Why have we made greater progress on the ozone layer than on global warming?

Question

THIS IS 4 a homework asigment

Answer 1

Because:

It costs a lot less to deal with chlorofluorocarbons, which is what destroys the ozone.  They're only used in limited things.  While CO2 is made by most every vehicle and most power plants.

The chlorofluorocarbon industry accepted the science, and cooperated.  While mush of the the fossil fuel industry is fighting, tooth and nail.  Some even deny it's a problem.

Answer 2

The hole in the ozone over Antarctica was 1st reported in 1985.  How many 1000’s of years it has been there, nobody knows.  It opens and closes every year in spring (September though December) and has not changed significantly in size from 1997 to 2007.  The entire topic of ozone depletion is a projection of what might account for the presence of the hole.  So in reality, nothing has changed.  In my opinion, because man had nothing to do with the ozone hole in the 1st place.  Did I mention we have no idea how long it has been there?

Global warming is a complete fabrication of Algore and his drones.  Modeled after the global cooling and ozone depletion stories.  Change a couple of words and use the same information to scare money out of people and cause them to do silly things.

The short answer to your question is all the money has been wrung out of the ozone depletion story.  All the money has not yet been wrung out of the global warming story.  Although, using the same tactic of changing a few words and the same information, global warming is becoming climate change to cover the fact that none of the global warming projections have come true.

An honest answer instead of the what is posted over and over.  Always one after the other, always together.  Hey, maybe they are all the same person?

Answer 3

The ozone layer is a highly reactive layer of gas in the stratosphere that absorbs ultraviolet radiation from the sun before it reaches the Earth. Too much UV radiation kills some things (microbial scale) and can cause cellular mutations leading to cancer in people exposed to high amounts.The ozone problem has been know a little longer.  CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) in the stratosphere (above the clouds and weather) use ozone in a chemical process, depleting the concentration in the stratosphere. Stopping the depletion is relatively easy  - stop using CFC's .  I think the treaty is called the Montreal protocol (Google it).

Global warming is much more complex and the solutions are not nearly as straight forward.  CO2 is a natural byproduct from many processes (decay, respiration, combustion, volcanic activity for example).  We have to make changes in th e fuels we use, the way we use fuels, the way we farm and use the landscape, for example.  Some of the changes require cultural changes that a society has to do as a whole.  These changes occur slowly over time.  Some are technological changes.  Technology is great, but working out the bugs (finding the bugs) can take time and it has to be accepted and acceptable to society (fit with in the culture).  Changes of this type always causes some economic hardship on somebody.  Figuring out how to share the burden imposed by any "forced" change is very difficult. The treaty to limit CO2 emissions is the Kyoto Protocol.  The US is the only developed country that has not ratified it I think.  

Although there is a "treaty" to combat global warming, it is not nearly as easy to to as stopping the use of CFCs.  It does not include some very large developing countries that have a lot of emissions (China, India, and Mexico for example).  Also, it has been very hard for some of the developed countries to meet the targets - think some have missed them.  I think is has no or weak enforcement mechanisms, but I'm not sure.

Answer 4

Well, I'd start by doing research on a couple of items.  The first would be the Mount Pinatubo eruption of 1991.  It was the largest volcanic eruption of the last century.  It did more damage to the ozone layer than all the CFC's we were banning had ever done.   It healed itself in just a few years.   So this puts into question.  Did banning CFC's "make progress" on the ozone layer or would it have improved without our intervention.

The next thing I'd research is recent reports from the United Nations Climate scientist.  Where they stated that the earth had cooled for the last 4 years and will continue to cool for the next decade.  They say this is temporary and the result of "natural" climate variations.  I say it is the result of all our efforts to reduce global warming and is in fact evidence that our efforts to reduce global warming are making progress.

It is no more logically inconsistent to argue that ozone improvements were the result of naturally occuring events and not the result of our efforts.    And that lower mean earth temperatures are not a naturally occuring event but the result of our efforts to reduce global warming.  As it would be to argue that ozone improvements were the result of our efforts and lower earth temperatures are the result of natural events.

Good luck

Answer 5

The United States took a leadership role, being the first and greatest contributor of CFS to ban them, with the 1976 Toxic Control Act.  It still took international debate, but the Montreal Protocols were finally agreed to in 1987 to protect the Ozone layer.

Now, the U.S. is being a dragger rather than a leader.  This is due to some combination of the greater costs to reduce greenhouse gasses, the rapid development of heavily populated China and India, the current Administrations lesser concerns with the planet's future or the current Administrations lesser ability/willingness to lead the world.  It is not due to a lack of knowledge as the Administration and specifically the President have stated that GW is real, man-caused, and a major concern.  (The President claims it is because of China and India -- that since they will soon be the greatest contributors and the US merely third those countries should agree to restrictions first.  This Administration is not willing to unilaterally cut emissions for the good of the world whereas past American leadership was so willing.)

Answer 6

essentially... its the same thing, global warming is caused by greenhouse gases, natural gases etc... things that burn through the ozone,  destroying protection from u.v light and other gases that cause damage to the environment causing global warming... protect the ozone, and its a major leap at preventing "global warming."

im no scientist

but over the years of schooling... thats my accumulated knowledge

but watch out

environmental classes will blow things out of true proportion.. at least mine have