Ozone Hole and Global Warming (Part 2)

So why is it that the hole in the ozone layer got a fast and decisive response (See my last post for details) and we're still dithering over climate change?

There are number of factors at work here:

1) Imagery: The ozone hole was/is clearly there. It could not only be shown to be there, it could also be shown to be getting bigger. People could really relate to those images of the hole.

Climate change, on the other hand, doesn't have such striking imagery. Just graphs. Lots of graphs. Oh, and those climate models. Only scientists seem to like those.

However, the case for climate change is very nearly as good as for the ozone hole. The trouble is that climate sceptics have louder voices and roll out counter-arguments that sound plausible enough to muddy the waters. Consequently, there isn't quite the ground-swell of public support those that want to fight climate change would want.

2) Economics: Ozone depletion was a relatively cheap fix. Averting climate change will cost many billions.

Doing nothing will, of course, cost us a great deal more, even ignoring the human cost, but that doesn't make meeting the challenge any easier. What's more, it will need the majority of countries to agree on any action for it to work. Not just because we need everyone in on it to achieve the necessary reductions, but those who don't get involved will have a competitive advantage. Put simply, emissions cuts will be expensive to companies, so any competitors that don't have to make those cuts will make more profit.

Much of the dithering we see from the politicians is about this. The developed countries don't want to hand the companies in developing countries an advantage.

3) Complexity: Solving the climate change problem is a great deal more complicated than sorting out the ozone problem.

The latter was more or less about finding alternatives to CFCs and setting deadlines to bring them in. On the other hand, climate change requires a range of measures, including alternative energies, carbon capture, stopping deforestation etc. etc. Every single one of these measures comes with it's own set of problems.

4) Clear & Present Danger: Ozone depletion means huge increases in skin cancer and blindness due to increased UV rays. That's enough to grab anyone's attention.

Climate change means an almost imperceptible rise in temperature, with effects which we can only make educated guesses at. Not nearly as sexy.

5) Vested interests: The industry that manufactured CFCs was big but nowhere near as big as oil and coal industries. In addition, whilst the companies making and selling CFCs could find and switch to alternatives with relative ease, oil and coal producers have no such escape route.

Little wonder then that the level of resistence to change is far greater over CO2 than for CFCs.

========================

So, there you go. Solving the climate change is miles more difficult than ozone hole problem. It's enough to make you want to give up isn't it? However, we can't afford to do that, not if we want our children and the generations beyond to have a future.