One way to understand the uniqueness of the climate change challenge is to compare it to what happened with another environmental threat that a few decades ago alarmed the worldbut which today seems to be under control: the destruction of the ozone layer.
In the 1930s, heChlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) began to be used industrially as refrigerants and aerosol propellants. However, in the early 1970s, scientists discovered that when CFCs reached the stratosphere, they triggered a chemical reaction that depleted the ozone layer. Bad news because when ozone is removed, increases the amount of ultraviolet solar radiation that strikes the Earth. This radiation is harmful to organisms as it can destroy DNA, damage cells and promote the development of cancer processes. Without the ozone layer there would be no life as we know it on our planet.
In the course of his research on CFCs, one day, when asked by his wife how his work was going, the chemist Frank Sherwood Rowland He commented: “The work is going very well, but it can mean the end of humanity & rdquor ;. That this did not happen was thanks in part to his efforts, and those of Paul Crutzen and Mario Molinawho shared the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Rowland for their research that clearly linked CFCs to ozone layer erosion.
However, scientific knowledge alone it was not enough to solve the problem. It took until the 1980s for governments to start taking steps to ban the use of CFCs, a move that was accelerated after the discovery of an ozone hole over Antarctica in 1985. Two years later, the international community adopted the Montreal Protocol, a global agreement for the progressive reduction of substances that deplete ozone, including CFCs. Said protocol has been described by the former Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, as “the most successful international agreement achieved to date”. Thanks to it, the destruction of the ozone layer could be stopped, expecting its practical restoration around 2050.
The Montreal Protocol represents the ideal response to existential risks of human origin: credit is given to the science, a technical and political solution is designed and quickly implemented. Little more than a decade passed between the work of Crutzen, Molina and Rowland on the destructive effects of CFCs and the adoption of the protocol. This is exactly what climate change was intended to do, but has not yet been achieved. And, probably, the main reason for this does not reside in the inability of politicians, in conspiracies of hidden powers or in the apathy of the population, but in the very nature of the challenge of climate change: technically speaking, we are facing a “twisted problem & rdquor; (look for the quotes on Wikipedia)
Related news
While CFCs were largely confined to refrigerants and aerosol sprays – a very small part of the economy – fossil fuels are everywhere and are the basis of the current model of social and economic development. Likewise, while the effects of the destruction of the ozone layer could be visualized immediately and undeniably -in the form of a gigantic hole over the South Pole- the effects of climate change have delayed effects, sometimes camouflaged among the natural variability of extreme weather events. And, on the other hand, while many of the big CFC manufacturing companies had started working on effective substitutes years before the adoption of the Montreal Protocol, there is no universal, fast, simple and cheap technical replacement for oil, natural gas and coal, which together cover almost 81% of the world’s demand for primary energy.
Political leaders in 1987 were no wiser than today’s. Neither the industries nor the citizens had a greater degree of environmental awareness and commitment. Simply eliminating CFCs was a much easier task.