Antarctic Ozone Hole Leveling Off 353
twistedfuck writes: "An Irish Time article reports that the size of the hole in the antartican ozone layer is levelling off and should begin reducing in size. It seems like it should be welcome news but it is tempered by the fact that more UV radiation will reach the southern hemisphere this year because the hole will persist longer. Unfortunately I can not find any details regarding the NOAA report on their website." Update: 11/06 17:31 GMT by H :Thanks to Isaac Lewis, NOAA Sysadmin and Slashdot reader, for pointing out more information, as well as pointing out the ozonelayer site.
Hooray for regulation? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hooray for regulation? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hooray for regulation? (Score:5, Interesting)
a) Upon seeing problems, we've heavily cut back on all sorts of emissions under the belief that it will fix the problem.
b) Results of a) (above) will take sixty more years to manifest.
c) Problem is disappearing long before results of a) are known.
Therefore, perhaps a) was a faulty assumption that costs businesses billions annually, and the ozone hole is really just a cyclical thing?
That said, lower emissions are good, if only for two reasons - one, so that whilst canoeing the Indian Arm of the Fraser River, I don't know that Vancouver is (that way) due to the brown sky. Two, because they *do* seem to be responsible for all sorts of human respiratory problems. You know, if environmentalists weren't all a bunch of crackpots who use pseudoscience to justify whatever their jihad of the day is, I'd probably identify myself as one.
PS - The ICE at the NORTH POLE is MELTING!!! Oh NO!!!
Re:WTF?!? (Score:2, Insightful)
Global warming is a fact,
True. But you can't forget the fact that global tempatures are currently lower then average. Leaving "the little ice age" (1200-1800) would account for global warming.
Of course the question is then is there are problem. I can't answer that. Everything feeds everything else. When we burn a drop of oil is affects how the trees grow and things like that. Forest fires are a significant cause of polution, and the well ment, but disasterious smokey the bear (Only you can prevent forest fires) program has ment that in the previous centry there were less of them. Volcanios when they errupt make up the large majority of the polution released that year.
So is there a problem or not? I can cite lots of facts. There is no way to know without controlled expiriments lasting for several million years. Even if we had the patience to see such a study through, we don't have the ability to construct several idenitical solar systems, complete with suns and planets, so we can't control the variables. Even if we could construct such systems we can't alter orbits of the planets at will, we can't prevent/cause solar flares, and we can't cause volcanos. (Even if we could, could we do it without introducing anouther variable?) Facts are easy, figgureing out what they mean is hard.
Re:WTF?!? (Score:2)
That's what happens when you leave science to lay-folk. Any real scientist would tell you that your proposal is way too ambitious; the scope of your proposed experiment can be drastically reduced without adversly affecting the outcome. You don't need to build multiple solar systems for your control group, you just need to build multiple Earths, orbiting the one Sun. You have to admit that building multiple Earths is far easier than building multiple solar systems. I suggest you start with Venus, as the 2nd rock's pretty worthless except as a navigation device for sailors, it's about the right size, and it's already close to the desired orbit.
Of course, this guy [jackstargazer.com] might not like it...
Re:WTF?!? (Score:2)
If you believe pseudoscience, you're part of the problem. You see, it is likely that the changeover from CFC based systems to other systems did cost on the order of a billion dollars (that isn't that much, just 1 B2 bomber). Now if, in fact, we did not need to do so, that billion dollar hit to the economy could have been taken in an environmental area that was needed. So getting environmental science wrong is not helpful. The emotional environmentalists have done more to harm the environment than any single chemical manufacturer. My own case in point is the nuclear debate. Emotional environmentalists have pushed FUD tactics regarding nuclear power for some time. This has caused industrial nations to increase use of oil, coal, and hydro-electric systems, each of which have terrible environmental disadvantages of their own. Geologically, coal tends to be a trap for naturally occuring radiogenic compounds, and your average coal plant spews out more radioactive gasses than all the nuclear spills of all western reactors combined (clearly Chernobyl is a case apart), not to mention the tons and tons of CO2 that get tossed into the atmosphere. Hydro dams destroy habitat by the hundreds of square miles.
here are evidences[sic] that we are destroying nature, look at the rivers!
The US is hardly the worst polluter of riparian environments in the world. The clean water act has actually been very effective at cleaning the rivers. I heard a story by an entymologist I know at Clemson university who specializes in cadis flies and other aquatic insects as indicators of stream health. He'd developed standards of measurements for defining stream pollution throughout the southeastern US. He traveled to China to do some work there, and had to travel several hundred miles inland before he found environments that were healthy enough to even show up on his scale.
US citizens are not even one 20th of the world population but they manage to produce half the pollution.
This depend highly on how polution is defined. We are the largest producer of CO2, which was not considered a pollutant until fairly recently. In other respects, we've greatly reduced our environmental destruction. At the turn of the century, South Carolina was largely devoid of trees. Through conservation and forestry, that state has now recovered large tracts of forest land. Clearly this land is not as healthy as old-growth forest yet, but such things take time, and its doing better than one might think.
Also, it is the third world, the developing countries, that continue to use CFC depleting chemicals. For more details check out this article [enn.com] at ENN.
Now, I do believe that CFC reductions are largely responsible for the halting of growth in the ozone layer. It is true that ozone depletors remain active for quite some time. However, ozone is continuously being produced by incident radiation, and even if depletors are present in the atmosphere, ozone levels will quickly reach equilibrium once the amount of depleting agents stabilizes. We can expect a slow recovery, but we should expect to see stabilization quickly. This is precisely what is being reported.
Re:Hooray for regulation? (Score:2, Insightful)
This will probally cause the next ice age
Wait, how is the MELTING of the ice caps going to result in another Ice Age? I think you have that the wrong way around...
Re:Hooray for regulation? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hooray for regulation? (Score:2)
I do agree that even thought the science of what caused the hole is not pointing to CFCs that we should do a better job of not creating biodestructive compounds; however, speaking to the point I have listed above, have you ever tried to take a bus in Detroit? god forbid you have to get to the suburbs where most iner city folk come to work for better pay and a safer work location....it can take 4 hours!!! so yes it can hurt
Re:The truth is... (Score:2)
They can't prove it. Oh, sure, they can come up with tons of circumstantial evidence, to be sure, but the one thing that they cannot do is establish causality beyond a doubt.
WHO CARES? As long as they can establish a REASONABLE chance that there IS a causal relationship, then let's act on it. And they've done that; let's see, on one hand we have pro-business pseudoscience, and on the other we have the work of tens of thousands of scientists. Who would you believe? The idea that we can't establish a causal relationship to 100% certainty is a point that only a philosopher of science should reasonably care about. Hell, if they establish a 30% chance we should act on it, simply because the possible costs are so high.
So, what's the next best thing they can do? Go on the PC offensive, or course! It's simple and it's proven to be effective time and time again. They can just demonize any thought or information that doesn't conform to their preconceived determination, and use the willing accompices in the media and academia to ensure that their views will be the "accepted" ones. Anything that doesn't march in lockstep will be declared "evil" and ostracized.
And what the hell do you think you're doing?
Re:The truth is... (Score:2)
Many of the "thousands of scientists" you mention have vested interests as well.
And what about those that don't? The reason you're discounting their research is not because it's flawed but because you don't agree with it.
lot of the pro-environment propaganda that goes on is the direct result of big corporations wanting to manipulate you
How on earth can you be so amazingly, 100% wrong? It's remarkable.
Point to one single PAC formed by corporations that endorses stricter environmental regulations. Go ahead, I dare you.
so they keep quiet when polititians and various other talking heads distort their findings to sound more frighning than they really are.
Do you even read the paper? Most politicians ignore this, as they've ignored it for decades.
Face it, you are being played.
And you are so lost in the self-delusion of your own little fringe ideology that it's not even worthwhile to continue this.
Re:The truth is... (Score:2)
Uhh, excuse me, but isn't this science that we are talking about in the first place? Oh, wait, sorry, you are absolutely right, of course! This is nothing more than politics in the guise of "science"! Excuse me for that little oversight.
So you actually believe that science never enters the picture? That the climatologists, ecologists, environmental chemists, geophysicists who research this stuff are just wasting their lives on a useless pursuit. The facts are these:
1. Releasing industrial waste (as CO2, CFCs, chlorine, heavy metals, whatever) into the environment changes that environment.
2. These changes are probably harmful to humans.
If this is the case, shouldn't we try to limit how much of these wastes we release? Just because we haven't proven all of the facts 100%? Do you not pay car insurance because there's not a 100% chance you'll get into an accident?
What happens to pollutants then, if you release them into the air? You think they magically disappear? Let me guess, the hole in the ozone doesn't exist either?
The really sad thing about this whole debate is that, by using such "sky-is-falling" scare tactics and demagoguery, the left wing has successfully hijacked the whole environmental issue and used it as nothing more than a means to ram their marxist dogma down everyone else's throats.
Oh yes, you found us out. The entire environmental movement is simply a front for a vast Marxist conspiracy. After we sneak in all those environmental regulations we're going to erect a statue of Marx in Washington, DC, then march around waving red flags chanting Soviet slogans. Give me a break.
Think it's bullshit? Try taking a long hard look at your ridiculous
My motives? What motives can you extrapolate from my sig?
Antarctic (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Antarctic (Score:2)
Size will decline? (Score:2, Interesting)
Are there any meteorologists/ecologists out there who know how this works?
Re:Size will decline? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ozone is harder to produce and easier to break down when it is cold, which is one reason ozone is at its lowest levels over the poles in winter (also when there is a deficit of sunlight). The poles are also especially vulnerable because global wind patterns circle around them rather then refreshing the air. Even the most stubborn air pollutants will break down or become absorbed by the environment if we stop pumping them out and give the Earth time to get back to normal.
Re:Size will decline? (Score:2)
Re:Size will decline? (Score:2)
An interesting question to ask though is where does that 40, 50, 60, 100 years number for travel time and pontency time of CFCs come from. Not surprisingly it comes from those opposed to controls on CFCs. What do people promoting those controls say? If they are honest, they typically say something along the lines of "we haven't the foggiest clue". Before the ozone hole no one really had any expereince with gas diffusion on this scale. And you are kidding yourself if you think anyone in either camp has a really good understanding of high level atmospheric chemistry, they don't. There are constant surprises.
Similar but not directly related, the experience with the carbon cycle suggests that those the numbers for CFCs might be significantly high. Scientists want to know how fast carbon replenishes itself in the low atmosphere, or equivalently how long it takes before the majority of CO2 emitted today is returned to the biosphere. Prevailing theoretical wisdom pegged this number at around 20-30 years, but recent experimental evidence is giving a number more like 4 years. I could believe that the estimates on CFCs were similarly too large.
Ultimately though, if CFCs can reach up that high then they will cause damage. Whether they are a primary (or even a significant) cause of depletion is hard to tell, but the ozone layer will probably be better off that we aren't using them. The issue of the ozone hole won't be resolved by people like us sitting on slashdot, it may be though by people who go out and see if the levels of pollutants in the upper Antartic atmosphere actually are dropping off.
Re:Size will decline? (Score:2)
Re:Size will decline? (Score:2)
Those SUPPORTING CFC controls say that they are persistent in the environment and take years to reach the upper atmosphere. Those OPPOSED to controls or just plain NUETRAL, say that they don't know the time span involved.
Don't know how I managed to get that backward when writing it down. Brain fart I guess. Sorry.
Re:Size will decline? (Score:2)
This is kind of sad. Read up on the details of the science involved in the ozone issue - it is _known_ beyond all reasonable doubt that the problem is manmade.
Ozone hole science is NOT based on correlation.
It sounds like you've misheard something along the lines of "CFC's can take as long as 50 years to reach the upper atmosphere" and turned it into some cosy argument for there being no need to change anything.
You say "perhaps" this, "perhaps" that. But the fact is that most of these "unknowns" are not unknown at all. The doubts you raise have been laid to rest a long time ago by sound methodology. Nobel-winning methodology in one case. Just because joe-public-friendly articles don't have the space or readership go into hard, tedious, boring, ugly science doesn't mean the science isn't rock solid.
Just because the science indicates that particular industrial emmissions are the cause doesn't mean that it must be some sort of wacko lefty greenie psuedo-science.
Re:Size will decline? (Score:2)
hey bob, I kicked the door and the light came on. this must be how you turn a light on.
Re:Size will decline? (Score:2)
My guess is that what you read somewhere said, chemicals can take as long as 50 years to reach the ozone layer, but on balance they get there "It can take days or even years for some chemicals to reach the stratosphere." (this quoted from this article [enn.com] at ENN.)
Also, not all CFCs take so long to break down. To quote the ENN article again, "Ozone depleting chemicals such as CFCs, halons and other substances commonly found in coolants, foaming agents, fire extinguishers and solvents linger in the atmosphere for different periods of time."
perhaps the hole had been growing for the last 400 years.
Actually, the hole did appear after we began measurements in Antarctica. This does not preclude some cyclical natural phenomenon, but there's good evidence that anthropogenic effects are at least a major part of the problem.
Indeed, the evidence is much more clear than anthropogenic global warming.
Re:Size will decline? (Score:2)
Then how do the pollutants get there? Walk there on their own? I agree that we should take care of the environment but some of this stuff is so concocted it not even funny. As in the idea that our pollutants are the major cause of the ozone depletion. While I think they may have some effect, I believe its more likely to be a naturally occuring cycle.
NOAA Website Link (Score:2)
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s792.htm [noaa.gov]
lots of links and pretty pictures available.
(And just a note: Radio Free Nation had this back in the middle of October, but what do I know? [smile])
Mother Nature (Score:4, Interesting)
This article suggests that though the total mass of the hole is reducing in size, it is also maintaining itself for longer periods. Without research, an immediate assumption would suggest that this would be letting the same doses of UV rays reach the earth annually.
I'd say Mother Nature is attemtping to counteract our efforts and regulate the earth the way she has done for millions of years!
And given our (human) track record.. I'd give 1000:1 odds in favor of Mother Nature doing the right thing.
Re:Mother Nature (Score:4, Troll)
The increase of UV radition getting to the earth due to the depletion of ozone is smaller than the error factor of the best detection instraments.
And, even if it weren't, even changes as high as 20% aren't abnormal in nature. Otherwise, there wouldn't be life in Florida...
Re:Mother Nature (Score:2)
Explain about the life in Florida bit?
Re:Mother Nature (Score:2)
So, if people in Montana, for example, were worried about UV, they could look at Florida and realize that it isn't that bad.
Well, except for Epcot.
Re:Mother Nature (Score:2)
I believe that you are once again operating with incorrect scientific information. But I would still like to hear this explained.
EFGearman
Re:Mother Nature (Score:2)
In the April 15, 1993 issue of the Washington Post, John Fredrick, an atmospheric physicist from U. Chicago, was quoted as saying, in reference to UV light, that,
Big Deal... (Score:4, Funny)
actually go outside, and in all honestly, how many of us have actually been outside in the
past two weeks. (Outdoor-type quake mods do not count)
mccann@telalink.net
Additional info at EPA site (Score:5, Interesting)
And remember it's not really a hole, i.e. there is ozone present, it's just at significantly lower levels.
Here are a couple of sites I found useful :
www.epa.gov/ozone/science/hole/holehome.html
www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/
When we were in New Zealand the sun feels different ! It feels very intense and somewhat uncomfortable, and it was only the first month of spring. You HAVE to use sunscreen.
Re:Additional info at EPA site (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sunscreener (Score:2)
Re:Additional info at EPA site (Score:2, Funny)
thats because new zealand does not have the smog blocking the sun like the US has.
take their smog away and they'd have more trouble than they currently do.
Problem with Environmental Theories (Score:4, Interesting)
Much like chemistry of 50 or 100 years ago in many ways would seem laughable to what we know now (and will again in 50 years probably), the science of the environment is a young and new science. Unlike chemistry or physics, it's much harder to do experiments, and the timescales involved are immense.
The truth is we simply know too little about the Earth to make longterm models and whatnot that are dead on. We can make GUESSES, and maybe even good guesses, but there is still so much that we don't know at this point.
As a side note-it is my understanding that CO2 levels during the time of the dinosaurs were much higher than they are today. The Earth can handle huge changes with relatively little environmental impact. It's been around (what? 5 billion years?) a long time, I don't think humanity can destroy it in a little over two century.
Scott
Re:Problem with Environmental Theories (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Problem with Environmental Theories (Score:2)
It has actually been around about 4.6 billion years (age of the oldest rocks [usgs.gov]).
As other folks pointed out, we humans can't (yet? ever?) destroy the earth, but we can certainly make it unable to support our form of life [thinkquest.org].
One last thing: "theories" are generally accepted by the scientific community until they are disproven. The semantics of the word does not lessen the idea behind it. The "theory of plate techtonics" is just that: a theory -- but some plates keep subducting and causing active vulcanism nonetheless.
Re:Problem with Environmental Theories (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the environment at the time of the dinosaurs was hugely different. Earth had no polar ice caps, and the continents were arranged differently. In the dinosarus' heyday around the middle of the Jurassic, the Atlantic Ocean didn't exist. The bulk of the land was grouped into an enormous crescent surrounding what is now the Indian Ocean. The coasts were warm and humid; the continental interior was desert. It was a world utterly unlike that we live in today, and we probably could not have flourished in it.
Re:Problem with Environmental Theories (Score:2)
Re:Problem with Environmental Theories (Score:5, Informative)
The ozone hole and CFC sitatuion is one of the most well understood things in science however. It's due to the following:
Based on the equatorial cycle, one would expect to be free of CFC effects after about 100 years - I guess it's been about 25? So I guess this is about when one would start to notice the effects.
Although there are the occasional puppets who still denounce ozone problems, the industries and governments were immediately convinced by the evidence, which is why humans have probably fought off this problem.
Finally, the CO2 issue is a global warming thing, which isn't really related to the ozone hole problem. That's a polar icecap melting problem, and the data is still not totally convincing---the problem is that some predictions say that it's too late to prevent a 1m rise in sea level.
CO2, Global Warming, and Ozone Depletion (Score:2)
I'll just point out a slight inaccuracy in your highly informative answer. CO2 increase in the atmosphere does directly relate to the ozone hole problem. CO2 increase causes global warming. Global warming causes the (presently) weak polar vortex in the North Pole to strengthen. Strengthening of that polar vortex causes the ozone hole in the northern hemisphere to increase in size. Well, many more people live in the land around in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere...
That's the thing with the environment; everything is interconnected.
Re:Problem with Environmental Theories (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Problem with Environmental Theories (Score:2, Interesting)
Funny, that's exactly what creationists say about evolution. To quote Stephen J. Gould:
The problem has nothing to do with the "theoryness" of environmental science, it has to do with the relative dearth of data with which to develop theories. In any case, as far as practical approaches, erring on the side of caution would be a prudent one. No factories are going broke because they had to install scrubbers in their smokestacks, just as loggers weren't losing their jobs because of the spotted owl. The picture of onerous environmental regulations as an unbearable crippling burden is a smokescreen thrown up by industry.
Re:Problem with Environmental Theories (Score:2)
The highest known levels of CO2, in fact a jump to around 10 times the modern value (IIRC) occurred prior to the age of dinosaurs and is correlated with the extinction of 90% of all species alive at that time. Of course it's not neccesarily causal and might just be a side-effect of whatever killed all those species, but I would be very leary of supporting arbitrary changes in CO2.
A little CO2 increase might have a net positive impact, but I would certainly want to take it slow and not be uncontrolled. Besides I'm not sure I want to live in a world like the one the dinosaurs lived in.
Re:Problem with Environmental Theories (Score:5, Insightful)
The hazards we now associate with CFCs were discovered in the 1960s when a British chemist (Lovelock) was interested in tracing the motions of air masses. He was using CFC's to do so, as they were ideal for tracing air motions, being chemically stable and not naturally-occurring (they are only man-made) so their presence in an air mass could not be confused with CFC's coming from natural sources.
Perhaps you are thinking of the theory that volcanic chlorine caused ozone depletion? There are a number of problems with this:
(1) There was significant O3 loss in the 1980's, but no major volcanic activity then.
(2) There has been major volcanic activity since O3 monitoring began in the 1950's, but it was not necessarily associated with declines in O3. That is, O3 losses and volcanic activity appear to be uncoupled in time (lack temporal consistency)
(3) Measures of hydrogen chloride in the stratosphere after the relatively recent eruptions of Mt. Pinatubo and El Chicon showed less than a 10% increase in stratospheric HCl following those eruptions, while stratospheric HCl has increased steadily across recent years. Furthermore, it is estimated that 1% of the Cl released by the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo Cl made it to the stratosphere, judged by the increase in HCl in the stratosphere following the eruption and the estimated release of Cl by the volcano.
(4) Stratospheric hydrogen fluoride has also increased steadily in parallel with HCl, as would be consistent with CFC sources.
(5) Much of the HCl produced by volcanoes (or Cl from sea salt) is injected into the troposphere and very little of that makes it to the stratosphere, as it is washed out first. Volcanic emissions include abundant water vapor, and HCl and NaCl are quite soluble in water, while CFC's are not.
(6) Most of the HCl that does make it to the stratosphere is rapidly washed out -- that is the major removal mechanism for Cl from the stratosphere.
(7) After volcanic eruptions, scientists find enriched sulfate in ice caps, suggesting that the eruptions inject sulfate into the stratosphere, where it gets widely distributed before being washed out. However, ice caps are not enriched with Cl following volcanic eruptions, suggesting that most Cl doesn't make it to the stratosphere where it could get dispersed as sulfate does.
Re:Problem with Environmental Theories (Score:2)
That is, O3 losses and volcanic activity appear to be uncoupled in time (lack temporal consistency)
Out of curiosity, how has that statement been confirmed? Detecting delayed effects in time series of earlier causes is an incredibly tricky business when the intervening steps are affected by a host of other variables.
To make those statements less theoretical, let me put it this way:
The question, then, is "How can you show conclusively that variations in stratospheric ozone are NOT caused primarily by natural effects?" "How do you show conclusively that volcanic activity is uncorreclated with ozone fluctuations when the delay in volcanic emissions arriving in the stratosphere is unknown?"
I'm very curious as to how this was done; from my experience in physics experiments, attempting to show correlation when there are variable time delays between cause and effect is incredibly difficult. Even more difficult is ruling OUT a correlation when there are variable time delays. Do you have primary references by any chance?
Re:Problem with Environmental Theories (Score:3, Insightful)
If you got your news from something other than right-wing talk radio and press releases from toxic chemical manufacturers, you might know that there are no natural CFCs in any substantial quantity on this planet.
Volcanic eruptions can put chlorine into the atmosphere. But that's meaningless, because chlorine isn't chlorofluorocarbon, and doesn't reach the statosphere [epa.gov].
It's amazing that anti-ecological industrial propaganda has become so widespread that otherwise intelligent people believe shit like this.
The voice of disonance (Score:3, Insightful)
Taken right from the essay. Although I would agree with you in that I'm not totally convinced on the issue of 'ozone layer depletion' either, it is interesting to see that this article begins with a scientific basis of 'the uncertainty' of research on ozone layer cause and effect and quickly progresses to the fact that it costs lots of money to phase out 'potential' ozone depleting chemicals and whether or not it is in the US's interest to stay in potentially expensive environmental pacts.
I think one of the key things that we have come to realize at the end of this century is that many of the large scale phenomena we witness here on Earth are the products of an extremely complex and often non-linear series of events. Our technology has reached the point where it can and often does cause serious changes to our environment. One of the problems with the point of view that this essay takes is that it neglects 'precaution' in favour of the idea that we should be more concerned with short term economical gain.
If something has the potential to possibly cause damage, isn't it more logical to stop using it? Even if we are only right 1 in 10 times on whether something can cause damage to the environment, I would rather waste the money controlling the nine than sweeping the one under the rug.
Great, that's what G.W.Bush needs to hear =) (Score:5, Funny)
Oh well. Luckily the world will end AFTER I'm dead.
Re:Great, that's what G.W.Bush needs to hear =) (Score:2)
I realize you didn't want G.W. Bush elected, but you ought to get your facts straight when criticizing him and his family, since your errors make you look like an idiot to those who are more informed:
Re:Great, that's what G.W.Bush needs to hear =) (Score:2)
I realize you didn't want G.W. Bush elected, but you ought to get your facts straight when criticizing him and his family, since your errors make you look like an idiot to those who are more informed:
G.H.W. Bush went to YALE.
The original poster said Bush got a business degree from Harvard; he did. Nowhere did the poster state that it was an undergraduate degree.
Press Release (Score:5, Informative)
To summarise the findings, it seems the density of Chlorine from CFCs has peaked, and it is expected the Ozone hole will gradually (i.e. over the next 50 years!) disappear.
It now seems to be an interesting case of us screwing up our environment, working out what we'd done, and fixing it. However, you could consider that we just 'got lucky':
Compare this with the current situation re global warming, and this looks less like a successful victory and more like a warning shot across the bows
Strange (Score:3, Interesting)
I have to use sunscreen when I go outside. I've got fair complexion and I burn up in the sun. Yet when I visit Sydney, I can spend 2 hours in the sun without as much getting a lick from sunburn.
You have to wonder what the situation is like in Hobart or Antartica.
Re:Press Release (Score:3, Insightful)
I would like to make two counter-points:
I don't think things have changed much, so I don't take this news as any sign that we've changed our thinking. Too many people have an interest in making a quick buck at the expense of future quality of life on this planet.
Re:Press Release (Score:2, Interesting)
I read a nice article (not sure if was on slashdot), that banning chlorine will be more damagin in the long run.
Because chlorine is an industrial by-product of many different chemical processes, it has to get gotten rid of somehow. Thus chlorine gas in warfare, cfc's in spray cans, pvc plastics - it's cheap!
So now the chlorine has to get bound in other materials and will pose an environmental threat some hundreds pf years later.
Maybe we should take a look at the processes having chlorine as a waste product and try and do them more environmentally-friendly
Re:Press Release (Score:4, Informative)
Danger! Danger, Will Robinson! Moderators, please do not Not NOT mark a comment "Informative" if it makes a scientific claim without providing any hard links to back it up.
A quick google search, for example, led me to several potentially informative web sites, such as:etc, etc, etc. Don't just spout off random crap that you think you heard once.
Google means never having to say "I don't remember".
At the expense of good air conditioning (Score:3, Insightful)
If this research is correct, the coolant switchover and strict rules regarding the recovery of waste freon have probably played a part in the improvement. Even if this is an inconvience for auto A/C mechanics, it's a small price to pay to preserve our valuable ecosystem.
So if you're driving an older car and your recharged air conditioner doesn't seem as cold as you remember it, you're right. But you're helping save the enviorment.
Re:At the expense of good air conditioning (Score:2)
Um... don't older cars get worse gas mileage than modern ones (especially the hybrid beasts [honda2001.com] with their 65+ mpg), therefore are more damaging to the environment?
Isn't that like flicking your cigarette butt out the car window so your ashtray doesn't get full [edmunds.com]?
Re:At the expense of good air conditioning (Score:3, Insightful)
So the environmental impact of replacing a working car is: impact of building new car - (impact of running new car - impact of running old car).
How that works out, would depend on how long you run the car, how much you drive and a whole lot of other factors.
Another article, and my 2 cents... (Score:2, Interesting)
Every time I hear someone talk about the ozone hole that we (humans) are creating, I have a little laugh to myself. I mean, seriously... Human beings populate such an insanely small percentage of the Earth's surface (I mean, far less than half is even land anyway), how can you believe that we could really have such an immediate (read: 80 years) impact on something like the global climate? Come on, I think that's getting just a little bit of a big head... We wish we could control the weather...
Re:Another article, and my 2 cents... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, human beings populate only a small bit of the Earth's surface (and an even smaller portion of its volume). An atom bomb takes up very little space vis a vis the area it destroys, or a virii in the hosts they kill.
You should take a look at a photo of Earth from space, at night. See all the glowing splotches? Those are human cities, pumping light into space. We know how to leave a mark.
Oh, sure, we can't "control" the weather. That doesn't mean we don't influence it. It takes a lot less skill to wreck a car than to drive it well.
Lewis Black (Score:2, Funny)
"We've got rockets, we've got plastic wrap... Fix it!"
The science of the ozone hole (Score:3, Informative)
Basically, the intense cold of an antarctic winter creates a vortex which isolates the air over the south pole, and allows build up of the CFCs. When the summer comes, the Chlorine from the CFCs acts as a catalyst to destroy the ozone.
It now seems to be well understood - but it's one of those things that nobody could have predicted before it happened.
I don't get something... (Score:3, Insightful)
If that's true (and even if it's not), why is the ozone hole over the ANTARCTIC? Aren't most of the CFC/ozone-eating gases being emitted in the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE? Why isn't there one over the arctic?
Re:I don't get something... (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:I don't get something... (Score:2, Interesting)
Take a look at a map of the Arctic and the Antarctic, they are in fact almost exact opposites. The Arctic is a almost circular sea surrounded (almost) by land, roughly centred on the pole. The Antarctic is a high, near circular continent, roughly centred on the pole, surrounded by sea.
The main effect of this difference is that the Antarctic geography allows a stable polar vortex, which isolates the Antarctic atmosphere during the polar winter, allowing the upper atmosphere in particular to become very cold. The nastiness in the Ozone equilibria happens during the spring when this extremely cold upper atmosphere is irradiated by the sun.
The Arctic has a much weaker polar vortex, and hence, although ozone depletion is seen, it is much weaker.
This is probably redundant already.. (Score:2, Flamebait)
Just as a flame-worthy side note, there is a lot of antagonism in New Zealand towards the US because of Bush's decision to boycott the Kyoto(sp?) Protocol. The United States is demonstrably by far the worse offender with carbon dioxide emissions, and the general consenus in the scientific community is that these emissions are causing, or at least accelerating the hole in the ozone layer. To be honest, Usians aren't the most popular people (as a society, not individuals--I personally have met several and they were wonderful people), and this is just one more straw on the proverbial and cliched camel's back, with the United States saying what is effectively "Stuff you, we'll do what we want and who cares about your ozone hole causing rising skin cancer and medical costs".
I didn't mean that as a flame, just a point of view. I'd rather you respond than just mod me down...I'm aware that I am oversimplifying it; this is merely the general trend of thinking in Kiwiland.
Re:This is probably redundant already.. (Score:2)
Re:This is probably redundant already.. (Score:2)
There is some hope for gasoline powered fuel cells, but I wouldn't be too hopeful here.
At the end of the day, oil is too concentrated and convenient to be ignored. And because the Middle East is where it is cheapest to produce oil from, they will always rule the global commodity price, and will influence the price of all energy products.
CO2 |= ozone depletion (Score:3, Informative)
CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and some other gases like halon(tm?) are responsible for the thinning ozone. Most of these gases have been banned under the Montreal protocol for some years now, but because they are largely inert they can rise far into the stratosphere (which takes them quite a few years) where they do their damage. What happens up there is that the suns intense UV rays break the CFC molecules up and the chlorine ends up binding with an oxygen atom from the ozone. The actual reaction is here [nas.edu]
CO2, on the other hand, absorbs infrared radiation from the earth reradiated from sunlight and keeps the heat in the atmosphere. It basically acts like a big blanket. CO2 is what the Kyoto Protocol is trying to limit.
Re:CO2 |= ozone depletion (Score:2, Insightful)
You're right, of course. I hadn't thought this through very thoroughly, which was why I was careful to state that it was the trend of thinking in New Zealand, rather than my own opinion. As with many things in New Zealand (GE food being a major one), the good old Green Party uses ignorance and fud to spread misinformation, which turns into zealotry and close-mindedness much more easily than reasoned facts and rational evidence. It's amazing how many New Zealanders have nearly no conception of the real facts and information behind the issues they hold such vehement opinions on, and how they don't even question the emotive positions they take from those who should know better. Not that this is a New Zealand-specific thing; as long as humans are human this will continue to be the case.
Every time I see mass demonstrations against GE food I wish that the media would actually inform people on the issue instead of simply commentating on the opinions that different parties hold. I guess that's one reason I'm studying journalism next year...
Completely off-topic, I know. Sorry.
Getting back (vaguely) to ozone holes etc, another poster mentioned the need for alternate energy sources. I figured I'd reply in this post; basically I couldn't agree more. It would make a decent difference to the global warming problem (at least if we believe the majority of the scientists involved in the study thereof), it would probably make some impact on the ozone hole problem (although this seems to be improving, probably due to such things as the Montreal Protocol), it would wean Usia off oil long before shortage became a problem (and this would probably quickly expand to the rest of the first world), and it would also ensure that premature shortage due to tensions in the Middle East wouldn't cause as much damage as is potentially possible. It would probably also lead to a number of offshoot technological and scientific advances that may otherwise not happen for many years yet.
Frankly (and once again completely ot), I think there's basically only one thing in Bush's little brain. Money. And unfortunately, he's not smart enough to think long-term money either. Oh, and anyone wanting to flame me for "flaming" Bush...just think of all the speeches he has muffed. One of the speeches he made directly after the 11.09 attacks left me cringing as he completely screwed up a relatively common English word, then did it again, then corrected himself, and then did it again. Not the mark of a superior intellect to me.
The problem is, if the US doesn't lead the world in the adoption of alternate energy, cleaner-burning fuels etc, who will? Other countries still make the attempt, but the US is the world's most powerful economy by far. We need them if this is going to work.
Re:This is probably redundant already.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes well. There's a fair amount of antagonism to Bush about it up here, too, especially from those of us who (a) didn't vote for him, and (b) don't think he actually won the election. I personally make a great effort to "live green" even if it involves some personal sacrifice (spending more $$ to buy environment-friendly products, etc) and I wish our semi-elected leadership was willing to do the same.
You're absolutely right, it's a damn shame Bush is telling everybody else to shove off about Kyoto. I only hope the rest of the world is strong enough to say "screw you!" right back at him and keep on implementing the treaty. I firmly believe you guys are doing the right thing, and I know many other Americans do too...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Both! (Score:3, Insightful)
Individuals are often conscious of environmental issues, but company executives who have oil fields destroying the earth whilst living comfortably in Aspen typically just don't care.
Executives are individuals too, and corporations are owned, operated, and staffed by individuals. Companies do the things that they do because their customers (individuals!) tell them what to do: people (individuals!) buy gas guzzling SUVs because they like them - no one is forcing them to do so, and suggesting that the reason is "greedy corporations" is ludicrous. People (individuals!) buy the bigger SUV, not the more efficient one, because the bigger one is cheaper - no one is forcing them to spend less money, they just want to.
Suggesting that individuals care and corporations don't is inane and a refuge of the weak willed; corporations do what it takes to make a profit by providing individuals with the goods and services they want at the lowest price possible. Individuals do now and always have had the power to influence what corporatios do, by voting with their dollars (or euros or pounds or rupees etc) If you want a "greener" world, then you need to convince other "individuals" that they should be willing to pay for it, and you need to put your wallet where your mouth is. Don't try to absolve yourself by passing the buck to the "greedy corporation"; it is the collective decisions of millions of individuals that dictate what those corporations do.
Re:This is probably redundant already.. (Score:2)
Last I checked, Bush obtained a majority of the votes in the Electoral College; hence, he won the election. Furthermore, the recounts in Florida by the news outlets down there have (last I saw) shown rather conclusively that his electors in Florida won a plurality of votes, contrary to the claims of the Gore-Lieberman campaign.
Furthermore, on the issue of the Kyoto treaty, the Clinton-Gore administration had many years during which to push the Kyoto treaty through the Senate to ratification, and didn't even try. Perhaps you ought to direct some of your displeasure toward them instead of toward an administration that is doing exactly what it said it would do during the campaign?
Re:This is probably redundant already.. (Score:2)
there is a lot of antagonism in New Zealand towards the US because of Bush's decision to boycott the Kyoto(sp?) Protocol.
Perhaps, then, you could convince the government of New Zealand to advocate a protocol treaty that, unlike Kyoto,
and
Personally, while I am not convinced that the science has shown that there is or will be human induced global warming, I don't see that there is any long term negative impact from addressing what might be a huge problem. In the long run, even if there is no real danger of global warming, it would be to our economic benefit to have cleaner burning, more efficient vehicles, and lower emissions from power plants. I would love for there to be an international treaty that really makes an impact on pollution and emissions globally. But the Kyoto treaty is not going to have any real environmental impact long term, will cost an incredible amount in terms of cash and jobs up front, is not enforceable, is not manageable, is not extensible, and is really nothing more than a feel good measure for politicians to wave in front of their populations to say "see, we're doing something". I'm glad the US backed out without ratifying the treaty; I hope that by staying out, we force a reevaluation of the initial goals of Kyoto, and that we eventually end up with a comprehensive treaty that results in a cleaner environment for the future. But Kyoto is fundamentally broken and is certainly not the way to get there
What about the NZ sheep? (Score:2)
Great (Score:2, Insightful)
Can someone find this study and maybe post a link? Have there been any reports of corrolation between the reduction in the use of CFCs in many countries and the leveling off of the hole or was it a natural phenomenom after all.
To the guy in NZ who talked about the anamosity toward the US for backing out of the Kyoto treaty. We're all feeling very patriotic, but you please remember a majority of the folks in this country did NOT vote for Bush and co. We voted for a guy who thought (according to his book) Florida would be under water in a few years if we didn't do something about the environment! Didn't like either of them, but I vote a bit on the enviromental side with a strong streak of anti-relgious fundementalism. I think pulling out of the Kyoto treaty even if you DIDN'T agree with its premise was a mistake because it dishonored our country. We played a big part in setting the thing up then canceled at the last minute. For that I am truely sorry.
Unfortunately, due to recent events it will be a number of years before we'll pay a great deal of attention to the environmental problem. It may be a number of year before we link the gas prices with all of us buying SUV's that get 8 miles a gallon (not me!), but we will..hopefully before we melt the place.
-Andy
Re:Great (Score:2)
All the regulations in the world aren't going to change people's attitudes, people's attitudes will change when American's stop being the greedy jerks that they are (and I'm an american so it isn't flamebait).
I agree with you but more government isn't the problem. Bush wants to drill in Alaska because we demand cheap oil. (and its a better solution that getting it from Sadaam). If Gore had been elected and did everything with the environment that he said he would do... he would be out in 4 years. Not to say that Bush won't be (although with our little war he stands a chance) but Gore wouldn't have stood up and done the stuff he promised, he would give in under the presure - just like everyone else....
Okay enough rant.
Ozone hole leveled off every year (Score:4, Insightful)
Stratospheric ozone is created by bombarding normal, happily breathable O2 mollecules with ultraviolet light, splitting the O2 into a pair of O1's. These O1's eventually bump into another O2 mollecule and create O3. Big woop.
Where there is solar UV light, you'll probably see some ozone popping up. Since the Antarctic Desert is in the dark for a good chunk of the year, you'll discover a not-too-surprising lack in stratospheric ozone over winter and well into the Spring. Also not surprisingly, we have an ozone hole over the north pole.
Over the north pole, of course, there isn't quite as extreme a desert as over the south, and there are more large land masses nearby to carry air better.
Back in the 30s when the first weather measurements were taken in Antarctica they found almost identical levels of UV light hitting them as during a modern winter. Greenies prefer to depend on climactic models rather than empirical evidence these days, however, so their multi-million dollar research is stating the problem is getting bigger, even if someone else's multi-thousand dollar research is saying the opposite.
The ozone hole is the result of too many people putting faith in government, who can't predict the future more than a few weeks down the road, and weather men, who can't predict the future more than a few days down the road, and expecting their government-funded computer models to be able to predict the future years down the road.
Good point (Score:4, Insightful)
Another thing that I don't think you touched on, our climate goes in cycles. I don't recall the exact dates, but I know that some time ago in recent history (1960's maybe?) all of the popular scientists were warning of global cooling. That's right, the earth was getting too cold and there was going to be another ice age if people didn't do something about it. Our climate is not as stable as some would imagine, and contrary to popular beleive we humans have nothing to do with it. Yes, in large cities there is smog, but that is a microclimate just around the city, and it dissipates in the atmosphere and goes away eventually, doesn't affect the global environment. The global climate is something that is very dynamic and not easily understandable. One thing is for certain though: there is no proof that we have a problem with the O-zone layer.
Re:Ozone hole leveled off every year (Score:2)
The real questions we should be asking are ones like why did NASA propose and get a multi-million dollar satelite to study ozone deplletion, when they know darn well that this is normal. Why did freeon become illegal the day after DOW-chemical's patent ran out (DOW also has a patnet on the only known replacement that hasn't expired yet!) These are the real reasons why the ozone is a big deal. Freeon is a very heavy gas, the dispertion probability of it getting up into the upper atmosphere is almost non-existent.
shameless NOAA site plug (Score:2, Informative)
More information can be found at the South Pole Ozone Page [noaa.gov].
Eric
Ozone hole over the Antartic (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, there may be some real science behind CFCs and ozone depletion. The original lab work that demonstrated the chemistry was real. However, most of the material that comes my way about CFCs in the atmosphere seems more like spin than science. Maybe someone here can point us to some more measured and competent publications than I have been able to find.
Before we jump to too many conclusions about all the anti-CFC material, we should bear in mind it is standard practice for corporations to seek methods for making obsolete materials for which the patents have expired. Some creative lobbying and legislation is a great way to stop third-world companies turning out your products on the cheap.
Definitive Guide to Ozone Holes (Score:2, Informative)
For ozone to be destroyed you need:
Although I am sure that other chemicals can break down ozone, CFCS are the most common and best at doing it because they are lighter than air and they normally DO NOT react with anything around us (at or near sea level). These two properties make them fly up high into the ozone layer. The non-reactant portion is what made these chemicals so great and so unthought of as causing problems. To destroy ozone molecules you have to have some very specific conditions:
Okay so now how do you get these conditions, and why is there no northern ozone hole? Well we have uv-light and aplenty so that's not a problem. The first issue is gathering a lot of CFCs (and ozone) into one place, this is taken care of by the Antarctic vortex. The vortex is there during certain months of the year and it builds up a lot CFCs and Ozone into a small space. In the northern polar regions it isn't so prominent because there are landmarks to break up these winds, however there are some weaker ones that are present in the north. Okay, we got ozone and CFC and light, now we need to get rid of the nitrogen. This is handled by formation of nitrogen clouds, which are clouds that are really cold and really high up that contain droplets of condensed nitrogen, and now the nitrogen is gone in the atmosphere and CFC havoc may occur. This doesn't happen in the north because the north pole is much warmer (or at least enough to prevent this). Now the scary thing is if we get a cold winter in the north then a big hole can form in the north, and if you look at a globe there are millions upons millions more people in the upper northen latitudes than there are in the southernmost latitudes. And if you use the following statistic, -1% ozone layer = +2% UV-light on the surface of the Earth = +4% skin cancer, which is sorta bad when applied to cities like London and Quebec and what not (yes these ozone holes can affect huge areas).
Now before someone tries to beat me down for using pseudo science, my mother is on the DIAL team which is a NASA group that measures the ozone hole using a LIDAR(Laser detection) system. These were the people who went to confirm the ozone hole when NASA originally thought the TOMS satellite was malfunctioning because it had almost no readings in the south pole for ozone. I may have bungled some of the facts so if I did please correct me. I think most of these chemical processes have been tested in a lab so they are empirical evidence.
As for the the stabilizing of the ozone I can only make a few conjectures: 1) the most likely IMHO, the temperature in the southern pole haven't been as cold lately, I know I have been going through some wacky yearly climate cahnges here, 2)the Earth is mucuh more resilient than we like to think, or 3) We're missing something that is there and it may not be only the CFCs or it could be a natural cyclical event, but I have trouble believing it is natural with all the scientific evidence I have seen. There are still too many CFCs in the ozone layer for it start repairing, and due to the resilience and the near-non-reactance of CFCs they will be around for another 60-100 years, before the ozone makes a come back and another 100 after that to repair itself.
Re:Definitive Guide to Ozone Holes (Score:2)
Small correction: Nitrogen is not a noble gas. N2 is not reactive (hence, we have a nice, non-reactive atmosphere that doesn't chemically decompose us), because it is tightly bound. Atomic nitrogen, however, is highly reactive (that's why N2 is bound so tightly, and why most chemical explosives are nitrogen compounds). Nitrogen interrupts the CFC cycle because, when N2 is photo-dissociated into atmomic N, if the atomic N interacts with a CFC molecule, the molecule is broken up. CFCs live so long in the upper atmosphere because solar emissions contain relatively little radiation with sufficient energy to cause the photo-dissociation of nitrogen. Of course, it's been a while since I did any chemistry, so I may have something wrong here.
solar cycle factor (Score:2)
overly political scientists (Score:2)
Ozone Hole Information from the CPC (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratospher
NOAA ozone site (Score:3, Insightful)
[noaa.gov]
http://www.ozonelayer.noaa.gov
BTW - for anyone that cares, the ozonelayer site runs on a Linux box
Environmentalism. (Score:3, Flamebait)
Re:Where has this been proved ? (Score:3, Informative)
Check cancer rates between Pennsylvania, USA and Sydney, Australia. I know this is far from a bulletproof arguement, for maybe Aussies are naturally more prone to skin cancer, or spend more time outdoors (which they do), or they use a sunblock which mutates them into sun cancer prone mutant freaks. But the (abeit weak) arguement some people say is that in the land down under there is mommothian awareness of skin cancer, everyone uses sun block, hats and that disgusting blue crap you put on your nose, there are advertisements all the time for sun awareness (remember that egg me no fry ad? Yes!), and here in the good old US of A we suffice with those annoying no-life weather channel dorks to tell us to put on a hat. I have lived in both countries for a decent (over 4 years) amount of time and the amount of people here in the US who care about skin cancer is miniscule compared to Aust. Yet (and the reason for that) rates are still higher down there. We are both about on the +/-40 degree latitude mark. This evidence is circumstantial at best but I'm sure someone else can post up a more scientific explanation for it (please?)
Just what I think, thats all
Give me a break! (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps you should be comparing Arizona with Australia.
Re:Where has this been proved ? (Score:2, Troll)
Or maybe the Aussies and the NZers killed/displaced the reasonably dark skinned people who were properly adapted for living there, replacing them with light-skinned northern europeans...
Re:Where has this been proved ? (Score:2)
Or maybe the Aussies and the NZers killed/displaced the reasonably dark skinned people who were properly adapted for living there, replacing them with light-skinned northern europeans...
British colonial forces in New Zealand were far from saintly. There were needless lives lost. There were people cheated. There were those who never bothered to find out about the culture they were living alongside, causing friction, suffering and loss on both sides. There was a law against Maori people speaking their own language in schools at one point, as part of an attempt at cultural assimilation. That's not something the country is proud of. Still, at least they didn't put bounties on the native population and attempt to wipe them out in the scale of places like Tasmania.
Maori weren't all bright happy peaceful people before the nasty British came along. There were a lot of warring tribes, though many coexisted relatively peacefully. There was occasional cannibalism, and widespread slavery. So it's not like any one ethnicity has clean hands. The same could be said of anywhere in the world.
The Maori are still here. The Europeans are now here too. A lot of Maori are a lighter-skinned now, due to intermarriage with Pakeha (Europeans). Maori get skin cancer too, y'know. And in higher rates than they used to. The hole in the ozone layer has a very real effect.
New Zealand is in a temperate area, with only the northernmost regions in the subtropical zone. My city is on a complementary latitude to places like Chicago and Seattle. Do the weather reports in Chicago warn that there's a "burn time of 10 minutes" or whatever, throughout most of summer?
Re:Where has this been proved ? (Score:2)
Speaking from personal experience, and speaking of the experiences of other people I know, you sunburn sooo fast in New Zealand, compared to hotter, sunnier, more northery countries, it's scary. If you accept that there is a link between sunburn and skin-cancer, the dreadfull ease of getting burned when under the ozone hole should constitute evidence.
If you don't accept any link between sunburn and cancer, you're probably the sort of person that the PR department of BiocideCorp Chemicals Inc would love to hire...
(I currently live at about the same latitude north as I did latitude south when in New Zealand. The sun is just different. It doesn't have the same sting in it - you can feel the difference).
The Polar Vortex, that's why it's there (Score:4, Interesting)
I believe there's a meteorological phenomenon called the polar vortex that causes the ozone hole to occur at the South Pole and during Antarctic summer. See this link [mmu.ac.uk] for more details. Short version is, during polar night there's a huge whirlpool of cold air that circulates there all night causing the CFC's we've emitted to more rapidly destroy the ozone in the region. By summer, the vortex stops, so the ozone hole disperses. There's also a vortex in the North Pole, but because there are a lot of irregular land masses there, the vortex up north is a lot weaker, hence the ozone hole up north is far smaller. But global warming is causing the northern vortex to strengthen, and hence increase the size of the hole up north.
This is what I get for watching too much Discovery Channel!
Re:US regs (Score:2)
I believe that the US regulations are the most lax in the developed world
Hmm.. perhaps you should research that, because I belive US regulations are the most strict. I know that there are cars in Europe that can't be sold in the US due to polution regulations (VW TDI gets about 100 hp in the US, same engine tuned different gets 150 hp in Europe, but cannot be sold in the US)
A recient trip to Spain revealed a lot of polution. It was impossibal to breath. Inside smokers were the problem, outside cars. In particular there were a lot of 2-cycle scooters running around pouring out polution.
Unfortunatly Europe is conposed of many different countries, so you can point out one country with tougher regulations and compare that to the US. California has the toughest regulations in the US, but that isn't a country so it doesn't count. (the word state in english means country)