Those two can’t really be compared. Ozone is likely more relevant to humans on the whole (less skin cancer ).
My main issue with this study is that it’s based on public sightings (no I don’t know how else they would do it). During the height of whaling when they were hunted for oil they would have changed behaviors to avoid public sightings. Is it possible this rebound was not a rebound in their total numbers but just them not being terrified to go near human activity anymore since the decline of whaling? Whales live for a long time. In the 50s there could have been whales living that survived the peak of human whaling activity.
It is a massive success, primarily because by the time the Montreal Protocol was fully ratified it was more profitable to not use CFCs.
However, speaking as someone who lives at the bottom of the world in the country with the highest melanoma risk in the world we didn’t actually fix it. We stopped the holes in the ozone layer growing and saw some recovery, with the hole over the Northern Hemisphere predicted to close by 2030-ish and ours by 2060-ish, but it’s nowhere near fixed.
And since about 2013 we’ve seen a massive increase in CFC emissions again, so the Southern Hemisphere hole is probably pushing out to 2070-ish. Not that any scientific research has definitively stated that yet, it’s mostly non-committal. The majority of these new emissions have been traced to countries that didn’t have to get rid of those specific CFCs until 2010, so it’s a good indicator that those countries may view the Montreal Protocol differently in the new millennium than they did in the 80s. Or it indicates that it’s taking them longer to cease usage than predicted. Hard to tell really.
So to say “It’s fixed!” is a little hopeful. The problem still exists, and effects are still being felt, but there’s nothing you or I can do - hence the common narrative, especially in the North, that all the hard work was done in the 80s and we’re good now.
This is so interesting. I just got done posting a similar comment to snooggums, but I didn’t realize it was just a narrative. I went looking for some sources for the things you were saying and lo and behold… looks like it’s not as “fixed” as is commonly claimed!
I suppose I question if the Montreal Protocol and associated social movement was a success if we didn’t completely stop the damage (sorry if you live underneath a hole and have a stupid skin cancer rate as a result) and we’re backsliding (Oh you were a developing country when this was signed, keep using CFCs til 2010, but we won’t enforce penalties if you’re still doing it in 2013). It was incredibly impressive to get the buy in that the Protocol got, especially given the other stuff going on in the world at the time.
But on reflection I’d hesitate to call the thing a success.
Is it really the biggest story in conservation? I would have guessed fixing the hole in the ozone layer would’ve held that spot.
Those two can’t really be compared. Ozone is likely more relevant to humans on the whole (less skin cancer ).
My main issue with this study is that it’s based on public sightings (no I don’t know how else they would do it). During the height of whaling when they were hunted for oil they would have changed behaviors to avoid public sightings. Is it possible this rebound was not a rebound in their total numbers but just them not being terrified to go near human activity anymore since the decline of whaling? Whales live for a long time. In the 50s there could have been whales living that survived the peak of human whaling activity.
Disclaimer: I don’t actually know anything.
The ozone layer hole situation is another great case study in something that was fixed by humanity being proactive.
ETA: This post I made here feels good to read but it’s not really true, unfortunately. Check out seefin’s post in this same thread for more info.
That is somethi8ng different than conservation, but is the other massive success story.
It is a massive success, primarily because by the time the Montreal Protocol was fully ratified it was more profitable to not use CFCs.
However, speaking as someone who lives at the bottom of the world in the country with the highest melanoma risk in the world we didn’t actually fix it. We stopped the holes in the ozone layer growing and saw some recovery, with the hole over the Northern Hemisphere predicted to close by 2030-ish and ours by 2060-ish, but it’s nowhere near fixed.
And since about 2013 we’ve seen a massive increase in CFC emissions again, so the Southern Hemisphere hole is probably pushing out to 2070-ish. Not that any scientific research has definitively stated that yet, it’s mostly non-committal. The majority of these new emissions have been traced to countries that didn’t have to get rid of those specific CFCs until 2010, so it’s a good indicator that those countries may view the Montreal Protocol differently in the new millennium than they did in the 80s. Or it indicates that it’s taking them longer to cease usage than predicted. Hard to tell really.
So to say “It’s fixed!” is a little hopeful. The problem still exists, and effects are still being felt, but there’s nothing you or I can do - hence the common narrative, especially in the North, that all the hard work was done in the 80s and we’re good now.
This is so interesting. I just got done posting a similar comment to snooggums, but I didn’t realize it was just a narrative. I went looking for some sources for the things you were saying and lo and behold… looks like it’s not as “fixed” as is commonly claimed!
Here’s NASA’s data on the hole(s).
And here’s an infographic I found:
I’m dumb, is the blue the hole? What do the colors mean.
Proof I’m dumb: My best guess, there is a puddle that sometimes catches on fire and a flock of yellow warblers try to get a drink.
I didn’t say it was fixed, I said it was a success.
As in the damage being done was minimized/stopped through a coordinated effort.
I suppose I question if the Montreal Protocol and associated social movement was a success if we didn’t completely stop the damage (sorry if you live underneath a hole and have a stupid skin cancer rate as a result) and we’re backsliding (Oh you were a developing country when this was signed, keep using CFCs til 2010, but we won’t enforce penalties if you’re still doing it in 2013). It was incredibly impressive to get the buy in that the Protocol got, especially given the other stuff going on in the world at the time.
But on reflection I’d hesitate to call the thing a success.