In 1986 and ’87, Antarctic expeditions have confirmed a development that the world was on the brink: chemical substances called chlorinated hydrocarbons (CFCs), which is found in many personal care products, had resulted in the ozone layer, a hole that was just larger. The news was dramatic enough for the Montreal Protocol signed by the end of 1987, leaving the elimination of CFC advance. This month, the Copernicus atmospheric monitoring service shows the European Union that the area of the ozone hole over Antarctica could be included smaller since the mid-1980s The Susan Solomon scientists led these expeditions in Antarctica . For their named one of the 100 most influential people in the world, which found in 2008, is currently one of the working groups for co-chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has created the benchmark 2007 for the first time in the Group’s history that climate change is “unequivocal” and that warmer temperatures are “very likely” caused by human activity. The organization shared the Nobel Prize with Al Gore Peace in 2007. These days the dish on your report is known, last year, the stakes of climate change, which sets out when it is not stopped by more than an increase of 1.5 ° C. This report helped motivate about one year increased activism, lead last Friday for a global action day. Monday ‘, world leaders gather at the 2019 Climate Summit of United Nations action, as activists, both the warnings of the scientists expect to see, will follow in the international acts, such as three decades ago. Solomon, now a professor in Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences Department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), spoke with TIME about how this confrontation any moment. TIME: what is similar environmental movement today or different from the ozone hole movement to solve? SOLOMON: [The ozone hole] is often kept as a history of successful environmental signature, and it’s really the only area in which decisions were made rather remarkable in a timely manner and the phase-out successfully, despite appears the little fraud taking place in China. Ozone [problem] had to do a lot of momentum something about it, get rid mainly because of CFCs in aerosols has been a very easy thing to do. Consumers turned away from spray cans in the 70 years before they were banned in this country. It ‘was a simple thing that a consumer could do. They kept only the spray and start the pumps, and roll-on deodorant use. We just do not have the same kind of simple replacement, when it comes to climate change. There are things that can make a consumer, but it is not so easy to decide you will never go drive a car and bike instead. Not so easy to just go. This problem requires not only the concern of the people, but the measures of the government, changing technologies, a total overhaul of the energy system. Not only do I see no good parallel between the moment, what is happening today and the issue of ozone. What is a historical parallel to climate change activism today? Where can I see a parallel with Greta Thunberg and the youth movement on climate change, is the huge amount of public engagement on the output [ozone smog] in 1970 America was waking up to the fact that L.A. It was in poor condition. THERE. used as seen in Beijing; There were days when you do not go your kids can play outside because it was too dangerous. I think it could overlook the fact that people who contamination increasingly busy people was very important. This is the kind of things that are very personal to people. I think [the first] Earth Day was very important, too. E ‘was also captured throughout activism that the Vietnam War at that time and all the way around the building that had the authorities concerned and that standard ways of doing things were not necessarily do well. The solution requires large for some changes. were built in a different way for cars, they went to Los Angeles to pollute. until we have different things with power plants, we have been really bad things have come out. But it turned out that they are not that difficult. It was to be organized by the federal government – which is what the Clean Air Act has made the 1970th What the Clean Air Act did was to ask to begin reductions in CO2 was not, because this is not the goal, but they are placed in a nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide, which were responsible for the smog in Los Angeles a catalyst required in new cars, but the auto industry has had in the factories had to reduce emissions, is not that a big jump was. It does not mean we do not have pollution problems in L.A., but are massively better than they were in the 70s. This is perhaps closer to the situation we have now. It will require an increased focus on technologies that we can do something good, and state structures that allow you to spread these things. There was a missed opportunity, a moment that could have led to America climate change and not? I’ve heard people enter the argument that in the Carter administration, we were ready to go and we do not. I do not think it’s that simple. I do not think it’s a turning point. As someone who works on the landmark report of the IPCC in 2007, what do you think things have changed front on political decision a decade later? The evidence has become stronger! Since then we have had a lot of very warm years, and one of the things that I think it falls mainly the increase in the number of heat waves. I think this is a clear indication of how serious this problem is. People die, especially in developing countries. And we have continued to turn up the thermostat. The concentration of carbon dioxide we now have more than 400 parts per million. It is not the best there is. Maybe this is a change. We are not talking only about 1.5 ° -2 ° C, let’s see if you could perhaps avoid 1.5 and what will happen if we do not. The discovery of the ozone hole was sometimes a “focusing event to fire” called – an event that focused public attention on a particular problem. The effects of climate change begin to be increasingly perceived by different people, but they are not as obvious as the ozone hole. It could be that a large chunk of Greenland falls into the sea, and the sea level to rise a foot – that would get to thinking about climate change us. But the slow nature of climate change does not lend itself to this kind of shock value. This particular summit does not look like any kind of analogy with the ozone question. We [in the US] and they were actually the leaders of the ozone layer and smog, frankly, we do bad now about environmental issues. We will not be the leader. We did not intend to go to the summit and some say that an international agreement. Create help from Michael Nigro / Pacific Press / Getty Images LightRocket- Picture copyright
In 1980, the world has acted sinking the ozone layer. This is why the fight against climate change is different
