U.S. Mayors Climate Conference: Gore VI

Gore: What we can learn from the ozone hole

Posted by David Roberts at 1:07 PM on 02 Nov 2007

Read more about: Al Gore | climate | ozone

Kelly Fergusson, mayor of Menlo Park, Calif. ("investment capital of the world!"), asks: we've overcome huge environmental challenges like DDT and the ozone hole before. What can we learn from those successes?

First, Gore causes me to do a double take by saying that his mother used to read to he and his sister from Silent Spring. Jeebus! I guess that explains a lot.

However, he knows more about the ozone fight. And boy does he know about it -- here he launches into a mini-history about CFCs, the Nobel chemists who discovered them, how they still affect the chemical composition of the air, etc. It really is fun to watch Gore in a context that doesn't demand soundbites.

For years, nothing happened in response to scientists' warnings -- then in 1986, a hole in the ozone opened up over Antarctica, and it "set off alarm bells." Ronald Reagan ignored the advice of his Interior Secretary Donald Hodel -- for everyone to wear floppy hats and sunglasses -- and instead listened to Secretary of State George Shultz. He reached across the aisle, and a year later in Montreal the U.S. led the way to a large, successful international treaty.

Some companies fought this all the way, paid for phony reports, demonized scientists, the usual. But some got ahead of the curve on solutions and profited from it.

Above all, we discovered that when we really decide to act, it's not as hard as we thought it would be and we benefit immensely from doing the right thing.

Our modern-day Reagan (Bush) is listening to his Hodel (Cheney) rather than his Shultz (Whitman). But never mind -- the recent accelerated melting of Arctic ice should be the equivalent of the ozone hole -- an alarm bell. Once we get on with it, we'll find it less difficult and expensive than we think. The time to get going is now.

For story: U.S. Mayors Climate Conference: Gore VI
2 Comments | Post a Comment

But procrastination is so much easier

The discovery that the ocean carbon sink is slowing is probably much worse news than the Arctic sea ice reduction, although it remains that both of them are "stock and flow" problems that many humans seem literally unable to understand (paper title and abstract pasted below). I'm beginning to suspect that this is because of a genetic difference (although obviously not related to intelligence as such).

"Understanding Public Complacency About Climate Change: Adults' Mental Models of Climate Change Violate Conservation of Matter

"Public attitudes about climate change reveal a contradiction. Surveys show most Americans believe climate change poses serious risks but also that reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions sufficient to stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations or net radiative forcing can be deferred until there is greater evidence that climate change is harmful. US policymakers likewise argue it is prudent to wait and see whether climate change will cause substantial economic harm before undertaking policies to reduce emissions. Such wait-and-see policies erroneously presume climate change can be reversed quickly should harm become evident, underestimating substantial delays in the climate's response to anthropogenic forcing. We report experiments with highly educated adults-graduate students at MIT-showing widespread misunderstanding of the fundamental stock and flow relationships, including mass balance principles, that lead to long response delays. GHG emissions are now about twice the rate of GHG removal from the atmosphere. GHG concentrations will therefore continue to rise even if emissions fall, stabilizing only when emissions equal removal. In contrast, results show most subjects believe atmospheric GHG concentrations can be stabilized while emissions into the atmosphere continuously exceed the removal of GHGs from it. These beliefs-analogous to arguing a bathtub filled faster than it drains will never overflow-support wait-and-see policies but violate conservation of matter. Low public support for mitigation policies may be based more on misconceptions of climate dynamics than high discount rates or uncertainty about the risks of harmful climate change."

This related working paper is also of interest.

by Steve Bloom at 3:51 PM on 02 Nov 2007

Same as the Corvair

What can you learn? You can learn to keep your nose out of the marketplace.

In reviewing the history of these "Bans" all I see if government being used to keep a low cost superior product off the market.

DDT is the one thing that could have cheaply prevented the malaria deaths in Africa. The Libs condemned millions by their actions.

The ozone hole has yet to be linked to any negative result. Meanwhile, we have done a costly replacement of freon in air conditioners with a much less effective and efficient substitute -- increasing the energy bills of consumers.

"Global Warming" is the latest scam to charge people a carbon tax and rape their pocketbooks yet again for something that is unneeded.

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

by jabailo at 1:45 PM on 03 Nov 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.