Ozone layer 'has been saved'

Ozone layer 'has been saved'

There are 42 comments on the Montreal Gazette story from Sep 17, 2010, titled Ozone layer 'has been saved'. In it, Montreal Gazette reports that:

The protective ozone layer in the earth's upper atmosphere has stopped thinning and should largely be restored by mid century thanks to a ban on harmful chemicals, UN scientists said on Thursday.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Montreal Gazette.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Northie

Spokane, WA

#1 Sep 18, 2010
In other words, regulating CFCs was a perfect dress rehearsal for regulating carbon. A fine example of listening to warnings from scientists, then successfully solving a world-threatening air pollution problem for far less than the industry PR harlots said it would cost.
LessHypeMoreFact

Woodstock, Canada

#2 Sep 18, 2010
Good news. We are NOT at the mercy of a capricious nature but are able to control out industrial emissions well enough to prevent major disaster from unregulated outputs.

Should make the case for similar treaties on GHG emissions stronger.
GEEWIZ

Ashland, KY

#3 Sep 18, 2010
GOOD ole fossil fuels emissions from chinas coal fired plants fixed it or does it just come and go=natural=who knows=NO ONE=1 BIG GUESS
Northie

Spokane, WA

#4 Sep 20, 2010
As long as we're discussing successful regulation of air pollutants, how about the wildly successful cap-and-trade program for sulfur dioxide, which solved most of the acid rain and smog problems in North America.
LessHypeMoreFact

Woodstock, Canada

#5 Sep 20, 2010
Northie wrote:
As long as we're discussing successful regulation of air pollutants, how about the wildly successful cap-and-trade program for sulfur dioxide, which solved most of the acid rain and smog problems in North America.
'Solved' is a strong word. Overall, it has been successful ONLY in halting further increases of SOx. It has been rather ineffective in REDUCING SOx emissions.

The greatest force behind SOx emissions reductions has been massive government subsidies to rail transport of low sulfur coal from the western states, leading to the adoption of this cheap subsidized coal to avoid the SOx permit cap.
GEEWIZ

Knox City, TX

#6 Sep 20, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
'Solved' is a strong word. Overall, it has been successful ONLY in halting further increases of SOx. It has been rather ineffective in REDUCING SOx emissions.
The greatest force behind SOx emissions reductions has been massive government subsidies to rail transport of low sulfur coal from the western states, leading to the adoption of this cheap subsidized coal to avoid the SOx permit cap.
IT is solved u greenies with yuor clean air act cost a lot of jobs 4 eastern states in the 80s
Northie

Spokane, WA

#7 Sep 20, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
'Solved' is a strong word. Overall, it has been successful ONLY in halting further increases of SOx. It has been rather ineffective in REDUCING SOx emissions.
The greatest force behind SOx emissions reductions has been massive government subsidies to rail transport of low sulfur coal from the western states, leading to the adoption of this cheap subsidized coal to avoid the SOx permit cap.
Actually, the SO2 cap-and-trade program cut emissions dramatically, by about a third in the program's first decade, and more since. Quite a success.

http://www.edf.org/page.cfm...
LessHypeMoreFact

Woodstock, Canada

#8 Sep 21, 2010
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the SO2 cap-and-trade program cut emissions dramatically, by about a third in the program's first decade, and more since. Quite a success.
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm...
As I said, SOx emissions have come down MAINLY because of the switch to low sulfur coal whose rail transport is heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. The CAP on SOx has not moved since they introduced the C&T and with 'banking' of SOx credits, the companies have a lot of 'head room' before they have to actually cut emissions.

Your argument that emissions have gone down misses the point of WHY they have gone down and if they can GO BACK UP.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#9 Sep 21, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said, SOx emissions have come down MAINLY because of the switch to low sulfur coal whose rail transport is heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. The CAP on SOx has not moved since they introduced the C&T and with 'banking' of SOx credits, the companies have a lot of 'head room' before they have to actually cut emissions.
Your argument that emissions have gone down misses the point of WHY they have gone down and if they can GO BACK UP.
Point taken. However, your attribution of rail subsidies doesn't appear to be the whole story. All of the old coal plants in the East also built scrubbers, at some cost, which removed SO2 from emissions. If I had been Jim Rogers, running Duke Energy's old coal plant fleet at the time, I would have done the same thing, meeting the new law by shipping in low sulfur coal as well as installing scrubbing plants. Duke did well on this. Rogers is also leading the electric utility industry towards cap-and-trade on carbon.

However, your point about rail subsidies for shipping Wyoming coal east is news to me, and it definitely changes the usual rosy narrative on this. I'd be curious to see a reference, if you have one.
Earthling

Valencia, Spain

#10 Sep 21, 2010
Frying pan to fire?
For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction.
-
"The Ozone Hole Is Mending. Now for the ‘But.’"
-
"That the hole in Earth’s ozone layer is slowly mending is considered a big victory for environmental policy makers. But in a new report, scientists say there is a downside: its repair may contribute to global warming."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/ear...
"Healing of ozone hole could accelerate global warming"
http://www.gizmag.com/antarctic-ozone-hole-re...
"Ozone Hole Healing Could Cause Further Climate Warming"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/...
LessHypeMoreFact

Woodstock, Canada

#11 Sep 21, 2010
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
All of the old coal plants in the East also built scrubbers, at some cost, which removed SO2 from emissions.
Nope. Under the 'New Source Review' coal power didn't have to add scrubber technology as long as the plant was 'grandfathered' and still running. As a result, no new coal plants were built and thirty year old plants were 'rebuilt' bit by bit to keep them from having to add scrubbers. And those that did have to add scrubbers didn't USE them as it was a significant expense.

And coal companies are STILL fighting against the requirements to install scrubbers on new plants.

http://www.masterresource.org/2010/02/time-to...

"The typical pulverized coal power plant in the U.S. is about 35 years old, yet the fleet will continue to operate for many years to come. " ( and about 30% thermal efficiency while new IGCC plants can be up to 44%)

"NSR is the process established by the Clean Air Act (CAA) that requires utilities to add a host of new and expensive emission controls should they make any “major modifications” to the plant that increase emissions."

"Triggering an NSR review requires the EPA to review force the plant to meet the latest emissions standards." (i.e. install SCRUBBERS!)

"For years, the NSR rule has provided a disincentive for utility plant efficiency improvements and redefined the term “upgrade” as a dirty word in the industry." (and claim that the requirement to install clean air technology is a BARRIER to better coal power!!)

So they argue that eliminating the need for scrubbers can mean refitting older plants to produce more power (thermal efficiency) and thus eliminate the need for new plants. Nowhere in the coal power dialogues is there ANY concern for emissions. They DON'T CARE.

"In general, we estimate about 20%(roughly 250 plants) in the U.S. fall into each of these three categories. Upgrading the efficiency of these plants by 3% to 5% reduces the carbon emissions for the same power production by also about 3% to 5%. However, the technology advances also produce significant incremental power increases, perhaps as much as 30,000 MW or more if applied across the fleet. This increase in coal-fired electricity is more than the projected coal plant capacity additions estimated by the EIA through 2030 as shown in the 2010 Annual Energy Outlook."
GEEWIZ

Elizabethtown, KY

#12 Sep 21, 2010
Earthling wrote:
Frying pan to fire?
For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction.
-
"The Ozone Hole Is Mending. Now for the ‘But.’"
-
"That the hole in Earth’s ozone layer is slowly mending is considered a big victory for environmental policy makers. But in a new report, scientists say there is a downside: its repair may contribute to global warming."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/ear...
"Healing of ozone hole could accelerate global warming"
http://www.gizmag.com/antarctic-ozone-hole-re...
"Ozone Hole Healing Could Cause Further Climate Warming"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/...
Very interesting sites, glad some 1 that knows what there talking about got on this subject.
GEEWIZ

Elizabethtown, KY

#13 Sep 21, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said, SOx emissions have come down MAINLY because of the switch to low sulfur coal whose rail transport is heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. The CAP on SOx has not moved since they introduced the C&T and with 'banking' of SOx credits, the companies have a lot of 'head room' before they have to actually cut emissions.
Your argument that emissions have gone down misses the point of WHY they have gone down and if they can GO BACK UP.
emissions are under control and getting improvements every year+theres a lot of plants that have scubbers.u greenies ain;t going 2 be happy intill all miners and half of the riverboats and half of the rail workers are out of work+truck drives and theres brown outs and electric is 2-3-10x higher.Wheres the logic in this=zero and all because of a guess
Northie

Spokane, WA

#14 Sep 21, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Under the 'New Source Review' coal power didn't have to add scrubber technology as long as the plant was 'grandfathered' and still running. As a result, no new coal plants were built and thirty year old plants were 'rebuilt' bit by bit to keep them from having to add scrubbers. And those that did have to add scrubbers didn't USE them as it was a significant expense.
By 2005, a third of US coal-fired power plants had scrubbers capable of eliminating 70% or more of SO2 emissions. You're saying these costly facilities all went unused, while the coal industry was under growing scrutiny? That sounds a little unlikely--especially in light of the fact that a number of companies have indeed foregone expensive scrubbers in favor of shipping in low-sulfur coal.

The utility industry is an efficiency game, with narrow margins. Why build costly scrubbers you won't use, if you don't have to? I'm no expert on this, but it seems strange.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...
Earthling

Valencia, Spain

#15 Sep 22, 2010
GEEWIZ wrote:
Very interesting sites, glad some 1 that knows what their talking about got on this subject.
Alarmists aren't interested, they have tunnel vision that disables them from seeing anything other than that dot in the distance, their dream goal of reducing CO2 and any other gas they believe will cause a catastrophe.
It would be interesting to see their faces if the ozone hole repaired and global warming accelerated even faster.
CFCs would be back in use quicker than you could say, sh1t, I told you so.
LessHypeMoreFact

Woodstock, Canada

#16 Sep 22, 2010
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
By 2005, a third of US coal-fired power plants had scrubbers capable of eliminating 70% or more of SO2 emissions. You're saying these costly facilities all went unused, while the coal industry was under growing scrutiny?
Probably not totally unused but certainly run as little as possible since running them is NOT cheap.
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
That sounds a little unlikely--especially in light of the fact that a number of companies have indeed foregone expensive scrubbers in favor of shipping in low-sulfur coal.
The reason that they demanded rail subsidies for low sulfur Bituminous coal such as Powder River is so that they didn't HAVE to run them. How is that 'hard to believe'? From the reference,

http://www.masterresource.org/2010/02/time-to...

"This unit was originally designed for a higher-quality fuel than what is currently fired. PRB subbituminous fuel is the typical fuel today because of its lower sulfur, lower price, and lower NOx production."
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
The utility industry is an efficiency game, with narrow margins. Why build costly scrubbers you won't use, if you don't have to? I'm no expert on this, but it seems strange.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...
They built the scrubbers because of the New Source Review regulations, either a new plant or exceeding the limits of the rebuilding. The don't have to USE them unless they exceed the cap. Simple economics true. Cheaper to gets government subsidies of low sulfur coal than to run scrubbers on high sulfur coal.

The major exceptions to this are the states that have local high sulfur coal that is therefore very cheap ( Indiana, Kentucky, etc). Those are the only states that need to worry about running scubbers so those are the states that have AVOIDED the New Source Review the hardest.
Earthling

Valencia, Spain

#17 Sep 22, 2010
Frying pan to fire?
For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction.
-
"The Ozone Hole Is Mending. Now for the ‘But.’"
-
"That the hole in Earth’s ozone layer is slowly mending is considered a big victory for environmental policy makers. But in a new report, scientists say there is a downside: its repair may contribute to global warming."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/ear...
"Healing of ozone hole could accelerate global warming"
http://www.gizmag.com/antarctic-ozone-hole-re...
"Ozone Hole Healing Could Cause Further Climate Warming"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/...
GEEWIZ

Elizabethtown, KY

#18 Sep 22, 2010
Earthling wrote:
Frying pan to fire?
For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction.
-
"The Ozone Hole Is Mending. Now for the ‘But.’"
-
"That the hole in Earth’s ozone layer is slowly mending is considered a big victory for environmental policy makers. But in a new report, scientists say there is a downside: its repair may contribute to global warming."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/ear...
"Healing of ozone hole could accelerate global warming"
http://www.gizmag.com/antarctic-ozone-hole-re...
"Ozone Hole Healing Could Cause Further Climate Warming"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/...
I want 2 see what the green super heros have 2 say about these sites=they will want 2 ban saltwater.
GEEWIZ

Elizabethtown, KY

#19 Sep 22, 2010
mr spell fourty COAL-FIRED plants operating now are in fine shape=emissions are under conrtrol=let them operate =cheap electric and let them make some money 4 a change instead of shutting plants down plants.aND MAKING THEM invest in green energy=sky high electric, scrubbers are good 4 KY COAL,BUT NOT NEEDED the air is fine.And we need more emissions 2 fix that ozone=converting COAL 2 OIL.
Earthling

Valencia, Spain

#21 Sep 23, 2010
Here's another:
"Ozone hole healing could cause further climate warming"
The Antarctic ozone hole was once regarded as one of the biggest environmental threats, but the discovery of a previously undiscovered feedback shows that it has instead helped to shield this region from carbon-induced warming over the past two decades.
http://www.physorg.com/news183669926.html

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Skin Cancer Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'I Thought My Dark Skin Protected Me From Melan... 10 hr Mr Lee 6
News UV lamps for gel manicures linked to skin cancer 14 hr No doubt 1
News Sen. John McCain has aggressive brain tumor sur... Jul '17 Fit2Serve 15
Anyone have a halo mole come back positive for ... Apr '17 Kellyitsallgood 1
News A winner in GOP plans to repeal Obamacare: tann... (Mar '17) Mar '17 Dee Dee Dee 2
News The 10 commandments of cancer prevention (May '09) Dec '16 Trying to be hopeful 36
News How much sunshine can your skin stand? (Aug '16) Nov '16 PaulRex 16
More from around the web