The Paris Climate Agreement has ratified or otherwise joined by 196 countries, representing over 96 of global greenhouse gas emissions. China is the largest emitter in Asia and the world, emitting nearly 10 billion tonnes annually, more than one-quarter of global emissions. North America, dominated by the USA, is the second largest contributor. The USA has emitted the most to date, accounting for around a quarter of all historical CO2 emissions, twice that of China. In contrast, most top 20 global climate polluters, dominated by China, India, the United States, and the European Union, were responsible for 83 of emissions in 2022.
China and the United States are the biggest carbon polluters in the world, having released 11.4 and 5.1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (GtCO₂) in 2022, respectively. Seven of the top 10 emitters have below-average emissions intensity, while Russia, China, and Canada are above the world average. As of 2022, the five countries with the highest emissions are China, the U.S., India, Russia, and Japan. The United States has released the most greenhouse gases cumulatively between 1850 and 2021, far outpacing China’s emissions. China, the U.S., India, the EU27, Russia, and Brazil were the world’s largest GHG emitters in 2023, accounting for 49.8% of the global population.
The largest emitters of CO₂ per capita are oil-rich countries such as Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait. The top three GHG emitters — China, the U.S., and India — contribute 42.6 total emissions, while the bottom 100 countries only account for a small percentage.
📹 This tool will help us get to zero emissions
The world needs to get to zero emissions by 2050 if we’re going to prevent the worst effects of climate change. In my book “How to …
Which 3 countries produce the most greenhouse gases per person?
The Middle East’s major oil producing countries, including Qatar, UAE, and Saudi Arabia, are among the world’s largest carbon dioxide emitters per capita. Countries like the US, Australia, and Canada also show high levels of emissions per inhabitant. Canada, despite having a relatively low population, has recently surpassed 500 million metric tons of CO2 emissions, making it one of the largest producers globally.
Global greenhouse gas emissions have been increasing since the industrial revolution, reaching a record high in recent years. However, emissions decreased significantly in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Which countries are contributing most to climate change?
China, the US, Russia, and India are major contributors to methane emissions, with Turkmenistan having the highest per capita emissions, primarily from fugitive emissions. Countries with large livestock populations and significant agricultural production, like New Zealand and Mongolia, also contribute to methane emissions. For more information on climate change, refer to the data stories and visualizations in the thirteenth Atlas story.
Which country contributes most to global warming?
China is the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, emitting 11, 397 million metric tons in 2022. The five countries with the highest CO2 emissions are China, the U. S., India, Russia, and Japan, according to the Global Carbon Atlas. NASA’s Climate Science division states that the Earth’s atmosphere has increased by 50 percent since the Industrial Revolution, leading to climate change. Around 90% of carbon dioxide emissions are attributed to fossil fuel use.
Which 5 countries are the biggest contributors to the greenhouse effect?
The Global Carbon Atlas identifies China, the United States, India, Russia, and Japan as the five countries responsible for the highest carbon dioxide emissions. The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide by 50 percent since the Industrial Revolution, primarily due to the use of fossil fuels, has caused climate change. China is the country with the highest emissions per capita.
Which celebrity has the worst carbon footprint?
Taylor Swift is the world’s most carbon polluting celebrity, according to a study by Yard, a digital sustainability consultancy. The study found that only 15 of the population takes 70 of the flights annually, and the average CO2 emissions by celebrities surveyed through their private jet flights are 3, 376. 64 tonnes each. Swift has logged an extensive 22, 923 minutes in the air since January, covering an average distance of over 139 miles per flight. This is a significant figure, especially considering she is not on tour during that period.
Who are the top 10 greenhouse gas emitters?
The top 10 emitters responsible for the majority of 2020 global greenhouse gas emissions are China, the United States, India, the European Union, Russia, Indonesia, and Brazil. The top emitters may change depending on data collection and data inclusion. Researchers generally sort emissions by country using three methods: 1) by country, 2) by country, and 3) by country. This helps in understanding the global emissions landscape and their impact on climate change.
What is the greenhouse gas emissions in Russia?
Russia emits 2 or 3 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases annually, accounting for about 4 of the world’s emissions. Annual carbon dioxide emissions alone are about 12 tons per person, more than double the world average. Russia is the world’s largest methane emitter, with 4 billion dollars worth of methane estimated to leak in 2019/20. Between 1990 and 2018, Russia’s greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 30 percent, excluding emissions from land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF).
Russia’s goal is to reach net zero by 2060, but its energy strategy to 2035 primarily focuses on burning more fossil fuels. Reporting military emissions is voluntary, and no data is available since before the 2022 invasion of Ukraine in 2024. Cutting greenhouse gas emissions would have health benefits greater than the cost.
Which country has the worst greenhouse gases?
The main disadvantage of measuring total national emissions is that it doesn’t consider population size. China, with the largest CO2 and GHG emissions in the world, has the second largest population. To provide a fair comparison, emissions should be analyzed in terms of CO2 and GHG per capita. China’s levels in 2022 were nearly two-thirds of those of the United States and less than a sixth of those of Palau. In 2023, China, the United States, India, the EU27, Russia, and Brazil were the world’s largest GHG emitters, accounting for 49.
8% of the global population, 63. 2 of the global gross domestic product, 64. 2 of global fossil fuel consumption, and 62. 7 of global GHG emissions. India had the largest increase in relative terms and China the largest absolute increase by 784 Mt CO2 eq.
Which country is the world’s #1 polluter?
China was the largest climate polluter in 2022, emitting 50 billion metric tons of planet-heating gases. The top 20 global climate polluters, including China, India, the United States, and the European Union, were responsible for 83 of the emissions. As climate chaos accelerates, scientists are warning that time is running out to slash fossil fuels. Climate Action Tracker data reveals the amount of pollution, the biggest polluters, and the progress still needed to prevent a “climate catastrophe”.
Does Taylor Swift pollute the most?
In 2022, the use of her private jet resulted in an estimated 8, 300 tons of carbon emissions, which is 1, 800 times the average annual emissions of a typical human, 576 times the average emissions of an American, and 1, 000 times the average emissions of a European.
Which country releases the most greenhouse gases?
Since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, there has been a notable increase in carbon dioxide emissions, predominantly resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels. The three countries with the highest levels of emissions are China, the United States, and the European Union. When emissions per capita are considered, the United States and Russia have the highest rates. The majority of global greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to a relatively limited number of countries.
📹 Why you don’t hear about the ozone layer anymore
Finally, some good news about the environment. Subscribe and turn on notifications so you don’t miss any videos: …
Hi! Christina here — I wanted to share NASA’s World Avoided scenario with you. As a child of the ’80s, the threat of the ozone hole was always something I was aware of, but this model really helped me understand the catastrophe we would’ve faced had we ignored it: earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/WorldWithoutOzone Thanks so much for perusal our article! Let us know what you think in the comments below.
I guess she needed to add a fourth P to the story: Producers. Back then they directly attacked the producers of the chemical, and therefore went straight to the source. These days the narrative is aimed at the consumers and personal responsibility, a narrative invented by stakeholders such as BP. This ensured that for decades the big players stayed out of the picture. Change isn’t possible if that remains the case.
Ozone layer recovery is an environmental success story! It shows that collective action, guided by science, is the best way to solve major global challenges. This kind of good news should inspire all of us to join forces on keeping the earth’s rising temperature as low as possible. How awesome would it be if our editors could skip all the flooding/wildfires/extinction stories and could go straight to “How humanity achieved the 1.5 target and saved biodiversity hotspots”.
i remembered that ozone layer was one of the most specific science subject was put into our grades syllabus. The ozone layer explained that by using certain product can caused the ozone layer to teared apart. It even made into a subject for younger generation. Which i think they needed to emphasis this matter more than just why and the impact. But also the substances involves in it that let them know more about it. What can be done in a project to mitigate besides perusal our government solve it but make a project where anyone who can solve the issues scientifically can be rewarded like how they reward a spaceship inventions.
We did come together and reduced the use of CFC in deodorant, however, A/C units still use it. If you could snap your fingers and make the entire ozone layer disappear, like a magician, it would return in thirty days. The ozone layer is created by the sun interacting with oxygen (O) in the upper atmosphere. The O=O bonds are broken. The two individual O atoms bond with an O=O creating O-O-O, or ozone. The poles get less direct sunlight, therefore the ozone layer is naturally weaker there.
I just want to say, honestly as someone that’s still rlly young, I’m really really thankful elders before me stepped up to do this. If the generations before me didn’t take action, perhaps I wouldn’t be enjoying the sun the way I can now. It inspires me to look out for future generations as well. So thank you, to everyone that pushed for this and VOX for sharing this 🙂 Like someone said in the comments, I hope one day you’d make a article abt “why we don’t hear about climate change anymore”.
what this article forgets to mention is that the Chlorine bits fuse with hyrogen and sinks out of the ozone layer, and gets diluted by the water molecules weakening it BUT into acid rain. Hydrocholoric acid rain which gets dumped out over the artics. but it’s weakened. the oxygen molecules are then allowed to fuse back into each other after ultraviolet I think UV-b blasts a oxygen molecule into two oxygen bits (which which fuse back together eventually, but sometimes a loose oxygen disemodied particle fuses with an already formed oxygen bonded to form 3 oxygens. Or super oxygen, very very dangerous on earth we breath that it breaks up our lungs. But it’s perfect to form as a shiled up there as ozone. With less and less CFC’s being flushed away in the rain (as it sinks down as hydrocholric acid molecules it still exists but as weakened form. Gets flushed again, weaker and weaker. And that’s why our ozone is also healing. What’s not cool though is these carbon is extremely destructive and punching weaker holes into the ozone slowing this healing up. Forest fires for instant, volcano eruptions and emissions. so let’s say Green house gases are a big hoax and Greta is a spastic freak (she’s not) and entertain these oilphiles. There’s still the fact that the carbon is acidifying our oceans, and… destorying our ozone… now if we can produce more trees they absorb the carbon (to make more tree tissue), allows less carbon into the atomsphere, and more air molecules for the process of making 3 oxygen air molecules, also allows our seas to detox and start using carbon to build up it’s structures, coral, shell fish their shells.
Actually so nice to learn about this. Ever since I read about CFCs in 8th grade and how they increase due to the use of refrigerators and ACs, I started having massive guilt and tried to use as little as possible. My anxiety and guilt only grew more and more, over the years but now I know that I was simply so misinformed. I thought CFCs were the biggest problem because they threatened the ozone layer, unaware that the ozone layer was rapidly being fixed. Thanks Vox, love your articles. Thank you Christina.
My father in the 1960’s and early 1970’s was a scientist at Australia’s CSIRO and he was tasked to measure the ozone layer. The ozone issues were first raised back then and papers with proof showing the ozone depletion and the cause being CFC’s. No one back then wanted to listen so the depletion went on and a hole developed. Only then, people started to listen and take note.
That was taken care of literally more than 20 years ago. Humanity as a whole should be smarter than ever with anything concerning our planet. It’s just so unfortunate to see so many people choosing to be ignorant about the recent situation in the environment while big corporations aren’t being held accountable for the damage they’re doing just so they can cut costs.
1989, when this treaty was signed, was a very hopeful year. I remember feeling that the future might actually be brighter. perusal the wall come down, so many countries establishing democracies, acid rain receding and a plan for meding the ozone layer. Looking back now, the relief was all too short and the downwards trend has picked up speed ever since 2001. Shame we couldn’t get our act together in the long run.
the one thing that it overlooked is that replacing CFCs as aerosol propellants was relatively easy. replacing the CFC used as refrigerants was a little more difficult, but was done. The one thing that I did not like at the time was how CFCs were painted as being evil incarnate. When I talked about this in my introduction to engineering classes (particularly how decisions made with technology may have unintended consequences) is what the CFCs replaced as a refrigerant which was propane and ammonia. The initial development of CFCs did a lot for improving health and nutrition as food could be frozen with little loss in nutrients and food could be kept unspoiled for a longer period of time. This situation is much different than dealing with the GHG problem as what we are looking for is a substitute for an energy source.
The Ozone Layer problem was solved so quickly because there were easy practical methods in which to do so. Stop using CFCs, start using HCs (hydrocarbons) in aerosol and change the compound of refridgerant. I grew up with this and learned about it at school. Climate Change/Global Warming isn’t so easy to change as this. It needs a change of energy infrastructure of an unprecedented scale, that would initially cost trillions of dollars. Despite that renewable energy does offer a complete return of investment, that return is very slow, and governments simply do not want to spend that money when coal, gas and oil are still an available and cheap resource. There’s no conspiracy, there’s no made up thing on fear keeping us in control. If you believe that you’re as blind as those who create the problem. It’s about money, guys. That’s all it is. Money.
I remember being scared by all the news reports hammering down each day that led to many changes in how we do things and go about living together each day. My father owned a contracting company that built custom home environment control systems. He was required to purchase an expensive machine that captured freon from air conditioning units and refrigerators as well as other devices. Hairspray was another item affected by legislation affecting our chlorofluorocarbon production
Basically, when the problem causing the environmental issue isn’t being backed by massive corporations with their hands in almost every political sphere, we can actually get stuff done. Have you ever heard of CFC political lobbying? Until big oil and other main contributors admit fault we’re going to continue destroying our planet, and that won’t happen anytime soon.
That wonderful graph showing the ozone layer getting better on average certainly doesn’t reflect the uv values that continuously increase every year. Why not show a few graphs of the UV levels on average, as that is what is really important. I’m surprised the graph shows levelling off and improvement of the ozone layer in such a short time given the fact that chlorine is there for 50 to 150 years.
You know, one of my fears with climate change was that “scaring people into action” would result in backlash that would damage progress more than help . . . I was right. A shame we changed tactics when we went from the ozone layer to climate change. It’s one thing to inform the public, quite another to do it in a way that creates division. To this day, I don’t understand why we took the approach we did to climate change, now we have all sorts of conspiracy theorists and it’s very difficult to push for change.
How about a shout out to the HVAC/R technician’s that have been recovering million’s of ton’s of CFC’s, primarily r22, from old cooling equipment for the last 30+ year’s. Vintage cars and refrigeration/freezer’s needed CFC r12 recovered. After CFC r12 phase out in the 90’s, HFC’s, r134, have been used widely in car’s and refrigerator’s until the last 5 years or so. R134 is also present in many commercial refrigerator’s/freezer’s or blended with other refrigerant’s for use in Hospital/research lab equipment that need to be recovered. Several year’s ago lab grade propane (r290) became the replacement for r134 – with result that service technician’s now deal with a different hazard of potential fire or explosion. Hurray to the HVAC/R service technician’s that do the refrigerant recovery work in this earth saving effort.
One interesting observation is that the monetary system has put such pressure on people to do what ever they can for money. Whether they have money or don’t have money. If the world has an equal amount per month, the pressures of automation, resource extraction, of byproduct utilization and many more cause and effect situations could be addressed without detriment to the monetary monthly income of the worlds population. Projects are in need of the time to do them right as humanly possible. Access to the means to give a population the capabilities to address the projects like, sewer, water, recycling, housing, transportation. Projects would not stop, or even have the individuality stripped out of them. The panic of a pay check not coming in might help ensure it can be done as best as humanly possible. Don’t stop learning, keep yourselves busy, and pencil in the whole population. Thank you for reading this. Have a great day.
If ozone layers had “dropped by 50%” in 1987 yet the levels of the cfc’s “will live between 50 and 150 years in our atmosphere” and “every year what you use the year before is almost entirely there” then how is the rapid decline which began just 20 years from 1987 possible? Can someone explain with facts?
I just want to contribute to this that scientists have defined a framework of planetary boundaries, these are matters that are seriously important. Ozone depletion is one of them, and fortunately we’ve all done amazing work to fix this problem. Climate change is one of the other environmental problems that have. Excessive discharge of nitrogen compounds into the environment is a problem because it causes eutrophication, messing up our ecosystems. Another problem is non-circular use of phosphorus, which is vital for our DNA and if it runs out the efficiency of global food production could decrease by 50%. Biodiversity loss is also a great problem, as ecosystem degradation affects us all. I don’t want to worry you, I just want to say that scientists worldwide are doing amazing work at trying to solve these problems, trust and support them. The most tiring thing is hearing people say “it’s always something, now it’s climate change, 10 years ago it was the hole in the ozone layer. You don’t hear anything about that anymore do you?”
It’s truly remarkable to think about the progress we’ve made in addressing climate change. Just a few years ago, it seemed like an insurmountable problem that would lead to the downfall of our planet. But thanks to the hard work of scientists and the media’s efforts to spread awareness, we’ve been able to turn things around.
7:53 – I’m pretty sure (correct me if I’m wrong) that this is a nuclear power plant’s steam cooling towers shown here. I get you want to share a message about climate change but please do better than showing images of non-carbon emitting power generation plants implying that these stations are releasing CO2 into the air.
The really hard part about solving climate change is the lack of practical solutions. While we can try to build solar panels, wind power, and hydroelectric power but even these harm the ecosystems they’re in. On top of this there are so many more parts to climate change its unlikely anyone will take legitimate action until we are cornered
I think about a similar ecological disaster we faced in the 80s and 90s: acid rain. It was a result of sulphur dioxide from coal-fired power stations and other similar emissions. These stations installed “scrubbers” to greatly reduced the emissions. Same for catalytic converters in car exhaust for nitrogen oxide emissions. We’re seeing a similar issue now with emissions from shipping. But it’s a solvable issue, just like the ozone layer. And I firmly believe that climate change COULD be solved, but we need major, global, immediate action. It needs mobilization from world leaders on a similar scale to WW2.
Just a quick tip for people with “solutions”: we can’t just ban petroleum/ petrole from night to day, neither combustion cars. Unfortunately there are still places in the world where people don’t even have electricity inside their houses, banning those things would colapse entire countries and maybe continents.
The problem with human kind is that we insist on forcing rule without recognition; keep reading to learn why. If CFC’s used in the 80’s caused this issue, how did they make their way to the south pole? I’m not a meteorologist, but I am aware of the global windstream patterns. Majority of CFC’s would’ve been used in the northern hemisphere, I.E. USA, UK, and other first world countries throughout North America, Europe, and Asia. If those fumes transcended into the atmosphere, how was the north pole not affected? The only reason this treaty was signed is that political leaders are not capable logical thought or questioning. They were scared, and did what they thought would appease the majority they represent. If you actually analyze the graphs they present, there is no TRUE correlation between numbers. Yes, we may contribute to climate change; however we are not the reason it is occurring. There are other forces at hand that we fail to acknowledge because we insist on forcing rule without recognition. Just like every dictator and tyrant to ever rule. THAT is the down fall to humanity.
It sounds like we’re doing well to balance the ozone layer. Though most of nature isn’t so delicate either that it can’t recover from the things we’ve done so far. More of what we need to focus on is recycling and trash management now, because that’s something that is an issue. Materials aren’t being recycled effectively to be remade. In fact, It seems like the efforts are decreasing because the costs and benefits that people see are diminished. And what’s most ironic is that Green efforts seem like they’re pushing people to abandon it mostly… Trying to take away people’s options And forcing them to resort to Cheaper and less practical answers instead of using what’s already known effective, and can still filter out the damaging materials… They’re hyperfocused on trying to make people change things suddenly, instead of making the options better and more sensible…
When we were kids, there was chocolate company which offered a scheme – “if you collect outer plastic packaging of our chocolates and send it to our po box, we will reward you with 1 bucks for every 20 piece of plastic wraps” It was printed with a slogan “we produce it so we take care of it”. They would recycle the wraps. Thats what happened with ban of cfcs. The manufacturers of cfcs were targeted more, I think that’s why it was possible to fix the main issue. So the those who produce these things should be questioned more than often.
And here I was told they stopped talking about it because the Ozone hole was actually just “normal”. We should talk about successful interventions more so people don’t get crisis fatigue. We literally never hear about the success stories, it often feels overwhelming and like nothing can change because we don’t hear about the successes.
When measuring the ozone began with satellites in 80’s it was depleting, but then healed. Problem is, empirically we don’t know what the long term status of the layer is and was in previous decades and centuries. Is it in constant state of growing and shrinking, or was it stable before the CFC’s? Without this knowledge, we can’t say what percentage these chemicals affect and what is a natural fluctuating.
I remember perusal a article on Y2K, the original legitimate computer science concerns about the date change, and how they were solved before the year 2000. Then the ridicule around the concept ever since. Someone in the comments said “just goes to show if a bunch of people work really hard to solve a problem, many others will conclude that problem never existed.”
I think many people have heard so much about climate change for so long, they feel that we’re past the point of no return. Because of that they’ve become numb to it, not because they don’t care, but because they feel we can’t change. I remember learning about the ozone depleting as a kid, and ever since I’ve made it a habit to use as little aerosol products as possible. And yet, I had no idea we’ve actually been succeeding, that fact not only gives me hope where politicians have made countless empty promises, but it also makes me feel like I somehow helped (even if I didnt). That makes for a far better and more hopeful climate change message than anything I’ve heard, so I think it should be brought up far more often. If we realise and believe we can fix climate change like we have with the ozone, maybe there’ll be hope for us yet.
The difference between the Ozone layer problem and climate change is that solving the first one didn’t directly impact the way we live, it just required technological solutions (new chemicals). Solving climate change won’t come through technological changes alone, but mostly through sobriety and structural changes. That is way harder to acheive because no one wants to reduce its level of consumption by 8 (more if you are american or from saudi arabia, less if you are from pakistan or nigeria).
Lovely article. I don’t believe that we haven’t passed all of the tipping points yet, though. It’s good to remain hopeful and positive, but a pinch of realism is always good to keep in reach. The world seemed to slow down during Covid, yet our emissions just hit a new record. We’ve known about climate change for longer than I’ve been alive, yet all we get is talk, talk, talk, and no action. I’d say that the whole ozone layer story is one to make us feel good about ourselves while we go on destroying the very systems we depend upon for the sake of momentary comforts.
To everyone perusal this, can we start lessening the use of single use plastic? Improper garbage disposal is easily one of the most important things that we neglect to do. We should be more aware of our actions especially ones that affect our surroundings so that we may preserve the beauty of nature and its life. Have a great day and a massive thank you for those who read this comment and decided to take part in preserving the earth.
Climate change is the biggest problem now guys I’ll tell you why I live in India and from the start of 2023 it was really showing that how fast the climate was changing and talking about the weathers it’s genrally very cold in January but it was not too cold like it used to be and we experienced summer like April may just in March and the Feb month which used to be my fav month coz it’s the time for spring season in india but we didnt experienced any spring season which made me feel like will we lose this awesome season just like this and that’s the time when it started concerning me and like its may now and it’s usually used to be super hot in northern india but like literally we are experiencing rainfall,storms for days and it feels so cold in the night time I really never experienced this like feeling cold in may month even the news said that after 6 year it was raining like this in india in the month of may and the may is feeling like december When I was a kid I attend one of these Montreal protocol program which was held in delhi in india and some students of govt, school were invited At that time I didnt know much about it but now hearing that its healing now makes me feel great I think we should do the same for climate change and I know that un and other organizations are already working on it but it doesnt seem effective to me ppl still dont believe that climate change is the real thing and it will affect each one us so even if they r trying I dont think its functional as it should be
Maybe I am wrong, but I understand things in another way: What if ozone is an effect? I mean what if ozone (O3) is produced by reaction between normal oxygen (O2) and ultraviolet light? This could explain the “consumption” of ultraviolet light in areas where ozone was formed into high atmosphere, because UV was used into reaction. Also it could explain the fact that ozone layer is almost unexisting to the poles (less light reaching the poles => less ozone is produced). Another phanomena couldd also be explained: ozone holes over Europe or other areas on Earth, other than poles – this could happen due to the movement of atmosphere layers over the Earth, when an atmosphere layer contain exactly the ozone pole from a pole. In such a case, the ozone hole migrated from the pole is pretty quick “refilled” with ozone due to ozone generation reaction from O2 and UV.
This is a great success story that needs to be mentioned more. It gives me a lot of hope. However, climate change (caused by carbon emissions) is a much bigger challenge than the ozone layer. The difference between these two environmental challenges is what gases are causing them. For the ozone layer, it was CFCs, which is a by product of producing refrigerants, cleaning, and foaming agents. For carbon emissions, it’s greenhouse gases, which is a by product of producing energy. Energy is much, much, much more essential to our lives than cleaning / foaming agents. We need energy to do literally EVERYTHING, and we are incredibly reliant on fossil fuels to do this. Our challenge is enormous, but we have no choice but to address it together. I would be really curious to hear why it was so easy to find a replacement for CFCs – Dr. Susan Solomon said it took only one year (!!!). Maybe we could get some inspiration for this, for finding replacements for fossil fuels.
“In the ’80s, scientists discovered there was a hole in the ozone over the South Pole.” This sentence (and the article) just completely cuts out literally an entire decade’s worth of research in the 70’s that directly led to the discovery of the ozone hole, including work that wound up winning the Nobel Prize.
Antarctic ozone hole: all countries go in together, the public supported the measures. 20 years later the hole stopped growing, and another 10 years later the hole is started to shrink. Crisis adverted as long as we keep it up. Climate change: 20 years later and people are still bickering if it’s real or not, and which one entity should take sole responsibility. Why can’t we learn from our mistake and triumph of the past?
I would really love to know, how much of the earth’s warming is related to the ozone hole. I still remember that getting skin cancer was not the only problem. UV-light is energy rich and since it is not getting reflected by the ozone layer is heating up the planet. I have. never found a study that would show how much of the warming comes from green house gases which is an ongoing topic and how much comes from ozone destruction, which is basically solved, but will need another 50 years to fix.
I’m not so sure about this. A substitution was readily available? Or was it developed under those pressure? Was there any engineering advantage to use the new substitute anyway? The only sure reason we don’t hear about it anymore is that it’s no longer worsening. However, the only sure thing about this development is that a good solution was available and political pressure make it happens faster. You don’t just phase out something without another way out.
Since I’m a very thick-skulled Neanderthal, please explain to me why the ozone hole occurred in the place on earth that’s the most remote from where all the CFCs were being used. Since most weather systems don’t cross the equator, there must be something strange going on. And since the chemicals persist in the atmosphere for a hundred years, wouldn’t the best result of even a 100% drop in CFC usage be a levelling off? It would take decades to see any improvement.
Last time I checked, after years of the ozone hole receding however the size has stopped shrinking because Chinese manufacturerers in Western China have started using CFCs to make cheap foam products. It just goes to show that attacking global pollution on a country by country case has severe limitations. How can we tell emerging economies that their people need to remain poor agrarian societies without electricity, internet access, health facilities. We need to assist countries to advance their quality of life. African countries didn’t run copper phone cables they hopscotched to wireless systems.
What I learned is if the media and government weren’t completely bought out these days we might have had a chance against climate change. Oh well let’s just keep having useless climate summits where we pretend we might eventually do something around the margins at some point in the future. I’m sure that will be sufficient.
The biggest problem with climate change are the politics. Issues like climate, pandemics, etc give those in power a license to “do-whatever-I-want-however-I-see-fit” as there is no accountability. We are all shaking hands and shouting “Hooray! We fixed the OZone!!” When in reality, we do not have the empirical data to show we’ve made any impact whatsoever as the only solid data/evidence we have is 40 to 50 years old. We’ve experienced LIAs (Little Ice Age) throughout history in the pre industrial age as well as warming periods which do have counter arguments as far as causation on both sides… but we don’t really know. We are not yet capable of measuring the variables for what impact a specific causation or event had on overall climate change except for right after they occur… outside of cataclysmic events such as meteors, super volcanos, etc. and the clues they leave behind that is. Variables for climate change include everything from: -highs and lows in solar radiation due to solar events -nearby objects in space -sibling planet positioning in our solar system -volcanic activity -oceanic currents and circulation -periodical hatchings (such as cicadas) -periodical animal activities This list goes on and on and on and on. While the evidence is tantalizing (RIP Carl Sagan), we’ve just begun to scratch the surface on climate. That said, the argument for cleaner living and leaving less of a footprint on earth should stop at the fact that we know we can impact our environment (such as the dust bowl) so we should take it upon us to live clean lives- but not at the cost of our freedoms and nothing drastic or rash should be done.
3:40 “The US had already moved away from CFCs in aerosol cans” 6:20 “Soon after, the world’s largest CFC producer began to phase them out”, with the headline “Du Pont will stop making ozone killers”. As Du Pont is (and was) a US company, these statements can’t both be correct. As the headline is referenced with a date, it seems more likely that’s correct, and so the first claim is not.
At 8:11 “It’s not true that we can’t do it anymore…” We never did. My mom and dad supported this and so did we: We were only being asked to use roll-on deodorant instead of spray and to change the type of refrigerant in the A/C. We were never asked to stop using deodorant or live without A/C. Today, we are being asked to walk or bike instead of driving, to change how we live, where we live. You are asking families that have large pick up truck to stop taking their kids camping with the trailer. You are asking people with ranches, farms, country homes to move to the city so their kids can walk to school. The degree of the life style changes they are expecting from people are RADICAL, while none of the changes needed to protect the ozone layer can really even be called ‘changes’. the A/C still runs, the paint still comes out of the spray can, no life style change took place. On the other hand, the data about the ozone layer depletion was clear, only human made products were destroying it. While the data on what causes the climate to change is nowhere near clear past the point that it is changing. OK. But changed by us? Can you say that to the people that lived through 536 AD? The weather changed and there were no cars nor power plants around.
I remember this when I was younger. It was on the news all the time, all the scaremongering about the hole in the ozone layer. I also remember when it suddenly healed itself and some of the scientists commenting that they were surprised that it was no longer a problem. Then it all went quiet. Just like all the other doomsday predictions that I’ve heard about over the years, from oil running out by the year 2000, to a new ice age coming, to the Maldives being underwater, Al Gores “There will be no ice by 2013”. The only problem we face as a civilisation is the greed of those in power.
We have some practical solutions: showing wind generators and solar panels. These are not practical, we can’t store the energy from such unreliable sources yet. Therefore they increase CO2 emissions due to necessity of using coal when there is no wind or daylight. So, the best available alternative – nuclear energy, but it is time-consuming and costly to implement safely, though possible.
The reason we dont hear about it is because there was no danger. As Kary Mullis explained in his book Dancing Naked in the Mind Field the idea that O3 could be wiped out contradicts one of chemistry’s basic principles – the Le Chatelier Principle. O3 is formed from O2 which is available throughout the atmosphere in superabundance compared to O3. Removing O3 just means that more will be created from O2. It’s possible that there could be local low concentrations (eg over Antarctica) that persist for some reason but these are irrelevant to the global threat of too much UV light. which O3 absorbs. Mullis won the Nobel prize for chemistry in recognition of his invention of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) an indispensable tool for molecular biology. (Incidentally, before he died Mullis left a article explaining that the PCR method could not be used as a test.)
interesting that the only place the ozone hole was at was the farthest one can get away from other people, and still be on the earth. to bad they never said anything about the volcano’s puking out chlorine gas by the ton each day and night non stop. in just a year it had put 100 times as much as humans had made in our entire history.
Great article! I wish everyone would see it! I think it would help if you re-named the clip into something that is less about the ozone layer and more about: Yay! Humans really ARE capable of finding and implementing solutions to solve an environmental crisis. This is to me the core conclusion of the article, and a very very important one! <3
Climate change is an issue that is going to take so much time and effort though. Many countries that are still developing use the cheapest energy source there is which is coal or carbon, you aren’t going to tell a poor Namibian family to stop polluting and use solar panels, thats something that only Americans have the luxury of. With the situation in the article it was easy, you just ban the specific molecule that there is suitable replacement for and end of story. With Climate Change it’s so much more complicated
You had me hooked until Greta showed up. She isn’t doing anything unlike other smaller present companies that are doing something for the environment, which steals the spotlight from them. It’s been a while since anything popped from her and the smaller people have already accomplished more than her words.
I was shocked when I recently learned of the oceans capacity for absorbing heat and how we have already reached the critical limit early. Why is no body making a big deal of this?? We have had a false sense of security with delayed surface temperatures. We have tech that would fix everything quickly if only we weren’t so concerned about wealth generation. Time for no one to be in charge and everyone to do what is right.
Good job on ozone: sort of an anti-chemical industry pushback. CO2, you takin’ muh car? No, just making a really quiet one. I don’t believe hydroelectricity is clean: silting, cinnabar, flooded forests with deadheads, isolated fish stocks, never mind the tonne of CO2 per tonne of cement. Cost of lithium extraction and battery production and the risks to mechanics working on those abominations: your garage needs a mechanic and an electrician. Could be argued you need a computer programmer, too. Let me just say, there are many difficult variables going into these alternative energies that will be difficult to suss, and they’ll mostly be wrong.
We’re still failing at the “Practical Solutions” part. Electric cars, solar and wind power are not going to do it. It can even be argued that all three cause more problems than they solve (uneven generation requiring large storage systems, impractical repair and recycling at EOL, increased carbon footprint in manufacture, fire hazards, etc). Some form of carbon capture and synthetic fuel generation from the captured carbon, utilising nuclear energy could be one element of the ultimate solution.
The reason is it achieved its goal. Fridges and air-con’s were about to get a lot cheaper because the patents on these gases (freons) were expiring. So they created a problem in the masses to force regulation that would ban them so they could sell the patented gas and up the prices. This is why you car air con needs constant re-gassing and why your old 80’s fridge is still rocking whilst your 2000’s fridge is long dead.
If you look carefully even in the thumbnail image the concentration of ozone in the hole is the same as the concentration of ozone for everywhere between 30 degrees south and 30° North of the equator. . The ring around Antarctica is actually higher than average concentrations and no one explains that.
Even when we no longer use the ozone depleting products… Our Government/EPA programs still require new products. These products will cost million in businesses and millions more for homeowners who will no longer be able to maintain older products due to these changes (For example: AC, freezers etc). Why is this needed now? Government programs never shut down.. they just expand and waste more money and what best way to do that but create more rules and products.. Just slap a “Its for our health” or “Its for the environment” and waste everyone’s money.
The trouble is that most of the solutions are just as bad or almost as bad as using fossil fuel. Windmills use a lot of concrete and plastic composites, hydro dams use enormous amounts of concrete, and solar power systems rely on copper and lithium for the solar cells and the batteries. All of these contribute significantly to climate change and the depletion of natural resources. The key is we need to rethink how we live and reduce the waste of energy, and other resources just to create garbage and destroy our planet.