United Nations Says Earth's Ozone Layer Is Repairing (bbc.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: The ozone layer, which protects us from ultraviolet light, looks to be successfully healing after gaping holes were discovered in the 1980s. The Northern Hemisphere could be fully fixed by the 2030s and Antarctica by the 2060s. A new United Nations report says it's an example of what global agreements can achieve. The ozone layer had been damaged by man-made chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) effectively began eating away at the ozone. CFCs were found in things like spray cans, fridges, foam insulation and air conditioners. As a result, in 1985 a gaping hole in the ozone over the South Pole was discovered. An international agreement called the Montreal Protocol made sure that businesses came up with replacements for these damaging products. 180 countries signed up to it. In signing the protocol, those countries agreed to phase out chemicals like CFCs.

Comments

If Trump did his thing

[Anonymous Coward]

If Trump did his thing and pulled out of the UN agreement on CFCs...... it would make zero difference.

Because no manufacturer would use CFC, the consumer backlash in the US would stop the product selling and they wouldn't be able to sell that product in the rest of the world. So they wouldn't make it and even try. Trump's word would not have any effect.

When he pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord, it had no effect on the US's efforts to cut its greenhouse gas emission. The efforts on solar and electric continued anyway. He failed to get his coal subsidy, and even if he attempts to drop mercury emission standards. Any coal fired power station would simply be sued for emitting mercury into the atmosphere.

These agreements, they are aspirational. They set a goal which is followed because it has mass agreement to be followed.

Re:If Trump did his thing

[DNS-and-BIND]

I could be wrong, but it sure seems like you know absolutely shit about climate change and the Paris accord. From where I sit it looks like a do-nothing agreement (less than 0.05C impact over 100 years) that would have cost trillions of dollars for what, exactly? How does paying money to the developing world help the climate? Do you think all those 3rd world kings and rulers are going to use that money responsibly to combat climate change? I can think of any number of projects that would be a far more useful investment: solar farms, updating ourselves on nuclear fuel rod recycling like France does, improved/expanded fracking for natural gas, the list is innumerable. Why waste your money on Paris exactly? Please enlighten all of us why this is the best use of our money.

How come the Paris Climate Accord can't be renegotiated when the planet is in danger from humans destroying it? Why can't we keep the earth saving parts while removing the "screw the American taxpayer" parts?

Remember when Trump pulled us out of the Paris deal, Leftists started screaming for state's rights? They engaged in rhetoric and action that would make John Calhoun's heart swell with pride for its open defiance of federal policy. If that's not 4D chess, I dunno what is.

Re:If Trump did his thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Interview.

Google isn't so great at finding German news. Specifically Edenhofer said it. Easier to find this information on bing. Google doesn't bring it up at all.

Elsewhere he has claimed Marxist redistribution in the face of climate change as a mandatory ethical principle has influenced his work as co-chair and recommendations as a climate scientist. He's rather open about the whole process and justifications, but his views never made it to the anglophone news.

Re:If Trump did his thing

[AmiMoJo]

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

What an extraordinary claim. Let's see if it's true, starting with your own link because I've found that skeptics who posts links often debunk themselves. They quote her as saying:

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

And then go on to claim that because they think capitalism is the only successful development model she must mean to destroy it. In their world "transform" means "destroy" apparently. If you read a bit more of what she actually said it's actually very clear that she is talking about something else entirely:

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."

The economic model of "industrialize as fast as possible, literally burn up all your resources and emit massive amounts of CO2". The world is already making this transition towards cleaner technologies. Capitalism is actually driving it, as flaws in the market that allowed costs to be externalized are fixed.

Quick round-up of your other quotes:

"Clinton-Gore administration"
"green-progressive-liberal writer for Salon"
"National Audubon Society"
"a founder of the Sierra Club"
"Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R."
"a climate justice campaigner coordinator"
"atmospheric scientist"
"Researcher"

Ah, all powerful and influential people that definitely have the power to destroy capitalism. Citing Gorbachev as evidence of environmentalism being a "Leftist" conspiracy looks particularly desperate.