Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Dave
The Montreal Protocol got to be a failure when it imposed huge costs and failed to reduce the ozone hole.
When you banned the CFCs you also forced people to replace their refrigeration equipment. This imposed a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. The equipment that uses CFC substitutes is not as efficient, thus causing an increase in electrical power consumption. Likewise the A/C in you car uses R-134a and is 11% less efficient than R-12 machine that preceded it. Hence your MPG is lower with the R-134a machine than the R-12 machine.
The ozone hole has not decreased in size one iota. This treaty has been in place for twenty years and nothing positve has come of it.
If that ain't a failure, just what is?
|
"Three satellites and three ground stations confirmed that the upper atmosphere ozone depletion rate has slowed down significantly during the past decade. The study was organized by the American Geophysical Union. Some breakdown can be expected to continue due to CFCs used by nations which have not banned them, and due to gases which are already in the stratosphere. CFCs have very long atmospheric lifetimes, ranging from 50 to over 100 years, so the final recovery of the ozone layer is expected to require several lifetimes."
I don't know what you need for evidence to show that banning CFC's has had a positive impact. It's seems rather rudimentary that it was a good thing. In 30+ more years we can actually measure self-regeneration. It's attitudes like yours in other nations, ignoring the simple chemistry involved, that are still setting this planet back. Anyways, efforts have been made to re-seed the layer on an experimental basis and shown them to be extremely positive.