Report: Ozone Layer Shows Signs Of Recovery

earth-screensaver_largeYes, we actually have some good news to report about the environment. The United Nations has issued a report with NASA photos showing that the giant hole in Earth’s ozone layer is shrinking. The ozone layer protects us from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays and was being destroyed by the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Over vehement objections from industry that curtailing CFCs would destroy the economy, new laws forced the use of substitutes and the result has been predictable and encouraging.

Industry fought to stop the ban on CFCs for decades even though scientists linked CFCs to the ozone depletion in the 1970s. In 1987, the world reached a phase out agreement as part of the Montreal Protocol. Industry and various politicians denounced the agreement as a disaster for the economy and jobs. Instead, it quickly forced the creation of alternatives, which are now in wide use.

Here is the result:


It is not done however. It will take until 2050 for the ozone layer in the mid-latitudes to return to relatively healthy 1980s conditions. Around the Antarctic, where the ozone layer is the most damaged, it will take until 2075. However, humans actually made a sacrifice and produced a beneficial result for their planet. Now that is worth celebrating.

Source: Washington Post

142 thoughts on “Report: Ozone Layer Shows Signs Of Recovery”

  1. In Burlington, VT, 100 Percent of Electricity Generated by Renewables

    Burlington’s population is 42,000, which may be a record for 100 percent renewable power, according to Diane Moss, the founding director of the Southern California-based Renewables 100 Policy Institute. She considers this month’s landmark an encouraging sign for the future.

    1. My wife sent me the info on Burlington, VT’s effort earlier. Good news.

      On another note I grew up in an area that gave 100% of our power from a Public Utility District, (Hydro power) Electricity was so cheap they billed every two months. Few people want natural gas for their homes.

  2. Peter Gleik via Twitter

    California hasn’t just been dry, temperatures have broken all previous records (YTD).

    1. When looking at the trend line in the California Average Temperature graph from the NOAA, The trend line is quite clear from 1950 to the present. It is increasing steadily. Have some Wall Street technical analyst look at the graph as if it were an investment and they would come to the same conclusion.

    2. Max-1 – Phoenix set a record for the amount of rainfall in a single day. California has droughts. Southern California is a desert climate.

  3. What Is Climate Change?

    What is climate change? On historic maps, we see climate change in the advance and retreat of glaciers, the transitory nature of coastlines, and the periodic appearance and drowning of islands. Species change in response to it. Scientists have learned to measure these climate fluctuations using treetrunk rings, snow lines, fossil records, and cores of ancient ice or seabed. Satellites measuring GHGsIn the past 50 years, we have even devised sophisticated satellite instruments to reveal changes in earth’s land, air, water, and ice, or in the sun and the energy it puts out.

  4. Thousands of fracking wells in Pennsylvania ‘may be leaking methane’

    The study by Mary Kang, a Princeton University scientist, looked at 19 wells and found that these oft-forgotten wells are leaking various amounts of methane. There are hundreds of thousands of such oil and gas wells, long abandoned and plugged, in Pennsylvania alone, and countless more in oil and gas fields across the country. These wells go mostly unmonitored, and rarely, if ever, checked for such leaks.

    A growing list of studies conducted over the past three years has suggested that crude oil and natural gas development, particularly in shale formations, are significant sources of methane leaks — emissions not fully included in US Environmental Protection Agency greenhouse gas inventories because they are rarely monitored. Scientists say there is inadequate data available for them to know where all the leaks are and how much methane is leaking.

    Methane is about 34 times as potent as a climate change-fueling greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over a span of 100 years. Over 20 years, it’s 86 times more potent. Of all the greenhouse gases emitted by humans worldwide, methane contributes more than 40 percent of all radiative forcing, a measure of trapped heat in the atmosphere and a measuring stick of a changing climate.

    1. Max-1, I edited the comment you made at 12:37 of the Tweet from Simon Evans so that the system would accept it.

  5. Besides the difference falls within a few hundredths of a degree compared with other Augusts.

    AND…….. Climate is not made up of a month but years
    AND……….With all this hottest on record is suppose to come with

    More Frequent and stronger Hurricanes, ain’t happening
    More stronger and violent tornadoes, ain’t happening
    More Typhoons, ain’t happening
    More Extreme Droughts, ain’t happening
    More Extreme Floods. ain’t happening
    More Extreme Fires ain’t happening

    Plus more ain’t happening stuff and as always over the long term trend

  6. Joe Blow
    HOTTEST since record keeping began in 1880..,
    … That’s 135 years to your year 1940.

    Again, stymied by facts…

  7. Paul C Shute said:-

    You do not think the same owners of solar, wind and nuclear are trying to get in your pocket?

    So what if they are? They are then no worse than the Koch brothers and Esso who are definitely picking everyone’s pocket. Renewable energy is not yet competitive with fossil fuels on price. People who put solar panels on their roofs or buy a proportion of the electricity from green sources are doing so for reasons other than economics, they hope that the increased demand for renewables that they create by doing so will spur research, innovation and increased performance to price ratio. The same motivation is at least part of why governments subsidize solar voltaics. Solar voltaics are an outgrowth of the semiconductor industry and we have seen how the performance to price ratio of computers has increased by many orders of magnitude since semiconductors were first used in them in the sixties. The solar voltaic industry probably has a couple of orders of magnitude potential improvements up its sleeve and that will be enough to kill off coal. Oil is another matter. Hydrocarbon fuels provide the only things that are easily transported, easily loaded into a vehicle and are cheap enough and energy dense enough for 90% of the worlds transportation needs.

    1. Care – I would say they were no better than the Gore and his band of hi-jackers.

  8. Max-1 said.

    Why would anyone sell out mankind or their mother for that matter, over what is gained by making things worse for everyone and every living thing.

    Max-1, you underestimate how difficult it is for a human to accept as fact something that logically requires them to stop doing something that is increasing their wealth. Owners of fossil fuels don’t want to stop mining or drilling for them until the last kilo of coal and the last litre of oil has been burnt.
    Any effective action against climate change will decrease demand for fossil fuels and decrease the value of reserves. Actually I think some of the fossil fuel owners are in near panic, they must stop the solar voltaic industry now lest further likely decreases in cost render solar competitive with fossil fuels.

    Some of the owners of greenhouse gas creating businesses may accept the reality of climate change on the belief that even if 99% of the world becomes uninhabitable their wealth will buy them access to the remaining 1% and they do not care if 99% of the human race is wiped out and would in fact consider such a good outcome as 99% of the human race are not capable of gaining wealth by financial manipulation and humans will be pushed out from even high level professional jobs as advances in technology will create machines capable of performing alll jobs once done by humans.

    1. Carlyle – you do not think the same owners of solar, wind and nuclear are trying to get in your pocket? You do not think they are doing their damndest to make a profit at your expense? You do not think they are working their legislators trying to get favorable legislation?

  9. Darren wrote:-

    I was telling my wife yesterday of a simple gauge for determining what action to take with regard to climate change.

    Three Choices:

    a) Act according to Green principles
    b) Status Quo
    c) Pollute more.

    From the position that pollution does not matter:

    a — Neutral damage done since green policy used (only out money)
    b — Neutral
    c — Neutral less cost, (money costs in short term)

    That is the best outcome, if pollution does not matter, the outcome is 2 for neutral cost/damage but costly in terms of dollars

    Now look at from the position that pollution is damaging

    a — Green policy helps reverse or stop the damage
    b — status quo is damaging in itself to the climate change
    c — More pollution is much more damaging.

    Under this position, 2 are damaging one is beneficial.

    I conclude that in terms of the environment the damaging vs not damaging is that damaging only saves money but risks a 2/3 chance of further damage. As far as the environment is concerned there is no risk other than money by using green policies with an upside to doing so will be beneficial. The downside is environmental damage at worst and neutral at best.

    Another thing about money. Since almost all currencies are fiats, the value of currency can change rapidly according to market conditions. Investments and values can be increased by other means such as diversification or vast other ways of mitigating costs.

    If the environment falls down to nothing, well nothing matters, especially money.

    Your 1:48 AM comment is irrelevant since it ignores the important issue of the dirty stinking hippies. Morality requires decent right wing old testament Christians to punch any dirty stinking hippy upon whom he/she comes hard in the face on principle. Thus if Greenies who of course are all dirty stinking hippies pretending to be respectable advocate action to ameliorate damaging climate change it is the duty of all principled right wingers to oppose doing anything about climate change to spite the dirty hippies.

    Now if in the future unacceptable climate change becomes so obvious that even Esso and the Koch brothers can’t deny it all right wingers will point to the dirty hippies and blame them for forcing the right wingers to oppose taking action.

    The answer to this is for people who believe climate change is real and human caused to alter course and vociferously advocate doing nothing. Of course to prevent the right wingers mistaking the hippies for other like minded right wingers it is necessary to make it clear in every message that it comes from a dirty stinking hippie, the kind of secular humanist who thinks inequality in wealth is unjust, that freedom from religion is as important as freedom of religion and that women are entitled to abortions if the want them.

    1. Carlyle – your comment subsumes there are still dirty stinking hippies around. Those dirty stinking hippies are retired now and the hippie wannabes are running the show, mostly from the ivory towers of academia where they suck at the public teat while condemning those who work for themselves.

Comments are closed.