h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The link between these two issues is I think of interest.

Firstly on the scientific level - I have never heard a clear explanation of hwo these two phenomena fit together - at one level certainly a lot of the compounds that were put in place by industry as replacements for CFCs are now facing restrictions because of their high global warming potential. I believe there is some kind of interaction at the climate level, but that it is not particularly clear.

The other link is why was the international community able to take action relatively quickly on the issue of ozone depletion in the shape of the Montreal Protocol, but it has proved so difficult to get a workable consensus on climate change? Is the science so much less clear or more cynically is it that depletion of the ozone layer had the potential to affect rich places such as the US and Australia whereas climate change is likely to have most impact on countries such as Bangladesh?

In fact the Montreal Protocol is one of the few multilateral environmental agreements that has really had an impact - I suppose CITES (trade in endangered species) has had an impact on some endangered animals, but for most of the others the jury is firmly out.

The ozone layer issue is also a good example of consumer power in action - so much so that years since CFCs were banned from deodorants, you can still see deodorants with 'CFC free' written on them...

Sprout

Well the damage that CFCs have done to the environment is a pretty unique case in the history of environmental science - the evidence for the presence of a hole in the ozone is completly solid, like-wise the evidence for what caused it.

The relative concentrations of ozone can be measured using satellites all around the globe, and records cleary show the massive reduction in these concetrations that occur every arctic spring.

The actual chemistry going on is outlined in the entry found by clicking on the header to the "The Hole in the Ozone Layer" section, an entry I am once again working on, so watch this space for more explanations

the 70s were of course a great decade for environmental awareness - if we had the same public awareness of environmental issues now as we did then, ideas like the Kyoto protocol would have far less trouble passing through government ratification procedures....

..Sadly, it often feels these days that many people look at environmental issues as yesterdays problems, sort of "oh yes, the environment, we got real concerned for that in the 70s and early 80s didnt we, so we took some steps, and hey look, we havent died from radiation burn or drowned from melting polar icecaps after all have we? Screw it."

Yep

Feels like sometimes people can no longer relate to the idea that just because something might not happen this generation, we still might need to do something about it starting now.

Not a good period to be green at the moment.

Having said, part of why the environment might not engender so much enthusiasm these days is because it has become very mainstreamed in a lot of governments and businesses. I think that had to happen and that we will see positive results as it spreads.

I don't always have the patience to wait though.

sprout

Sure its been mainstreamed, in a sort of pay-the-environment-lip-service-and-that-way-the-real-issues-can-be-completely-avoided-as-the-public-sees-the-lip-service-and-thinks-oh-look-we-dont-have-to-worry-someone-else-is way...

Damn, I a starting to sound pretty cynical...