Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

The unintended consequences of environmental success

Remember the giant ozone hole over Antarctica?

Decades of CFC use had apparently weakened the ozone layer around the earth to the point where a hole had formed and here in New Zealand, we were seeing increased levels of UV as a result. Those levels increased because ozone is a crucial protection layer that effectively shields us from some of the worst the sun can throw at us on the UV spectrum.

Once scientists figured out that the major factor in the erosion of the ozone layer was the effect of CFCs high in the earth's atmosphere, CFCs were vilified and their use was stringently controlled, if not outlawed, in most developed countries.

A decade or two later everyone had a big party and copious amounts of champagne were consumed because the ozone layer was regenerating and the giant hole was healing.

However, it's not all good news.

I guess you could argue that the CO2 gas liberated when all those corks popped may have contributed to global warming but the repairs we've made to the ozone layer have done far worse for for the future of climate change.

An interesting piece on Science Daily reports that Ozone recovery could trigger 40% more global warming than predicted.

It seems that in trying to fix one problem (the ozone hole) we may have aggravated an even greater one: climate change.

The problem is that ozone (O3) is a greenhouse gas.

Didn't someone know this before we decided to protect it?

Of course they did but the problem is one of juggling risk and favouring the lesser of two evils, although you have to wonder whether the risk assessments were done correctly.

Without a healthy ozone layer, dangerous UV radiation reaching the earth's surface would increase significantly and that would almost certainly damage crops, lift rates of cancer and cause all manner of other bad things to happen. The result would be famine and almost certainly a reduced life-exectancy for many people.

The other option is to allow the ozone layer to rebuild and then try to deal with the very obvious effects of climate change. Weather extremes will also decimate crops and create existential threats in some parts of the world.

So which is really the lesser of the two evils?

I guess the plan was to fix the ozone layer whilst also reducing the output of other greenhouse gasses so as to limit or halt changes to the climate. Sadly, the latter part seems to have been somewhat of a failure so far and many argue that we've now passed the tipping point where even a complete elimination of CO2 emissions would not prevent the inevitable.

What's more, it's going to get even harder to convince the populations of first-world nations to spend the money needed to reach carbon-zero or carbon neutrality. Rising energy (and other) costs have made the luxury of carbon zero effectively unattainable without huge reductions to the standards of living that we're used to -- and it may all be an exercise in futility anyway.

So, might one option be to allow a partial depletion of the ozone layer and tolerate the presence of an ozone hole over Antarctica as a way of buying us more time to get our carbon emissions under control?

Does it really matter if the most deserted continent on earth catches a few more UV rays if it wards off floods, droughts and other weather extremes in more populous areas while we come up with better ways to reduce our emissions?

I suspect this question is being asked right now in some circles, albeit perhaps somewhat informally.

Carpe Diem folks!

Please visit the sponsor!

Here is a PERMANENT link to this column

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font