Protecting Ozone Layer Also Slowed Global Warming

[Ishbir 0]

Global warming would be substantially worse right now if not for an international agreement in the 1980s that banned the use of ozone-destroying chemicals, a new study finds.
Nations around the world signed the Montreal Protocol in 1987 to control the production and use of substances that deplete the ozone layer, which shields the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation.

While these chemicals, such as chlorofluorocarbons (formerly used in air conditioners), eat up ozone, they also act as greenhouse gases.

By curbing their use, the pact has also cut in half the amount of greenhouse warming that would have occurred by 2010 had these substances continued to build unabated in Earth's atmosphere, according to the study published in the this week's online issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The amount of warming that was avoided is equivalent to 7 to12 years of an increase in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.

"The participants in the Montreal Protocol have done something very good for our climate," says study author and NOAA scientist David Fahey. "While addressing ozone depletion, they also provided an early start on slowing climate change."

The quantity of greenhouse gas curbed by the Montreal Protocol is equivalent to five times the reduction target for the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol, a 2005 international agreement to address climate change, according to Fahey and his colleagues. The United States did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

[Rid 0]

While I agree with protecting the Ozone layer due to its obvious good uses, you have to take time to think about Global Warming, because most people simply do not.Fifty years of human pollution is the equivalent of a single volcanic eruption. Eight volcanoes erupt every year. Just thinking about this alone, how do we contribute to global warming when we produce 1/400th of the amount of greenhouse gas that mother nature produces? The second biggest source of greenhouse gas is domestic animals used for food, still going far beyond what humans produce with factories and cars. Should we slaughter all the livestock and become vegans?The comment on the USA not ratifying Kyoto is laughable. Despite the fact that they did not ratify, the USA has so far led the world in decreasing its greenhouse gas output. Canada, which is considered one of the cleanest nations in the world, is near last, with its greenhouse gas emissions rising over the past few years at a fairly dramatic rate.The question is, what is the difference between the USA, which has not ratified, and Canada, which has ratified? Simple. The USA has pushed for clean technologies which help the economy. By helping the economy, it spurred research and development into making cleaner air. Canada, on the other hand, simply placed in a great deal of restrictions on businesses, harming the economy and possible economic solutions for the greenhouse gas problem. Thus, you have the USA succeeding, and Canada, with most other nations which have ratified Kyoto, failing.