FYyVDlRhBvEC |year=2001 |publisher=Psychology Press |isbn=978-0-415-22423-9}} |
||
*{{cite book |first=Alexander |last=Gillespie|title=Climate Change, Ozone Depletion And Air Pollution: Legal Commentaries Within The Context Of Science And Policy |publisher=BRILL|isbn=978-0-415-22423-9}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last=Litfin|first= Karen |title=Ozone discourses: Science and politics in global environmental cooperation |publisher=[[Columbia University Press]] |location=New York |year=1994 |isbn=0-231-08137-5 }} |
*{{cite book |last=Litfin|first= Karen |title=Ozone discourses: Science and politics in global environmental cooperation |publisher=[[Columbia University Press]] |location=New York |year=1994 |isbn=0-231-08137-5 }} |
||
Line 59: | Line 72: | ||
{{portal bar|Global warming|Environment|Ecology}} |
{{portal bar|Global warming|Environment|Ecology}} |
||
*{{dmoz|Science/Environment/Ozone_Layer|Ozone layer}} |
*{{dmoz|Science/Environment/Ozone_Layer|Ozone layer}} |
||
*[http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ozone-hole-and-gw-faq.html Is there a connection between the ozone hole and global warming?] [[Union of Concerned Scientists]] [[FAQ]] |
|||
*[http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/chronicle/home/archive/issues2009/toprotectsucceedinggenerations/pid/21570 UN Chronicle Unlayering of the Ozone: An Earth Sans Sunscreen] |
*[http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/chronicle/home/archive/issues2009/toprotectsucceedinggenerations/pid/21570 UN Chronicle Unlayering of the Ozone: An Earth Sans Sunscreen] |
||
*[http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/about/ozone.html NOAA/ESRL Ozone Depletion] |
*[http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/about/ozone.html NOAA/ESRL Ozone Depletion] |
Revision as of 05:47, 27 August 2014
Ozone depletion and global warming, as well Ozone hole and global warming and the lack or success of global regulation on these environmental challenges have been compared in various studies.
There are some parallels of both cases regarding the dealings with athmospherical chemistry and anthropogenic emissions and in the political regulation attempts. As the Montreal Protocol has been sucessfull and the Kyoto protokol failed, some efforts are being untertaken assess the reasons and to use synergies, e.g. with regard to data reporting and policy design and further exchanging of information.[1]
There is widespread scientific interested in allowing for better regulation of climate change, ozone depletion and air pollution as in general the human relationship with the biosphere is deemed of major historiographical and political significance.[2] Already 1994 just the legal debates about respective regulation regimes on climate change, ozone depletion and air pollution were being dubbed as "monumental" and a combined synopsis provided.[3]
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[4] climate change regulation attempts as for the Kyoto Protocol have failed.[5] 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 formal consensus in form of the Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 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.[6] 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.[7]
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.[8] 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[4] 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.[9]
The Montreal and Vienna conventions were installed long before a scientific consensus was established.[4] To the contrary, till the 1980ies EU, NASA, NAS, UNEP, WMO and the British government had issued further different scientific reports with dissenting conclusions.[4] 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.[4]
Different role of consensus
The IPCC attempts to orchestrate a global (climate) change research to shape a worldwide consensus.[10] 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.[4] Later on the consensus approach has been dubbed more a liability than an asset in comparision.[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.[12] 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.[5][11][13] 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.[14] It has become more important to provide a broader exploration of uncertainties.[14] Others see as well mixed blessings of the drive for consensus within the IPCC process and ask to include dissenting or minority positions[15] or to improve statements about uncertainties.[16][17]
Public Opinion
The two atmospheric problems have received significant levels of understanding in the public opinion.[13] This implies both the basic science and policy issues.[13] People have limited scientific knowledge about global warming and tend to confuse it [18]
or see it as a subset of the ozone hole.[19] Not only on the policy level, ozone regulation went much better than climate change. Americans voluntarily switched away from aerosol sprays before legislation was enforced, while climate change has failed in achieving a broader scientific comprehension and to raise comparable concern. [13] The metaphors used in the CFC discussion (ozone shield, ozone hole) reflected better with lay people and their concerns.[13] 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.[13] The ozone hole was much more seen as an "hot issue" and emminent risk compared to global climate change,[11] as lay people feared a depletion of the ozone layer (ozone shield) was risking to increase severe consequences such skin cancer, cataracts,[20] damage to plants, and reduction of plankton populations in the ocean's photic zone. This was not the case with global warming.[4]
Personal Risk assessment and knowledge
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/NASA_and_NOAA_Announce_Ozone_Hole_is_a_Double_Record_Breaker.png/220px-NASA_and_NOAA_Announce_Ozone_Hole_is_a_Double_Record_Breaker.png)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Atmosphere_layers-en.svg/170px-Atmosphere_layers-en.svg.png)
Sheldon Ungar, a Canadian sociologist, assumes that while the quantity of specialized knowledge is exploding, scientific ignorance of lay people in comparision is the norm and even increasing. The public opinion failed to tie Climate change to concrete events which could be used as a threashold or beacon to signify immediate danger.[13] Scientific predictions of an temperature rise of two to three degrees Celsius over several decades do not respond with people,e.g. in north America, that experience similar swings during a single day.[13] As Scientists define global warming a problem of the future, a liability in "attention economy", pessimistic outlooks in general and assigning extreme weather to climate change have often been discredited or ridiculed (compare Gore effect) in the public arena.[21] Even when James Hansen tried to use the 1988–89 North American drought as call to action, scientists kept claiming, in line with the IPCC findings claim that (even extreme) weather is not climate respectively.[13] While the greenhouse effect, per se, is essential for life on earth, the case was quite different with the Ozone hole and other metaphors about the ozone depletion. The scientific assessment of the Ozone problem had as well large uncertainities, both the ozone content or its depletion is rather complicated to measure and assess and the link between ozone depletion and rates of enhanced skin cancer rather weak. But the metaphors used in the discussion (ozone shield, ozone hole) reflected better with lay people and their concerns.
The idea of rays penetrating a damaged “shield” meshes nicely with abiding and resonant cultural motifs, including “Hollywood affinities.” These range from the shields on the Starship Enterprise to Star Wars, ... It is these pre-scientific bridging metaphors built around the penetration of a deteriorating shield that render the ozone problem relatively simple. That the ozone threat can be linked with Darth Vader means that it is encompassed in common sense understandings that are deeply ingrained and widely shared.[13]
— Sheldon Ungar
The CFC regulation attempts end of the 1980ies profited from those easy to grasp metaphers and the personal risk assumptions taken from them. As well the fate of celebrities like President Ronald Reagan, which had skin cancer removal from his nose in 1985 and 1987 was of high importance.[22] In case of the public opinion on climate change no emminent danger is perceived.[13]
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.[5] Daniel Magraw, as well a lawyer, considers governmental motivations besides relative costs and benefits as of being of higher importance.[5] 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.[5]
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.[23]
Government and industry in France and the UK tried to defend their CFC producing industries even after the Montreal Protocol had been signed.[9] 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[4] and started supporting moves towards regulation. Germany as well, namely then secretary of the environment Angela Merkel prevented a possible failure of Kyoto.[24] 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.[8]
Science 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)
There are various links between both fields of human -athmospheric interaction. Policy experts have advocated for a closer linking of ozone protection and climate protection efforts.[25][26]
Drew Shindell has used climate models to assess either climate change and ozone depletions. He claims that while recent research was more about the chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions impact on stratospheric ozone, the future will be more about the interaction between climate change and ozone feed back.[27] Ozone is a greenhouse gas itself. 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.[28] 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.[29] Already the natural ozone variability in the stratosphere seems to be closely correlated with the 11-year solar cycle irradiance changes and has, via a dynamical coupling between the stratosphere and troposphere, a significant impact on climate.[27]
As with carbon dioxide and methane, there are some natural sources of tropospheric chlorine, as e.g. sea spray. 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,[30] 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.[31]
The same CO
2 radiative forcing that produces global warming is expected to cool the stratosphere.[32] 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.[33] Conversely, ozone depletion represents a radiative forcing of the climate system.[34] of about −0.15 ± 0.10 watts per square meter (W/m2).[29]
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.
- Gillespie, Alexander. Climate Change, Ozone Depletion And Air Pollution: Legal Commentaries Within The Context Of Science And Policy. BRILL. 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
- Is there a connection between the ozone hole and global warming? Union of Concerned Scientists FAQ
- 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
- ^ International Environmental Agreements July 2001, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 357-377, Linkages between the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols – Enhancing Synergies between Protecting the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate, von Sebastian Oberthür
- ^ 2010, Review of Joachim Radkau, ISBN:978-0521616737, Joachim Radkaus Nature and Power: A Global History of the Environment reviews in history by David Christian 2010
- ^ Alexander Gillespie. Climate Change, Ozone Depletion And Air Pollution: Legal Commentaries Within The Context Of Science And Policy 1994
- ^ a b c d e f g h Reiner Grundmann 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
- ^ 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.
- ^ a b 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 Reiner Grundmann, 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 Resehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sertenarch”, 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
- ^ Climate Change: What Role for Sociology? A Response to Constance Lever-Tracy, Reiner Grundmann and Nico Stehr, doi: 10.1177/0011392110376031 Current Sociology November 2010 vol. 58 no. 6 897-910, see Lever Tracys paper in the same journal
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k [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 Cite error: The named reference "Ungar" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ 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.
- ^ Students' perceptions of global warming International Journal of Environmental Studies, Volume 42, Issue 4, 1992, DOI:10.1080/00207239208710804, Edward Boyesa & Martin Stanisstreeta pages 287-300
- ^ Compare Sheldon Ungar, 2000 and variuos web sites as Gavin Schmidts realclimate complaint in depletion and global warming 2005 or the UCS FAQ on the topic
- ^ 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. - ^ Sheldon Ungar Climatic Change February 1999, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 133-150 Is Strange Weather in the Air? A Study of U.S. National Network News Coverage of Extreme Weather Events
- ^ Ungar (2000) compares the similar important role of Rock Hudson and Magic Johnson for the public perception of AIDS
- ^ 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
- ^ 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 Solar Cycle Variability, Ozone, and Climate, Drew Shindell et al, Solar Cycle Variability, Ozone, and Climate (Science, vol. 284. no. 5412, pp. 305 - 308, 9 April 1999)
- ^ 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
- ^ 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) - ^ 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
- ^ 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.
]