
The Montreal Protocol was a landmark environmental success - mcone
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/09/montreal-protocol-ozone-treaty-30-climate-change-hcfs-hfcs/
======
apo
_Industry lobbied the Ronald Reagan White House and tried to get the Senate to
deny ratification of the Protocol, warning of dire economic impacts resulting
from a phase-down of their products._

Not only did the lobbyists fail, they didn't get a single vote in the Senate:

[http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/15/science/treaty-on-ozone-
is...](http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/15/science/treaty-on-ozone-is-backed-in-
senate.html)

One important difference between the CFC ban and carbon emissions caps is the
availability of inexpensive alternatives: HFCs.

In a twist of irony, though, these HFCs themselves appear to be contributing
as greenhouse gasses:

[http://research.noaa.gov/News/NewsArchive/LatestNews/TabId/6...](http://research.noaa.gov/News/NewsArchive/LatestNews/TabId/684/ArtMID/1768/ArticleID/11414/HFC-
greenhouse-gases-a-tale-of-two-or-more-futures.aspx)

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Renewable energy is an inexpensive alternative.

Giving up coal for electricity production would be roughly the same health
benefit as everyone in the country giving up smoking cigarettes, drinking
alcohol and eating fast food combined and save 10 billion dollars a year.

~~~
pjc50
That sounds like kind of a big deal; citation needed? How does that work, is
it just the health benefits of air pollution + the damage to miners?

~~~
pwthornton
Air pollution from coal power generation and internal combustion engine
automobile driving (diesel being the worst by far) causes strokes, heart
attacks, asthma, lung cancer, etc. It shortens peoples lives, makes them worse
from a health standpoint and causes many deaths every year.

Imagine just the healthcare cost savings and the productivity gains alone from
using cleaner power generation.

Phasing out coal power is a no brainer because there are plenty of
alternatives to use, and renewable energies like solar will make our grid more
resilient by making power generation more diffuse.

Electrifying cars is a longer-term issue. But if you can electrify cars, you
can power them from cleaner sources. Even if you don't power them with cleaner
sources, you'd still get less localized particulate pollution.

Whether or not you care about global warming or the planet itself, you'd get
big benefits personally for your health and your family's health if we had
cleaner power generation.

------
systematical
It amazes me that we humans were able to trust science, pass a law, and fix
this problem. The Ozone Layer was a huge thing during my childhood in the late
80s and early 90s. Now faced with a similar threat, in the words of the great
Jim Mora, we can't do "diddly". Even the Paris treaty doesn't go far enough or
include the United States.

~~~
ars
> were able to trust science

That's not it. There are no good alternatives to CO2 emitting fuels. So it
became a whole anti-human thing where people are told "you are horrible, stop
consuming, look at Africa they use less energy than you", etc, etc, etc.

All in order to make people feel guilty and thereby get people to reduce their
usage. Once that happened there was a backlash, that backlash needed a target
and the science was chosen.

But it did not start by distrusting science. You see people saying "why don't
you trust science, it's the same science that gives you computers", and
wondering why that doesn't convince anyone.

The reason it doesn't is because it has nothing to do with science, it has to
do with making people feel guilty, about existing, about using things, about
traveling, or having an A/C.

If I could give once piece of advice re CO2: Stop making people feel guilty
about using energy. Just focus on finding alternatives, and playing up how
awesome plentiful cheap, clean energy will be.

But completely stop the other side of things, it's not helping.

~~~
perfect_kiss
Actually, there is a viable alternative to CO2 emitting fuels: just use
nuclear energy.

Unfortunately, communism-induced disaster in 1986 and then more recent
Fukushima failure have had created an opinion split in our society on the use
of nuclear energy; there are countries like Germany which banned building of
new nuclear plants because of that.

But sure, it is not hard to not to be communists and not to build nuclear
plants in the zone of continious seismic activity.

~~~
dekhn
You're ignoring the fact that spent nuclear fuel storage is still a long-term
problem.

~~~
Aloha
It is - but anyone who thinks that it can be solved right now for all eternity
is a fool - all we can do it keep it stable for 500 years (which is doable)
and then let our descendants figure it out from there.

~~~
bitwize
We can't assume that advanced civilization will survive another 500 years.
There's a whole art project dedicated to the problem of how we communicate to
our stone-knives-and-bearskins descendants that the place where we put the
nuclear waste is bad and not to be trod on.

~~~
Aloha
I think thats actually a worthy goal, presume the worst, hope for the best.
But still, its safe to presume that we have a better than 80% odd of having an
advanced civilization still in 100-500 years, when newer, more advanced
technology may be able to mitigate to stabilize the problem better. If not,
those warning signs for cave men saying "keep away" will probably be helpful.
Either way, the costs of continuing to burn fossil fuels is very high - I
can't decide if its too high or not - thats for people smarter than I to
ponder upon.

------
ars
This treaty should also inform people on how to approach the current CO2
situation:

You need an alternative! Telling people to not use the product (conserve) will
NOT work.

All those UN treaties about reducing this or that are a total waste of time,
and are just there to make people feel like we are doing something.

They should do one thing, and one thing only: Fund research on alternatives.

~~~
vkou
There are alternatives to CO2 heavy fuels. I am told that the market magically
will find them as soon as we start taxing carbon.

(By people who oppose government investment into renewable research.)

~~~
ZeroGravitas
The alternatives already exist, and are often very boring tech like
"insulation" or labelling purchases based on efficiency, it's getting people
to actually use them that requires the carbon tax.

------
amluto
> Our global climate would be at least 25 per cent hotter today without the
> Protocol, said Garcia, a co-author of two world-avoided studies.

Hmm, without the protocol, the average daytime temperature would be
(287K)*0.25 = 71.75 K hotter [1]. Phew :) I wonder what the article is trying
to say.

[1] Using an average surface temperature of 14 degrees Celcius.

~~~
danmaz74
The phrase isn't clear at all, but immediately afterwards they add:

"By 2070 the world would have been 4.5 degrees F (2.5 degrees Celsius) hotter,
a level most experts agree is disastrously high"

So, I assume the actual increase the estimated for a situation without the
treaty, in 2017, is somewhere between 0 and 2.5 C.

Perhaps the 25% meant that the increase would have been 25% bigger than the
increase we actually had?

------
imron
> Without the Ozone Treaty You’d Get Sunburned in 5 Minutes

Welcome to Australia.

~~~
mafro
So true. Being from the UK, I was used to seeing UV of 4 or 5 on the weather
report. I assumed this was a 1-10 scale.

Then I got to Australia and UV is 13 or 14!

The US EPA scale runs to 11 [1].

[1] [https://www.epa.gov/sunsafety/uv-index-
scale-1](https://www.epa.gov/sunsafety/uv-index-scale-1)

~~~
imron
We dial it to 11, and then some!

------
firebird84
Instead (where I live) I get sunburned in 15. :)

~~~
WillReplyfFood
Sidney?

------
neves
Sorry that USA messed up all the other environmental treaties, like the Kyoto
that they signed but the Senate didn't subscribed. Maybe we wouldn't have
Irmas and Marias by now.

~~~
okreallywtf
I think we would still be getting these hurricanes because a) they are likely
strengthened by the temperature changes but not created and b) neither of
those protocols would have actually affected the temperature by any
significant amount by now.

We have to be careful with what we say and how we say it - advocates for
action on climate change need to be accurate most of the time, climate deniers
only need to sow doubt by latching onto mistakes we make and using that the
try and cast doubt on everything we say.

I can echo the "sorry from the USA" sentiment though, I'm very embarrassed by
our actions.

------
yters
I've read ozone is naturally created when atmosphere escapes through a hole.

