Mar 17 2009
Learning from the Ozone Hole
Talking about the orbital debris situation usually brings us back around to talking about environmental issues. Unfortunately, while some environmental issues are well accepted, others which threaten the status quo (and the lucretive energy market) are still hounded by whispers of doubt and accusations of the impossibility of change.
That makes no damn sense, though. Whenever I’m told that, I remember the same song when we talked about cleaning air in Los Angeles or rivers in many parts of the nation, but air quality in Los Angeles has improved drastically and many many places that were a wasteland 30 years ago are coming back into their own.
I think a salutory lesson resides in the discussion of ozone depletion .
Thirty years ago, CFCs were “perfect”. Nonreactive, rarely toxic, wonderful thermal qualities. A Dr. Lovelack (the biologist) did a self-funded study to measure CFCs in the atmosphere in the early 1970’s. But it took the thinking of Frank Sherman and Mario Merino (1974) to hypothesize that the nonreactive nature of CFCs could allow it to stay intact up to the stratosphere where, when it rose high enough, it could be disassociated by UV radiation and leaving a free chlorine ion. A chlorine ion is murder on ozone because it works as a catalyst in turning ozone back into molecular oxygen, while remaining unchanged itself, free to convert again.
To say that this hypothesis was treated with skepticism would be putting it mildly. Even if it were true, people argued, we were so dependent on CFCs that we would go through untold hardship if we were asked to give them up. Economic ruin. Impossible. Besides the notion that we could affect the atmosphere that was preposterous!
Sure enough, some of the early NASA readings specifically to measure ozone seemed to put the notion of an ozone hole to bed. Except, it turns out that an algorithm was discounting the measured readings because they were so far different from the expected values that the software for the measurement was throwing them out as errors. When we got the real picture(1985), no one expected it to be as bad as it actually was.
Fortunately, the scientists who supported this were taken seriously even before 1985 and many countries were already reducing or eliminating CFCs (including the US). Within the decade, nearly every country was doing the same. And we’re seeing some improvements with the ozone layer despite the vast quantities of CFC that were still filtering upwards. It looks like the damage will be undone within 40 years.
And what was the impact on you? Did you have to give up refrigeration? Air conditioning? Aerosal cans? Nope, once we committed to change, we made it happen with minimal if any effect on regular folks. Amazing what you can do when you put your mind to it.
When I think of the difference in energy costs of the homes in Palm Desert, California , going from costing $1400/month in energy costs to $500/YEAR with city financed solar arrays (repaid via property tax), I know we can do more than we think we can.
Hallelujah to that! What people don’t seem to grasp–but corporations do, and that’s why they are reticent to change–is that it would be so much CHEAPER if we used other forms of energy. Once the set-up is paid for, running such systems using solar and wind energy is CHEAP.
Kansas should really jump on this. The wind never stops there. And it’s not the only place. And Las Vegas, where it rains 4 days a year, is one of hundreds of cities in the sunbelt who could easily generate their own energy by solar means (not sure if such a thing could work up here in Seattle, though).
My mother-in-law is considering putting solar panels on her roof. The initial cost will be about $20,000, but it will immediately save her on bills, SUBSTANTIALLY. And it will use less energy from nonrenewable sources, too. All good things.
THIS is what I’m saying. Big up front cost (though technology is already driving some of those costs down). You save forever after that. You are immune from the vagaries of oil’s ups and downs.
Even making relatively small changes: solar screens, new windows or increased insulation for existing ones, radiant barriers, dropping/upping the thermostat, solar water preheaters, intelligent use of window coverings and passive solar heating, programmable thermostats, energy efficient appliances and cars, can have huge impacts on your bills as well as the environment. Adding just a couple (not all) of the solar screens on the windows facing south on my house save us $150-200/month in the summer.
Oh, the horror!
I agree with Shakespeare. “What people don’t seem to grasp–but corporations do, and that’s why they are reticent to change–is that it would be so much CHEAPER if we used other forms of energy. Once the set-up is paid for, running such systems using solar and wind energy is CHEAP.”–I vote to take the more economic and environmentally safe route because it just makes more sense. It won’t pad the pockets of big corporations, but it just a better way of life.
Davida
There is an everything now philosophy that’s pretty prevalent here, an off-shoot of our past prosperity, that something is better than nothing, no matter what the something is and that anything is doable in installments. Save now, pay later. It’s a factor behind our debt crisis.
The thing is, paying more indefinitely, being at the mercy of energy companies is not good. People are scared now (and propoganda from those same companies is part and parcel of that) because, if energy prices go through the stratosphere, they will have no choice but to pay whatever they’re asked. As happened to gasoline and fuel prices a year or so back.
However, if each individual reduces their dependence on energy companies by improving energy efficiency, investing in energy resources of their own, etc, they become resilient (if not immune) to the vagaries of the market. What’s the down side for the consumer if investments in solar power makes it more accessible, drives down costs, improves reliability? None. Big Oil whines: if we subsidize solar/wind/etc, people will invest even though the real cost is higher than oil.
And the downside to that thinking for the consumer? Nothing. It only hurts oil. Because, even if they were benevolent and looking out for our interests, oil IS getting harder to find and more expensive to extract. Some day the prices will have to go up. If we haven’t found alternatives BEFORE that happens, we’ll be screwed, not big oil.