On the occasion of the International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer: What would have happened if the world had not adopted the Montreal Protocol in the nineties and limited the use of substances that damage the ozone?
Dr. Daniel Mader, Angle - news agency for science and the environment
In the 3s and XNUMXs, the most prominent scientific-environmental trend was the preoccupation with ozone, and more specifically with the "ozone hole", which hovers somewhere over Antarctica. In recent years, on the other hand, we hardly hear anymore about the ozone and the holes in it. For those who forgot (or for those who were born after the ozone talk went out of fashion), ozone is a gas that consists of three atoms of oxygen (OXNUMX). This gas exists as a layer in the stratosphere (part of the atmosphere), which absorbs a significant portion of the ultraviolet (UV-B) radiation from the sun. This radiation causes damage to living tissues (sunburn) and even causes damage to the genetic material in the body's cells, which may lead to the appearance of cancer, deformities, and in high doses even death.
The presence of ozone in the last hundreds of millions of years enabled the development of life on Earth as we know it today. In the 70s, several researchers, including Frank Roland, Mario Molina and Paul Krutzen, discovered that the ozone layer is vulnerable to gases that are used by humans. Gases of the type chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), rise to the height of the ozone layer, where the chlorine that breaks down from them destroys the ozone. The researchers realized that the increasing use of these gases (and later also other substances) causes the destruction of the ozone layer, increases the risk of skin cancer, damage to agricultural crops and more.
The damage to the ozone layer was documented by measurements from the ground and satellites. These discoveries eventually led to international actions that culminated in the Montreal Protocol signed in 1987. In this convention, which Israel ratified in 1992, it was agreed to gradually phase out all substances that harm the ozone layer - mainly gases that emit chlorine and bromine, such as refrigerant gases in refrigerators and air conditioners, and inert gases in sprays. In 1995 Roland, Molina and Krutzen won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their research in the field of ozone.
Anti-science campaign
This change was not simple or quick, and of course we encountered strong resistance on behalf of the companies that produced CFCs and other substances that harm the ozone. These companies, led by the American company DuPont, started a media and political campaign, the purpose of which was to prevent the promotion of decisions against the use or production of those materials. The companies claimed that the science showing that CFCs damage the ozone is science fiction, nonsense and self-interested garbage. Sound familiar to you? Rightly so, the same anti-scientific campaigns were also carried out by representatives of the oil and coal industry when it was discovered that lead in fuel was harmful to the environment and health. The heads of the tobacco industry also banded together against science when smoking was shown to be harmful to health, and the food and agriculture industry criticized scientists when excess sugar was shown to be harmful to health. Today, of course, a similar campaign is being waged by the fossil fuel industry and its affiliates against the scientific consensus regarding human responsibility for climate change.
Israel had ambivalent feelings about the Montreal Protocol, mainly due to the extensive bromine industry that operates in the country. The bromine emitted from the multitude of products produced in the Dead Sea factories is also harmful to the ozone (and also very unhealthy for people, but that's another story) and there is no doubt that the decrease in the use of bromine had a negative economic impact on the Dead Sea factories. However, the economic mechanisms that accompanied the protocol helped countries and companies that depended on these substances and facilitated the cessation of their use.
The issue of the ozone layer has been pushed to the margins in the last decade - but this happened for good reasons: the Montreal Protocol met its goals, so there is not much point in dealing with this issue. Due to the time it took for the restrictions on the production and use of ozone-depleting substances to come into effect, and the time it takes for those ozone-damaging substances to rise to the stratosphere and decompose there - the peak of the ozone hole over Antarctica was recorded in September 2006. Since then, there has been a decrease in damage to the ozone layer, and an improvement in the condition of the ozone layer.
symbolic and practical importance
Until today, the studies predicted that the hole in the ozone above Antarctica is expected to close around the year 2050. However, a new study shows that already today it is possible to talk about impressive achievements faster than expected in the field. The international team of researchers used a 40D chemical-atmospheric movement model and showed that thanks to the protocol a greater destruction of ozone was avoided than expected: without the protocol, a large hole in the ozone would have appeared over the North Pole and the ozone layer would have been depleted by two times in the Northern Hemisphere - over North America, Asia and Europe. The hole in the ozone over Antarctica would have increased by XNUMX percent and a significant decrease in ozone levels over Australia and South America would have been observed.
The Montreal Protocol has clear symbolic and practical importance: it is the first international agreement that dealt with a worldwide environmental issue, in which scientists from a variety of fields (chemistry, atmosphere, environment, etc.) presented their discoveries directly to the international team that discussed the issue. This is the first agreement signed by most of the countries of the world, which led to an agreement to change human activity to protect the world from it. This is the first agreement in which an economic plan was built to support countries that relied on the production or use of "forbidden" substances, and funds were invested in finding alternatives to those gases and substances that harm the ozone.
The success of the Montreal Protocol in dealing with the ozone layer should teach us that we must work towards making brave decisions in the field of climate change, both at the international and local levels.
To read the original study in the journal Nature Communications, click here.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
6 תגובות
דניאל
We would be happy to receive a reliable link to the serious claims you make.
And if there isn't - then an apology...
And another note to Daniel
Freon gas has been shown to break down ozone due to ozone's weak chemical bonds and the combination of the two creates a substance with better chemical stability
Where is the nonsense you write from?
Daniel, you are just an amazing person...
Don't you see the hole is getting smaller? If you make such claims why don't you attach a link to your lies?
You are just like the people who say that the attack on the Twin Towers was planned by the Jews or the United States itself….
Incorrect things were said in the article. Indeed du-pont was right and refrigerant gas did not really destroy the ozone layer. In those years, there was intense competition between refrigerator companies and the competitors hired fictitious scientists who produced false studies, who eventually managed to convince the US and the rest of the world that refrigerator gas is harmful. It's just like Thomas Edison trying to convince people that alternating current is more dangerous even though the opposite is true. The du-pont company lost, but in retrospect the fraud was discovered. It is delusional to me that the writer of the article does not know basic facts regarding the article. When I was a child in the 80's my parents also told me about the destruction of the ozone by refrigerators but since 30 years have passed, the scam was discovered a long time ago and it is surprising how few people today know this scam.
The comparison of the author of the article with the oil companies is delusional, since it can be thought that, like du-pont, the oil companies are victims of a group of fictitious scientists funded by competing industries who spread false rumors about global warming
The world is divided in two
To courtiers who think of nothing but the good life
And for those who really care
The problem is that the pigs are the ones who have more money and more influence
Therefore, every such victory is an important victory
The nearest victory is the destruction of the vehicle with an internal combustion engine
It's amazing what people can do for the benefit of humanity itself.
The people can indeed change big things, even very big things.
I wish we could learn from the Montreal Protocol in dealing with the ozone layer on how to build and create a good future for all humanity.