|
Monday, January 01, 2007 Remembering the Montreal ProtocolAs its 20th anniversary approaches, what can the landmark agreement on controlling CFCs teach those who want to control greenhouse gases? By David Rotman
Until the early 1970s, it could be said that, like politics, all chemistry was local. That changed in dramatic fashion with a series of discoveries concerning the global effects of a family of chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs. These compounds had played a key role in the midcentury chemical revolution, allowing such innovations as safe refrigeration, cheap aerosol deodorants, and widespread air conditioning. First commercialized by DuPont in the early 1930s under the trade name Freon, CFCs appeared to be the perfect industrial chemical: nontoxic, nonflammable, and odorless. But in 1973, a pair of chemists at the University of California, Irvine--Sherwood Rowland and his postdoctoral fellow Mario Molina--began to explore the fate of the CFC gases that were being emitted into the atmosphere. Molina began the investigation of CFCs in October of that year, and by Christmas, the researchers had their answer: the CFCs were breaking down in the atmospheric ozone layer, which begins 15 kilometers above the earth, ends roughly 30 kilometers later, and absorbs much of the sun's deadly ultraviolet radiation. The researchers found that the CFCs wafted up through the lower atmosphere intact, too stable to react with the swirling brew of chemicals around them. But once they reached the mid-stratosphere, above most of the protective layer of ozone, the intense solar radiation broke the CFC molecules apart, releasing chlorine. Two simple reactions gave Rowland and Molina concern: Cl + O3 = ClO + O2, and ClO + O = Cl + O2. That is, chlorine (Cl) reacted with ozone (O3), generating chlorine monoxide (ClO), which in turn reacted with an oxygen atom to release another chlorine; the net result was that the chlorine was destroying ozone without depleting itself. "When we found the chain reactions" occurring in the ozone layer, remembered Rowland this fall, the fate of CFCs "suddenly went from a scientific curiosity to an environmental worry." The next decade was a contentious one for Rowland and Molina, as many in the general public, the chemical industry, and even the scientific community expressed skepticism that a nontoxic gas sprayed out of a can (in the early 1970s, recalls Rowland, roughly two-thirds of CFCs were used as propellants in aerosol products, such as deodorants) could have a significant impact on the composition of the atmosphere--much less on the viability of life on earth. "If you came off the street, it seemed ludicrous that underarm deodorants might have an effect in a global way," Rowland says. In 1978 the United States banned the use of CFCs in most spray-can applications. But in the early 1980s, models of the atmospheric chemistry involving CFCs became more and more complex, and various questions arose over the science. In 1985, Rowland and Molina were vindicated. British scientists using ground-based instruments spotted a gaping "hole" in the ozone layer above the Antarctic. Subsequently, NASA reported that there was a thinning of the ozone layer over the populated areas of the Northern Hemisphere. These findings proved that Rowland and Molina's chemistry had been correct. They also provided startling evidence that industrial chemicals, emitted largely over the industrialized population centers of North America and Europe, could change the atmosphere on a global scale. |
Neutralizing Fluorocarbons
08/28/2008











Comments
ellarm on 01/21/2007 at 5:06 AM
1
With Global warming, brilliant scientist produce very poor suggestions. Bio-energy such as Ethanol, and bio-diesel often have generally greater energy costs than energy outputs. No one seems concerned about the conversion of agricultural land to energy production. As it is more farm fields are dotted with wind turbines and environmentally friendly houses than our population needs.
I am surprised that so few are interested in the environmental impact of millions of lead or lithium batteries full of other toxic chemicals in electric cars.
I am in favor of real energy breakthroughs, and the effort to replace petroleum products used for heat and transportation. Not to slow down the impact of a possible century long weather event. (Where I live, global warming comes up mostly as good news!) The real issue is keeping enough supply for materials and chemical production needed to keep building all of the high tech fixes to the worlds problems, that apparently are caused by "Big Oil".
If you must recall the Montreal Protocol be complete in your review. Not all results were intended, beneficial, or directly related to the over-hyped hole in the Ozone.
Regards,
ellarm
Layne on 03/01/2007 at 2:51 AM
2
"In fact, the volume of greenhouse gases created as a result of the Montreal agreement's phaseout of CFCs is two times to three times the amount of global-warming carbon dioxide the Kyoto agreement is supposed to eliminate."
If Montreal is remembered in the Tech Review as an unqualified success, it's one more justification for the popular view that scientists have little or no ability to gauge the total/net effect of public policy change.
The world is not a lab.