...
Category: Montreal Protocol
Oh great. Back in the '80s when the ozone hole was fresh news and the Montreal Protocol was unsigned - but a threat to big chemistry companies such as DuPont so dastardly they sent squads of p.r. guys to newspapers so they could hector science writers by insisting the world could not go on without ozone-clobbering CFCs in our AC units - there was one confusion I strove to correct (quite aside from there being good ozone in the stratosphere and bad ozone down here). Global warming was then as now also in the news. And then along had come another global-scale threat, to ozone. People tended to blame CO2 for ozone holes, and CFCs for global warming, or each for both....
While rushing around yesterday pulling together...
While rushing around yesterday pulling together a quickie review of this week's Science Times and its look forward for science, I failed to look furtherward in the Times itself and did not see John Broder's eye-opening piece on the remodeling of an old international agreement to do part of what the non-existent climate pact, a victim of last year's Copenhagen failures, is not doing.
When I looked at its hed I imagined it was another story on using a different pact, on endangered species, as a place holder in slowing down global warming via international agreement. We've seen a few stories on that...
©2010 Knight Science Journalism at MIT. All Rights Reserved.