Yeah! Something with the environment actually showing signs of improvement (1 Viewer)

[Galileo]

The Antarctic Ozone hole seems to be on the mend

 

[snore]

Cool stuff.  

 

[Ilov80s]

The Antarctic Ozone hole seems to be on the mend

Ozone and the acid rain are the two things we have improved. We did so with lots of environmental legislation which seems unlikely to happen to our more recent environmental problems. Also, we have some geniuses in congress that want to scale back ozone regulations.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Ozone and the acid rain are the two things we have improved. OWe did so with lots of environmental legislation which seems unlikely to happen to our more recent environmental problems. Also, we have some geniuses in congress that want to scale back ozone regulations.

How do these ####ing ###clowns keep getting elected?

 

[Ignoramus]

How do these ####ing ###clowns keep getting elected?

$$$

 

[Psychopav]

How do these ####ing ###clowns keep getting elected?

Because prior don't vote on a single issue and politicians are required to run on platforms created by the business of politics to generate the highest success rate - right, wrong, common sense doesn't play into it.

Your question sounds similar to why would the grocery stores put that unhealthy food on the shelves? Because research has shown that that's how they earn the highest profits.

Unfortunately, politicians on the right side of this issue also happen to be the ### clowns who don't want to control our own borders, or keep killing babies, or ram through a complete overhaul of our healthcare system without a public discussion about it.

So here we are...Hillary or Trump...

 

[Ilov80s]

Because prior don't vote on a single issue and politicians are required to run on platforms created by the business of politics to generate the highest success rate - right, wrong, common sense doesn't play into it.

Your question sounds similar to why would the grocery stores put that unhealthy food on the shelves? Because research has shown that that's how they earn the highest profits.

Unfortunately, politicians on the right side of this issue also happen to be the ### clowns who don't want to control our own borders, or keep killing babies, or ram through a complete overhaul of our healthcare system without a public discussion about it.

So here we are...Hillary or Trump...

I wonder if instead of just general  legislators we should elect legislators for single issue committees. Environmental representatives, education representatives, etc. 

 

[bueno]

Just don't expect it to ever completely heal. There are natural causes for the hole - we just made it bigger.

 

[The General]

Another example of government working. Good work government dudes.

 

[Insein]

Way to fix that OZone guys. Job well done. Not exactly sure how we did it but just keep throwing more money at it cause it's working despite global pollution being at its highest total in recorded human history.  But yea good work raising taxes to repair that OZone hole. 

https://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8

 

[joffer]

Because prior don't vote on a single issue and politicians are required to run on platforms created by the business of politics to generate the highest success rate - right, wrong, common sense doesn't play into it.

Your question sounds similar to why would the grocery stores put that unhealthy food on the shelves? Because research has shown that that's how they earn the highest profits.

Unfortunately, politicians on the right side of this issue also happen to be the ### clowns who don't want to control our own borders, or keep killing babies, or ram through a complete overhaul of our healthcare system without a public discussion about it.

So here we are...Hillary or Trump...

 

[bueno]

I have to say though that the Ozone hole is not the only thing that has improved in the past 50 years. In spite of increased CO2 emissions, the air is generally healthier compared to the sixties, rivers are cleaner, etc.

 

[Prince Myshkin]

Way to fix that OZone guys. Job well done. Not exactly sure how we did it but just keep throwing more money at it cause it's working despite global pollution being at its highest total in recorded human history.  But yea good work raising taxes to repair that OZone hole. 

https://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8

Yeah, because ozone (O3) and carbon dioxide (CO2) are the same thing...

 

[Joe T]

I have to say though that the Ozone hole is not the only thing that has improved in the past 50 years. In spite of increased CO2 emissions, the air is generally healthier compared to the sixties, rivers are cleaner, etc.

What about the trees? We don't hear much about reduction in forests and all that anymore.

 

[Galileo]

What about the trees? We don't hear much about reduction in forests and all that anymore.

rate of deforestation has decreased by more than 50%  http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/326911/icode/ 

 

[ShamrockPride]

I have to say though that the Ozone hole is not the only thing that has improved in the past 50 years. In spite of increased CO2 emissions, the air is generally healthier compared to the sixties, rivers are cleaner, etc.

Widespread fracking and monthly oil spills/leaks make me tend to disagree, or at best say they are on par with each other.

*Also edit to add radioactive seafood and oceans. Thanks Japan.

 

[msommer]

rate of deforestation has decreased by more than 50%  http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/326911/icode/ 

Which means that the forests are still diminishing. Let's not forget that

 

[rockaction]

I wonder if instead of just general  legislators we should elect legislators for single issue committees. Environmental representatives, education representatives, etc. 

We already have those. They're called the executive branch, and it's caused tons of problems for our democracy. The general regulations promulgated by Congress are shipped over to the executive for enforcement by experts. They're appointees, and supposedly the same type of experts you'd get in the general legislature. All the gen. does is set the level; it's up to the executive to set the mode and method of enforcement.  

Tl;dr

I don't like your idea; it further destroys any notion of federalism or constitutionalism.  

 

[Ilov80s]

We already have those. They're called the executive branch, and it's caused tons of problems for our democracy. The general regulations promulgated by Congress are shipped over to the executive for enforcement by experts. They're appointees, and supposedly the same type of experts you'd get in the general legislature. All the gen. does is set the level; it's up to the executive to set the mode and method of enforcement.  

Tl;dr

I don't like your idea; it further destroys any notion of federalism or constitutionalism.  

We vote for 1 executive. That's not remotely close to what I am taking about.

 

[rockaction]

We vote for 1 executive. That's not remotely close to what I am taking about.

I know. It's just that the result would be have the same spirit of what the executive was designed to do since Roscoe Pound and others wanted to bureaucratize the executive into lawmakers. If you're looking to limiting it to Congress, we also have subcommittees to deal with these things. Now, I'll grant that appointments are based on seniority and patronage, but it seems to be a pretty good check. 

I don't mean to be terse. It just strikes me that the mechanism of electing "experts" already has its checks and balances both structurally between branches and also electorally with the populace.  

 

[Ilov80s]

I know. It's just that the result would be have the same spirit of what the executive was designed to do since Roscoe Pound and others wanted to bureaucratize the executive into lawmakers. If you're looking to limiting it to Congress, we also have subcommittees to deal with these things. Now, I'll grant that appointments are based on seniority and patronage, but it seems to be a pretty good check. 

I don't mean to be terse. It just strikes me that the mechanism of electing "experts" already has its checks and balances both structurally between branches and also electorally with the populace.  

I always enjoy your posts and can't respond appropriately because I'm drinking on a boat. (USA! USA!) Perhaps later I I'll since I find it an interesting topic. 

 

[jonessed]

I have to say though that the Ozone hole is not the only thing that has improved in the past 50 years. In spite of increased CO2 emissions, the air is generally healthier compared to the sixties, rivers are cleaner, etc.

Except in China.

 

[joffer]

Except in China.

gawd I was there a month ago.  I think most Americans have no idea.  There are days when you literally can't go outside.

 

[rockaction]

I always enjoy your posts and can't respond appropriately because I'm drinking on a boat. (USA! USA!) Perhaps later I I'll since I find it an interesting topic. 

Heh. Be sure to sing Lonely Island's song.  

Hey -- I'd like to be on a boat, come to think of it. Enjoy!  

 

[bueno]

Widespread fracking and monthly oil spills/leaks make me tend to disagree, or at best say they are on par with each other.

*Also edit to add radioactive seafood and oceans. Thanks Japan.

Didn't say everything had improved, but kept focusing on negativity. It will likely shorten your life.

 

[bueno]

Except in China.

China has gotten much worse.

 

[The General]

Way to fix that OZone guys. Job well done. Not exactly sure how we did it but just keep throwing more money at it cause it's working despite global pollution being at its highest total in recorded human history.  But yea good work raising taxes to repair that OZone hole. 

https://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8

What is your solution. Let the "free market" figure it out? Without government stepping in we'd have #### air, water. 

 

[Insein]

What is your solution. Let the "free market" figure it out? Without government stepping in we'd have #### air, water. 

If you want to have laws to punish companies that pollute our air and fresh water then do that and tell the people that's our goal. I'll be onboard with that.

Don't try to pretend this fixed the ozone hole in a little over a decade. Legislators are trying to push for a bigger slice of pie for something they literally had zero affect on.

We didn't create the ozone hole and we didn't repair it. Did our wasteful existence contribute a small amount to the issue? Probably. Much like a single rain storm could contribute water to an ocean.

 

[bueno]

What is your solution. Let the "free market" figure it out? Without government stepping in we'd have #### air, water. 

I think this is one example of how the phrase "promote the general welfare" could be interpreted. The problem we run into is that we end up with phonies and demagogues like Gore trying to convince people they have all the answers in spite of scientific evidence.

 

[Ilov80s]

Heh. Be sure to sing Lonely Island's song.  

Hey -- I'd like to be on a boat, come to think of it. Enjoy!  

Have a great weekend. You are a good dude.

 

[The General]

If you want to have laws to punish companies that pollute our air and fresh water then do that and tell the people that's our goal. I'll be onboard with that.

Don't try to pretend this fixed the ozone hole in a little over a decade. Legislators are trying to push for a bigger slice of pie for something they literally had zero affect on.

We didn't create the ozone hole and we didn't repair it. Did our wasteful existence contribute a small amount to the issue? Probably. Much like a single rain storm could contribute water to an ocean.

I was under the impression that the ban on CFCs had a big part in this.

Regardless, I'll trust the government in this regard over business pretty much every time. 

 

[Sand]

Just don't expect it to ever completely heal. There are natural causes for the hole - we just made it bigger.

Very true - a holes never truly disappear.

 

[captain_amazing]

If you want to have laws to punish companies that pollute our air and fresh water then do that and tell the people that's our goal. I'll be onboard with that.

Don't try to pretend this fixed the ozone hole in a little over a decade. Legislators are trying to push for a bigger slice of pie for something they literally had zero affect on.

We didn't create the ozone hole and we didn't repair it. Did our wasteful existence contribute a small amount to the issue? Probably. Much like a single rain storm could contribute water to an ocean.

Can you point to any authoritative source that suggests the depletion of the ozone layer in the 20th century was a result of factors that were more significant than those attributed to humans?  Honestly just curious, as, unlike climate change, I've never hear this disputed to any extent.

 

[Insein]

Can you point to any authoritative source that suggests the depletion of the ozone layer in the 20th century was a result of factors that were more significant than those attributed to humans?  Honestly just curious, as, unlike climate change, I've never hear this disputed to any extent.

As with almost anything major on this planet, the Sun has the biggest say in it.

http://www.theozonehole.com/polarsun.htm

We live and die by our proximity to the sun. The sun is not a consistent source of level energy though. It fluctuates and has violent spikes just like any star. Something as benign cosmically as solar wind could have atmospheric effects that last decades.

 

[captain_amazing]

As with almost anything major on this planet, the Sun has the biggest say in it.

http://www.theozonehole.com/polarsun.htm

We live and die by our proximity to the sun. The sun is not a consistent source of level energy though. It fluctuates and has violent spikes just like any star. Something as benign cosmically as solar wind could have atmospheric effects that last decades.

Thanks for that.  As you may know, those findings do not claim that solar activity is the primary cause of the ozone depletion observed in the 20th century or that there is a primary cause other than human activity (unless I missed that statement or even inference).  

 

[captain_amazing]

Here's a source that refutes that the 11-year solar cycle is the primary cause of ozone depletion that has been observed.  Since measurements regarding the ozone layer span solar cycles, the averages between the max and min of each cycle can be compared, showing that there has been an average global decrease since the mid-20th century.

 

[Insein]

Thanks for that.  As you may know, those findings do not claim that solar activity is the primary cause of the ozone depletion observed in the 20th century or that there is a primary cause other than human activity (unless I missed that statement or even inference).  

Correct. However, we have barely scratched the surface of what we know about the sun and its affect on our planet. 

 

[mr. furley]

but what about the hole in the hozone?

 

[Righetti]

gawd I was there a month ago.  I think most Americans have no idea.  There are days when you literally can't go outside.

Will be there at the end of the month. Can't wait to breath that air again

 

[msommer]

Will be there at the end of the month. Can't wait to breath that air again

Seems topical

 

[captain_amazing]

Correct. However, we have barely scratched the surface of what we know about the sun and its affect on our planet. 

I'm not sure what the depth of the unknown factors are, but do agree, to an extent, with your overall statement.  Yet, specifically looking at this case - ozone depletion since the 60s - the mounds of scientific evidence, consensus, and virtually no other evidence of any other kind that refutes the consensus, the cause of ozone depletion in this particular instance was, with very little doubt, the result of CFCs from human sources and the improvement seen since 2000 is very likely to be from the ban on CFCs almost worldwide in the late 80s.  

 

[Prince Myshkin]

Thanks for that.  As you may know, those findings do not claim that solar activity is the primary cause of the ozone depletion observed in the 20th century or that there is a primary cause other than human activity (unless I missed that statement or even inference).  

Good posting...some very strange conclusions being drawn by Insein in this thread.  

 

[Galileo]

Except in China.

gawd I was there a month ago.  I think most Americans have no idea.  There are days when you literally can't go outside.

Will be there at the end of the month. Can't wait to breath that air again

Be sure to grab some of this tasty street food

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Be sure to grab some of this tasty street food

What's the big deal, those were bees.  We eat their vomit.

 

[bueno]

Can you point to any authoritative source that suggests the depletion of the ozone layer in the 20th century was a result of factors that were more significant than those attributed to humans?  Honestly just curious, as, unlike climate change, I've never hear this disputed to any extent.

The problem with the ozone hole is that it was discovered and then blamed on pollutants. It was discovered by the first probe that had the capability of discovering it. It took reducing aerosols to see if the hole was a natural thing that was exacerbated by human activity or not. It appears so far that the answer is plausible. However, humans are not the only source of aerosols, so the hole will never go away. It likely will continue to expand and contract as the result of changes in solar activity, volcanic activity, etc. All of these factors need to be considered before we can definitively say how much the hole grew because of us.

When you find articles that try to refute something like solar contributions, you wonder what the writer's motives are.

 

[Insein]

Good posting...some very strange conclusions being drawn by Insein in this thread.  

What I am trying to suggest is that the theory was flawed in that they assumed human activity was the cause for a problem they newly discovered. China is producing aerosols into the atmosphere at a faster rate than the planet did for most of the 20th century. Yet we get a report that the ozone layer is repairing itself?  Do we now or did we even then know how to accurately measure the ozone or even what an acceptable level should be?

Ozone depletion was only officially proposed 31 years ago. That may seem like a long time ago but it is but an eye blink to the planet's life cycle. Who knows where the ozone is supposed to be or where it will be in 100 years. Projecting depletion or regeneration on such  small scale is pointless. It'd be like predicting a stock will rise 200% over the next month because it went up $.02 in a 20 second span on a Tuesday. 

It is also just as dangerous to propose solutions to fixing problems we have little to no control over. Sure not putting aerosol and co2 Into our air is good in general for our liveability but we have no way of knowing if it is directly affecting the atmosphere and its ability to deflect solar radiation. Which is more powerful, more constant and has been around a lot longer? Humans or the sun? 

 

[Prince Myshkin]

What I am trying to suggest is that the theory was flawed in that they assumed human activity was the cause for a problem they newly discovered. China is producing aerosols into the atmosphere at a faster rate than the planet did for most of the 20th century. Yet we get a report that the ozone layer is repairing itself?  Do we now or did we even then know how to accurately measure the ozone or even what an acceptable level should be?

Ozone depletion was only officially proposed 31 years ago. That may seem like a long time ago but it is but an eye blink to the planet's life cycle. Who knows where the ozone is supposed to be or where it will be in 100 years. Projecting depletion or regeneration on such  small scale is pointless. It'd be like predicting a stock will rise 200% over the next month because it went up $.02 in a 20 second span on a Tuesday. 

It is also just as dangerous to propose solutions to fixing problems we have little to no control over. Sure not putting aerosol and co2 Into our air is good in general for our liveability but we have no way of knowing if it is directly affecting the atmosphere and its ability to deflect solar radiation. Which is more powerful, more constant and has been around a lot longer? Humans or the sun? 

My issue with your statements was that the linked data did not correlate in the slightest to the points you were making.  You posted a link about CO2 emissions increasing when that has almost nothing to do with ozone depletion.  You posted a link to a very informational website discussing the solar impact on ozone, but nowhere did it support your claims that human impact was nearly negligible. 

If you want to talk about dangerous, burying our heads in the sand and pretending there are no problems or throwing our hands up saying "oh, it's just the sun and it is bigger and been around longer, so we can't have any impact" is much more dangerous than us passing some regulations that limit the crap we send up in the atmosphere.  

 

[Insein]

My issue with your statements was that the linked data did not correlate in the slightest to the points you were making.  You posted a link about CO2 emissions increasing when that has almost nothing to do with ozone depletion.  You posted a link to a very informational website discussing the solar impact on ozone, but nowhere did it support your claims that human impact was nearly negligible. 

If you want to talk about dangerous, burying our heads in the sand and pretending there are no problems or throwing our hands up saying "oh, it's just the sun and it is bigger and been around longer, so we can't have any impact" is much more dangerous than us passing some regulations that limit the crap we send up in the atmosphere.  

Im saying our approach to solving global issues is all wrong. Threatening world ending catastrophes will occur if we don't act NOW is not the responsible way to act. Trying to sell it to the people that way is counter productive because when the world doesn't end in the 30-50 years these guys were predicting, the people just tune you out completely. 

Instead say we want to keep our water clean because we want clean water and not end up like Flint, Michigan. We want to keep our air clean because we want breathable air unlike Beijing. Relate it to the people personally and improve the things we can control. 

Making decisions based on affecting macro Earth functions like the ozone or global warming/cooling is not the way to go. We don't even know for sure if our actions are directly affecting these things positively or negatively. 

 

[Prince Myshkin]

Im saying our approach to solving global issues is all wrong. Threatening world ending catastrophes will occur if we don't act NOW is not the responsible way to act. Trying to sell it to the people that way is counter productive because when the world doesn't end in the 30-50 years these guys were predicting, the people just tune you out completely. 

Instead say we want to keep our water clean because we want clean water and not end up like Flint, Michigan. We want to keep our air clean because we want breathable air unlike Beijing. Relate it to the people personally and improve the things we can control. 

Making decisions based on affecting macro Earth functions like the ozone or global warming/cooling is not the way to go. We don't even know for sure if our actions are directly affecting these things positively or negatively. 

The problem with the approach you suggest is that most people can't see the big picture impacts of things like spraying CFC's into the atmosphere.  They are more concerned with short term financial decisions than long term environmental decisions.  You can disregard the rather large collection of evidence that our actions impacted the ozone layer if you like, but I happen to think the data indicates it did. While dramatic, the campaign to limit the damage to the ozone layer was successful in greatly reducing the amount of CFC's being released into the atmosphere.  I'm not sure how that can be seen as a bad thing on any level.  

 

[Insein]

The problem with the approach you suggest is that most people can't see the big picture impacts of things like spraying CFC's into the atmosphere.  They are more concerned with short term financial decisions than long term environmental decisions.  You can disregard the rather large collection of evidence that our actions impacted the ozone layer if you like, but I happen to think the data indicates it did. While dramatic, the campaign to limit the damage to the ozone layer was successful in greatly reducing the amount of CFC's being released into the atmosphere.  I'm not sure how that can be seen as a bad thing on any level.  

Greatly reducing the rate at which we were going for CFCs. China has more than made up for our lack of CFC production by doubling down on hCFCs. Combine that their with blatant disregard for any environmental regulations and I don't see how the overall level has decreased to such a significant amount to declare it the reason the ozone is improving over the last 10 years. Especially since the other green house gases have still be increasing.