The ozone layer is healing
tecake.in
tecake.in
Quibble: Is it actually 'healing' if the depletion rate is decreasing? The hole in the ozone is still getting bigger. It's just getting bigger at a slower rate. (I realise that this is the title the article uses - but I believe it is incorrect).
(This is a particular issue in Australia - we have increased occurrence of skin cancer due to this.)
According to Wikipedia, the ozone levels stabilised in the 90's, and started to recover in the 00's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ozone_hole_recovery.jpg
I'm led to believe that the ozone layer depletes and regenerates in cycles, and what the article is highlighting is that the amount that is depleted in a depletion cycle is lower.
I cant wait to see my bosses eyes- when i expand this theory of irresponsibility for everything upon bugs. There is a natural occurance rate of bugs and a natural error rate in software. To try and meddle with it- or to blame developers for it, is just plain wrong and nearly as insane as environmentalism.
Sometimes in the morning, you can smell it in the air- the distinct taste of lazy.
Things like marking fields of objects final/const, requiring immutability of objects, reduce bugs interior to objects. Immutable objects also reduce multithreading issues. That’s one pattern that can be used to reduce common bugs.
Nature doesn’t do this. For example: Southern California has a fire season (natural) followed by a wet season (natural) which tends to cause sever mudlides. These natural processes never learn from experience that large fires before the rain is more destructive (I know I’m stretching here and fires would be smaller if we didn’t put down the small ones initially).
My point is that humans, software engineers included, learn from past mistakes. Ideally we improve from those, not just throw our hands up and say bugs are a “natural” result of the software development process. Software will always have bugs, but ideally you as an engineer never make the same one twice (with the exception of off by one errors ;)
Since CFCs have a lifetime of 50-100 years, I guess it's reasonable to assume depletion will continue to slow over the next decades. Another question is whether it will increase again at some point. The article states:
> Scientists speculate that the accelerated healing of Antarctic ozone hole might occur somewhere from the year 2060 to 2080. However, a total healing of the same cannot be guaranteed.
By "accelerated healing" they probably mean re-accumulation of ozone, but I'm not sure.
My father used to work with some Nigerian engineers who said that the sun stings a lot more in Australia and New Zealand than at home. I long thought that was the UV but I've since read that it's actually the infrared that causes the burning senstation.
Per wikipedia, "Ozone levels stabilized by the mid-1990s and began to recover in the 2000s. Recovery is projected to continue over the next century, and the ozone hole is expected to reach pre-1980 levels by around 2075 .[4] The Montreal Protocol is considered the most successful international environmental agreement to date."
So I'm confused what new information this article is providing exactly.
Ozone is create in the upper atmosphere by UV light bombarding oxygen, among other mechanisms. The depletion rate is decreasing, but it's less than the creation rate, so the hole is healing. Even without chlorine, the ozone also decays back into O2 naturally.
Additionally, the "ozone hole" is not a permanent phenomenon, it's a temporary event that occurs in the local spring and dissipates after several weeks (again because the race between ozone creation and depletion ends up being won by creation).
See, for example, ozone concentrations over Antarctica in September: https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/climatology_09_SH.h...
Versus December: https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/climatology_12_SH.h...
But the news is good.
In policy terms, it was (mostly) relatively simple stuff. It was mostly bans, not theoretically sophisticated policy of taxes, subsidies, traceable credits and such. If I was king of the world, I’d think of carbon a similar way. Try to gradually ban carbon fuels, as soon as viable alternatives make this feasible. It seems we are nearing that stage for both electricity grids and cars. Forget about sophisticated economic interventions (I’m dubious of the economics of these anyway). Just change to an apples-to-apples alternative asap, with a focus on the ‘p.’
>Try to gradually ban carbon fuels, as soon as viable alternatives make this feasible.
Also, the economic reasoning is (IMO) flawed because in the absence of a viable alternative, we know fuel consumption decreases very, very little with increased costs (that affect poorer people more). If a viable alternative exists, we know that bans work well (e.g. CFCs) and leave less room for policy corruption. The key is viable alternatives. Without them, either policy will probably fail.
I'm no expert, but to me a steadily increasing tax on carbon fuels seems like the simplest and best method to incentivize innovation. You can even incentivize capture technologies by providing a negative tax for all carbon that is safely put back in the ground. By taxing carbon that is pulled from the ground positively and carbon that is put back negatively you indirectly subsidize climate friendly technology without prescribing the shape of the solution.
For example, EVs are starting to look like a viable apples-to-apple alternative across vehicle types. This is partially driven by subsidies and consumer action, but mostly it’s just technology.
With the current pro-environment policy approach, we subsidise them (tax exemptions) at a decreasing rate (until it becomes too expensive because there are lots of EVs), along with some other “interventions” from a complex portfolio of policies. I am saying, do the opposite. (1) Pick winners. (2) Subsidise/tax at an increasing rate (or some other transitional plan). (3) Plan for a near term ban.
It's just that the loss in consumption was small enough to not matter to the general public, because their use was not a super large fraction of the economy.
With something as essential as fossil fuels, you have to take a more gradual approach, and market-based economic tweaks are the best way to make those changes in the least costly sectors first.
It feels analogous (not a perfect analogy, obviously) to now.
We have huge campaigns promoting “consumer action” like better insulation, energy moderation & such. At the political/lobby/policy level, we have complicated solutions based on impossibly complex models of the world. They model human behaviour like fuel demand given some portfolio of tax/credit/cap/whatnot interventions (econometrics, basically), including the invention of new technologies. That model feeds into a climate model. It’s all tied together with a pathological ribbon of international politics. All along the way, all sorts of additional interest come into play from industry lobby to municipal transport plans to pet projects.
"Market based tweaks" are based on so many assumptions, many of them motivated in all sorts of unhelpful ways. As I hinted above, I don't buy the economics of price-based interventions at all, personally. Regardless, it feels to complicated to be a good idea.
I’m basically saying that I think simpler is better. We now have increasingly viable alternatives to carbon grid power and ICE engines. Put together a phase-out plan, based on bans. Subsidize the most severe (or politically connected) end of the spectrum. Tax, regulate or whatnot around the edges.
The important part of the “analogy” (IMO) is this: viable alternative=>ban. If alternatives exist, bans can work relatively quickly, painlessly, and with less room for "corruption" of various sorts (remember ethanol?).
..the skepticism... Basically, the majority of “interventions” are based on price. Higher prices, lower consumption. That’s the economics assumption in a nutshell. The reason I think that this is flawed is “demand elasticity.” We know fuel demand to be “inelastic” meaning that for any change in price, consumption will change very little. To cut consumption by 25-50%, prices will need to increase a lot, more than feasible in a normal political situation. Fuel consumption is inelastic in the medium-long term, very inelastic in the short term.
Fuel is often used as a literal textbook example (along with cocaine) for this concept.
The only way to change the elasticity is alternatives. The economics of encouraging the invention of alternatives is.. well.. “theory” in the pedestrian sense of the word. Academic ideas that are debated without much resolution. This part is not like the first part (elasticity), which is well understood. So, these interventions might work for creating alternatives, but I dunno.
In any case, it looks like alternatives have appeared (regardless of how we think they got here). So, lets cut the BS, trust ourselves to assess the viability of these alternatives , pick winners and go for a 10-20 year phase out culminating in a near total ban.
Conceptually, I’m arguing against the idea the economics-based policies should be abstract, general policies that could apply to carbon, sugar, makeup or anything. I’m saying look at this specific market. Picking winners in 2018 is a lot less risky than picking winners in 2008, when EVs or mostly solar grids were still unproven. If we determine that alternatives are viable (I think we are just getting there now) then pull the trigger, ban carbon fuel.
1. The decisions that change fuel consumption - what car to buy and where to live/work - are taken infrequently, and so make feedback slow.
2. People are bad at weighing costs that don't show up in the sticker price. This is addressable and addressed through incentives applied at the time of purchasing a car rather than purchasing fuel.
Issue 1 also applies to business users (automotive and industrial alike), and is inherent to any big infrastructure transition - even with a ban, you'd still have this long lead time.
Issue 2 is solvable on the consumer side with proper structuring of incentives. Both the American subsidies for electrics and the European punitive taxes on gasoline cars seem effective at changing public behavior, and have made EVs competitive earlier than they otherwise would have been (hence spurring a lot of private R&D money that would not have flowed otherwise).
As you say, it's slow. I'd also say that it's no good (due to inelasticity) even if we were willing to wait. Say you could turn the American consumer into a Belgian one in 10 years by doubling petrol prices. They'd still drive a bit more due to cities' structure and the country's size, but in little euro hatchbacks they'd save 25% of the fuel/carbon.
Maybe I'm exaggerating. Maybe we could cut 30% with a 75% price increase. Either way, that's a lot of pain for very moderate long term gain. Most hard hit would be poorer people who can't afford to "upgrade" their car.
I agree on the second point. This is a better policy.
Unfortunately, the European punitive taxes are mostly not upfront or even new car specific. This puts most of the burden on old car drivers, with most of the "elasticity" going towards EOLing cars younger and upgrading to newer ICE cars tailored to this new tax regime. Its a slow, inefficient and regressive, but still preferable to fuel/carbon taxes.
Simpler would be better. €X upfront subsidy or tax on EVs or ICEs. More emphasis on EVs than efficient ICEs as ICE efficiency is not really en route to where we want to go, 0 emissions. Less economic/policy sophistication. Intervene at the time decisions are made (like you say). Build towards a ban.
European and Europeanized-country car taxes I know of (Danish, Israeli) do indeed apply at time of purchase - and are altered based on vehicle type. For example, Israeli car purchase taxes are 83% plus VAT, but only 30% for emissions-free vehicles; Denmark, meanwhile, has car registration taxes set at around 100% for cheap cars and 150% for more expensive cars, and varies the tax wildly to promote environmental efficiency and safety (originally EVs were completely exempt from this tax, although there's been talk about eliminating that exemption for budgetary reasons).
This burden is indeed not specific to new cars, but that's necessary to incentivize faster EOL of old equipment (see also the US "cash for clunkers" program, which addressed a similar policy goal); it is, though, completely upfront and extremely transparent to the consumer, and strongly impacts consumer investment decisions.
The ban was phased, and there was a decade for old equipment to adapt. I think you still can legally go and buy replacement CFC, but I'm not sure if anybody is still selling.
The ozone layer is now recovering decades after a ban on CFCs.
Maybe it would just be simpler to ban man made production of CO2? Technology will find a way round I suppose, and it means we can ditch taxes, subsidies etc... win/win!
Another comment quotes part of the history of this issue, and it shows that NGOs such as Greenpeace created political cooperation, solving the basic collective action problem (or prisoners' dilemma) at the core of this issue–which happens to be the same for global warming.
The efforts by environmentalists were also instrumental for scientific organisations and the private sector to invest in alternatives. But even with those technical advances, switching would have ordinarily been a losing proposition: the new technology was more expensive, and often less convenient to consumers.
You needed every citizen to willingly inconvenience themselves for the greater good, and you needed assurances that your competitors would not undercut you in the market by continuing to use "dirty" technology.
The parallels to climate change are obvious, and if you remember the fight for the ozone layer as anything but a "crusade by first-world environmentalists and the nanny-state trying to kill our industries", that only shows how well it worked.
A carbon tax can make fossil fuels uncompetitive on the markets where it has competitors, and does not require micro analysis of the entire world. Governments can just push higher and higher taxes until it is niche, and then start banning the niches.
Well, it's not all bad - the new inhalers meant new patents and did away with generic, affordable asthma meds for a couple of decades. So, if you're a pharmaceutical company, I guess that's a win?
They clog easily (Nothing like needing a puff and getting nothing), almost seem to have a mild constricting effect before the albuterol kicks in (and it's not as quick as it should be), and some people react badly to the sulfates (not me, thankfully).
I'm fortunate in that I don't need my inhaler much since I moved to the Florida coast (I think the moist, salty, clean air blowing in from the Atlantic helps). Whenever I have to go to a major city I'll have trouble, though.
> Civil society including especially NGOs, played critical roles at all stages of policy development leading up to the Vienna Conference, the Montreal Protocol, and in assessing compliance afterwards.[64][65][66][67] The major companies claimed that no alternatives to HFC existed.[68] An ozone-safe hydrocarbon refrigerant was developed at a Hamburg technological institute in Germany, and in 1992 came to the attention of the non-governmental organization (NGO) Greenpeace. Greenpeace was given the patent, called it "Greenfreeze," and left the patent as open source.[69][70] The NGO then worked successfully first with a small and struggling company to market an appliance beginning in Europe, then Asia and later Latin America, receiving a 1997 UNEP award.
It describes how well it was adopted worldwide, except for the US, then:
> In the U.S., however, change has been much slower. To some extent, CFCs were being replaced by the less damaging hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), although concerns remain regarding HCFCs also. In some applications, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) were being used to replace CFCs. HFCs, which contain no chlorine or bromine, do not contribute at all to ozone depletion although they are potent greenhouse gases. The best known of these compounds is probably HFC-134a (R-134a), which in the United States has largely replaced CFC-12 (R-12) in automobile air conditioners. In laboratory analytics (a former "essential" use) the ozone depleting substances can be replaced with various other solvents.[76] Chemical companies like Du Pont, whose representatives even disparaged Greenfreeze as "that German technology," maneuvered the EPA to block the technology in the U.S. until 2011.
Others, e.g. ammonia, work well but are toxic.
Good, stable, non-flammable, non-toxic refrigerants are not that common. Some automakers are trying using CO2 but that requires much higher pressures.
But getting back to your original point, yes you can change the refrigerant gas to almost any arbitrary gas, however, you'll need to change out the compressor, expansion valve or metering orifice and change the condensor & evaporator -- basically completely reengineer the system to match the operating pressures of the new gas.
That being said: I would STRONGLY advice against using pressurized flammable gasses in an automotive refrigerant system. You state that "leaks are a concern" but I think that's an understatement better summarized as "dying in a fire due to an otherwise survivable collision is a concern." In an automobile crash an uncontrolled release could occur into the close passenger compartment. Propane is a "poor man's gas", indeed. And a foolish man's.
source : I'm a residential HVAC tech