Latest news with #MontrealProtocol
The Print
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Print
One Nation, One Development model won't work for Lakshadweep, Sunderbans, says Jairam Ramesh
All this, of course, is now history. What used to create much acrimony now has become part of conventional wisdom. Part of this is due to the sheer efflux of time that permits challenges to entrenched orthodoxies to get wider acceptance. Part of it is the nature of parliamentary politics which is based on the principle of 'where you stand depends on where you sit'. But there are other deeper forces at work that have resulted in this mindset change. The reasons for this change are many. When the then Planning Commission set up, for the very first time, an expert group on 'Low Carbon Strategies for Inclusive Growth' in January 2010 under the chairmanship of Dr. Kirit Parikh, there was further outcry. The group even found it difficult to get going and it was only in May 2011 that it could submit its first report with the final report delayed till April 2014. There was great hesitancy in embracing the idea of 'low carbon' on the grounds that it would jeopardise India's position in global climate change negotiations. In December 2010 when India announced its intention to join on-going negotiations on amendments to the Montreal Protocol all hell broke loose, but six years later at Kigali, Rwanda, India signed on to the amendments that made clear a trajectory for the phase down of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) that some years before had been seen as a solution to the problem of depletion of the ozone layer. Just a decade and a half back the very term 'low carbon' was taboo in our policy discourse. It was widely seen as part of some deliberate ploy by the advanced nations to slow the development of India. When India unilaterally took on a commitment under the December 2009 Copenhagen Accord to reduce emissions intensity by 20–25 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020, there was huge criticism both in Parliament and the media. Our vulnerabilities to global warming have become even more stark. The frequency of extreme events has markedly increased. Glacial retreat is having clear consequences as is increase in mean sea levels. While what is called the long-period average of its quantum does not seem to have changed appreciably, the unpredictability of the monsoon in terms of its daily behaviour is now well established. All this has increased public awareness and consciousness. Also read: India must account for human costs of energy transition, prioritise social justice In addition, solar energy per kwh prices have fallen dramatically (thanks mainly to China and Germany that triggered this steep decline initially) making large-scale additions that had once been desirable become economically feasible as well. A third factor is the growing understanding of the public health impacts of air pollution caused in large measure by growing consumption of fossil fuels and by loss of biodiversity. This has forced yesterday's champions of the 'grow now pay later' model to recognise the centrality of ecological sustainability in economic growth. It has also helped that after years of painstaking and acrimonious negotiations that lasted well over a decade the global community was able to arrive at the Paris Agreement on Climate Change in December 2015, the building blocks of which were laid especially at Copenhagen in December 2009 and Cancun in December 2010. The extremely thoughtful contributions in this volume look ahead and address the question of the energy transition in its technological, economic and social dimensions. The authors come from a variety of backgrounds and include policy makers, academics, research scholars and informed 'green' campaigners. It is this diversity that enriches the anthology. That a transition is inevitable and most necessary is no longer in dispute. But it will have costs that will have to be borne and will have impacts that will need to be managed. How this is to be accomplished keeping in mind objectives of both efficiency and equity is the real question. And it is not a case of a sequential efficiency first and equity subsequently. Both have to go hand-in-hand at all times. A number of authors deal with issues related with the system of environmental governance we have. Over the decades, India has put in place a number of laws and regulations and established many institutions in this area. But the demographic challenges we face and the developmental imperatives we must fulfill put pressure on this system. Over the years these laws have come to be seen by influential sections of society as a regulatory burden that has been imposed and that only stymies faster economic growth, accelerated investment and job creation. Under the best of circumstances, enforcement of these laws has been weak. Now their very rationale is being questioned in the name of 'ease of doing business'. This is most unfortunate. Being a world leader in the addition of solar energy capacity (even with low value-added in indigenous manufacturing) is one thing. But what good is that if forest and biodiversity conservation laws are diluted, emission norms for thermal power plants are eased, and forest rights legislation is subverted at the cost of both individual and community entitlements? What good is that if we routinely take recourse to what is called 'compensatory afforestation' but which can never be a substitute for the loss of rich natural forests? Compensatory afforestation only helps assuage the conscience. The energy transition necessarily means a shift away from coal for the generation of electricity. Phase out is unrealistic in the foreseeable future but phase down is eminently doable. But even this will have consequences that go well beyond energy policy. Poorer states in the eastern part of India are heavily dependent on coal for their annual revenues. Millions of people depend on it for their daily livelihoods. Providing alternative sources of revenue and livelihoods is a national responsibility and this is where the idea of 'transition justice' becomes very important. The phase down can be facilitated if other base load alternatives to coal can get built up at the scale required. Nuclear is one such alternative that is now witnessing a resurgence in many countries. India too has just announced a grandiose plan for 2040 but it is most unlikely to fructify. We are decades away from utilising our abundantly available reserves of fertile thorium as originally envisaged. Large storage dams are also on the anvil and some of them may well be needed on larger strategic grounds. But it bears recall that both nuclear and hydel energy too pose formidable environmental challenges that simply cannot be wished away. Moreover, the transition should not be viewed simply from the perspective of substituting one energy source by another. It is more fundamentally an opportunity to reconfigure electricity grids and redesign transportation networks, to give two examples. A large number of our ecosystems—other than forests that cover some 22 per cent of the country's geographical area—are under serious threat. Wetlands, so very essential for maintaining ecological balance, are one example—they are presently estimated to cover around 5 per cent of the country's geographical area. The volume deals with some others, like Lakshadweep and the Himalayan region. Sunderbans is already very seriously affected and the plans being bulldozed through endanger Greater Nicobar. It can be nobody's case that such regions should be left as wildernesses— in the Indian context, that is very unrealistic. But they need a wholly different approach to what we understand development to be. One Nation, One Model of development will just not work. We should also bear in mind that ecosystems respect no geographical boundaries and hence cooperation with our neighbouring countries is essential. Today's political scenario may make this seem impossible but sooner or later we have to find avenues for joint endeavour. In fact, such avenues could in themselves be ways of improving the political climate in the subcontinent. Finally, this volume is focused on energy transition in the context of climate change. But global warming is only one of the planetary boundaries that have to be reckoned with. Fifteen years ago, the Stockholm Resilience Centre had identified nine such boundaries—climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, atmospheric aerosol loading, ocean acidification, disruption of natural nutrient cycles of key elements like nitrogen and phosphorus, alteration in freshwater cycles, land system changes, biosphere integrity and introduction of novel entities. Six of the boundaries have already been transgressed, the three exceptions being ozone depletion, aerosol loading and ocean acidification (which is, however, close to crossing the safe boundary). India will need to build up its research capacity in these areas. The Indian Network for Climate Change Assessment (INCCA) set up in 2009 and thereafter made moribund needs to be revived and given an expanded mandate to cover all planetary boundaries, even if the USA has no interest whatsoever in them now—or at least for the next four years. Preface by Jairam Ramesh, in Energy Transition and Climate Justice: A Path Less Travelled, IIC Quarterly (vol. 51, nos. 3&4, Winter 2024-Spring 2025)
Scoop
10-06-2025
- Science
- Scoop
A 10-fold Increase In Rocket Launches Would Start Harming The Ozone Layer
Article – The Conversation While rocket launches are increasing dramatically every year, it is still possible to mitigate any harmful effects on the ozone layer. The international space industry is on a growth trajectory, but new research shows a rapid increase in rocket launches would damage the ozone layer. Several hundred rockets are launched globally each year by a mix of commercial companies and nation-state space programmes. These take place at around 20 sites, almost all in the northern hemisphere, with the most prolific launch rates currently from the United States, China, New Zealand and Russia. Our latest research explores the tipping point when launching more rockets will begin to cause problems. Our findings show that once rates reach 2,000 launches a year – about a ten-fold increase on last year – the current healing of the ozone layer slows down. We argue that with care, we can avoid this future. The economic benefits of industry growth can be realised, but it will take a collaborative effort. Rocket launches thin the ozone layer The ozone layer protects life on Earth from harmful solar ultraviolet (UV) rays. It is slowly healing from the effects of chlorofluorocarbons and other damaging chemicals emitted last century, thanks to global cooperative agreements under the Montreal Protocol. Gases and particulates emitted by rockets as they punch through the atmosphere are known to thin the ozone layer. So far, they don't cause appreciable ozone depletion, as relatively few launches take place each year. However, launches are steadily increasing. In 2019, there were 102 launches. By 2024, that increased to 258 worldwide. There are expected to be even more in 2025. At multiple sites worldwide, the launch industry projects impressive levels of future growth. For US-based launches, a three-fold increase in the number of rockets launched in 2023 is expected as soon as 2028. One driver of this growth is the effort to build out satellite constellations to tens of thousands of units, positioned low in Earth's orbit. These require many launches to create and are happening in several nations, run by a number of companies. Once in place, these constellations require ongoing launches to keep them supplied with active satellites. Potential delay in ozone recovery To figure out how future launches could affect the ozone layer, we first built a database of ozone-depleting chemicals emitted by rockets currently in use. We then fed this database into a model of Earth's atmosphere and climate, and simulated atmospheric composition under several scenarios of higher rates of rocket launches. We found that with around 2,000 launches worldwide each year, the ozone layer thins by up to 3%. Due to atmospheric transport of rocket-emitted chemicals, we saw the largest ozone losses over Antarctica, even though most launches are taking place in the northern hemisphere. Fortunately, the ozone losses are small. We wouldn't expect to see catastrophic damage to humans or ecosystems. However, the losses are significant given global efforts underway to heal the ozone layer. The global abundance of ozone is still around 2% lower than before the onset of losses caused by chlorofluorocarbons. Future ozone losses are not locked in Encouragingly, we found no significant ozone loss in a scenario of more modest rates of around 900 launches per year. However, this is for the types of rockets that are in use right now around the world. We focus on current launch vehicles because it is uncertain when the new and massive rockets currently in development will enter use. But these larger rockets often require far more fuel, which creates more emissions at each launch. Rocket propellant choices make a big difference to the atmosphere. We found fuels emitting chlorine-containing chemicals or black carbon particulates have the largest effects on the ozone layer. Reducing use of these fuels as launch rates increase is key to supporting an ongoing recovery of the ozone layer. Re-entering spacecraft and satellite debris can also cause damage. However, the global scientific community doesn't yet fully understand the chemistry around re-entry. Our work provides a realistic 'floor' for the lowest level of damage that will occur. But it is important to remember that these effects are not locked in. It is entirely possible to create a launch industry where we avoid harmful effects, but that would require reducing use of chlorine-containing fuels, minimising black carbon emissions by new rockets and monitoring emissions. It will take keen effort and enthusiasm from industry and regulators, working together with scientists. But this needs to start now, not after the damage is done. Disclosure statement Laura Revell is a member of the International Ozone Commission and the UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, which assesses the effects of ozone depletion on life on Earth. She is a Rutherford Discovery Fellow, funded by the Royal Society of NZ Te Apārangi. Michele Bannister is the NZ delegate for the International Astronomical Union, serves on the COSPAR-NZ national committee, is a voting member of Aerospace New Zealand, and has research collaborations with the IAU Centre for Protection of the Dark & Quiet Sky. She is a Rutherford Discovery Fellow, funded by the Royal Society of NZ Te Apārangi.
Scoop
10-06-2025
- Science
- Scoop
A 10-fold Increase In Rocket Launches Would Start Harming The Ozone Layer
The international space industry is on a growth trajectory, but new research shows a rapid increase in rocket launches would damage the ozone layer. Several hundred rockets are launched globally each year by a mix of commercial companies and nation-state space programmes. These take place at around 20 sites, almost all in the northern hemisphere, with the most prolific launch rates currently from the United States, China, New Zealand and Russia. Our latest research explores the tipping point when launching more rockets will begin to cause problems. Our findings show that once rates reach 2,000 launches a year – about a ten-fold increase on last year – the current healing of the ozone layer slows down. We argue that with care, we can avoid this future. The economic benefits of industry growth can be realised, but it will take a collaborative effort. Rocket launches thin the ozone layer The ozone layer protects life on Earth from harmful solar ultraviolet (UV) rays. It is slowly healing from the effects of chlorofluorocarbons and other damaging chemicals emitted last century, thanks to global cooperative agreements under the Montreal Protocol. Gases and particulates emitted by rockets as they punch through the atmosphere are known to thin the ozone layer. So far, they don't cause appreciable ozone depletion, as relatively few launches take place each year. However, launches are steadily increasing. In 2019, there were 102 launches. By 2024, that increased to 258 worldwide. There are expected to be even more in 2025. At multiple sites worldwide, the launch industry projects impressive levels of future growth. For US-based launches, a three-fold increase in the number of rockets launched in 2023 is expected as soon as 2028. One driver of this growth is the effort to build out satellite constellations to tens of thousands of units, positioned low in Earth's orbit. These require many launches to create and are happening in several nations, run by a number of companies. Once in place, these constellations require ongoing launches to keep them supplied with active satellites. Potential delay in ozone recovery To figure out how future launches could affect the ozone layer, we first built a database of ozone-depleting chemicals emitted by rockets currently in use. We then fed this database into a model of Earth's atmosphere and climate, and simulated atmospheric composition under several scenarios of higher rates of rocket launches. We found that with around 2,000 launches worldwide each year, the ozone layer thins by up to 3%. Due to atmospheric transport of rocket-emitted chemicals, we saw the largest ozone losses over Antarctica, even though most launches are taking place in the northern hemisphere. Fortunately, the ozone losses are small. We wouldn't expect to see catastrophic damage to humans or ecosystems. However, the losses are significant given global efforts underway to heal the ozone layer. The global abundance of ozone is still around 2% lower than before the onset of losses caused by chlorofluorocarbons. Future ozone losses are not locked in Encouragingly, we found no significant ozone loss in a scenario of more modest rates of around 900 launches per year. However, this is for the types of rockets that are in use right now around the world. We focus on current launch vehicles because it is uncertain when the new and massive rockets currently in development will enter use. But these larger rockets often require far more fuel, which creates more emissions at each launch. Rocket propellant choices make a big difference to the atmosphere. We found fuels emitting chlorine-containing chemicals or black carbon particulates have the largest effects on the ozone layer. Reducing use of these fuels as launch rates increase is key to supporting an ongoing recovery of the ozone layer. Re-entering spacecraft and satellite debris can also cause damage. However, the global scientific community doesn't yet fully understand the chemistry around re-entry. Our work provides a realistic 'floor' for the lowest level of damage that will occur. But it is important to remember that these effects are not locked in. It is entirely possible to create a launch industry where we avoid harmful effects, but that would require reducing use of chlorine-containing fuels, minimising black carbon emissions by new rockets and monitoring emissions. It will take keen effort and enthusiasm from industry and regulators, working together with scientists. But this needs to start now, not after the damage is done. Disclosure statement Laura Revell is a member of the International Ozone Commission and the UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, which assesses the effects of ozone depletion on life on Earth. She is a Rutherford Discovery Fellow, funded by the Royal Society of NZ Te Apārangi. Michele Bannister is the NZ delegate for the International Astronomical Union, serves on the COSPAR-NZ national committee, is a voting member of Aerospace New Zealand, and has research collaborations with the IAU Centre for Protection of the Dark & Quiet Sky. She is a Rutherford Discovery Fellow, funded by the Royal Society of NZ Te Apārangi.
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
Expert debunks dangerous myth about global crisis: 'More people need to hear this'
A meteorologist is clearing the air about one of the biggest environmental victories in human history. In a TikTok by ABC News Live (@abcnewslive), ABC News chief climate correspondent Ginger Zee breaks down the story of the ozone layer crisis and how international cooperation helped turn the tide. The main topic of the video is how the 1980s ozone layer crisis was solved. She explains that the ozone layer, a thin band of gas high in the atmosphere, protects life on Earth by acting like a sunscreen. "Without it, you burn," she says. "And I don't mean spring break Mexico burn; I mean burn to death." After scientists discovered in 1985 that the ozone layer was thinning because of man-made chemicals, specifically chlorofluorocarbons found in refrigerants, aerosols, and air conditioners, nearly 200 countries came together to pass the Montreal Protocol. The protocol phased out ozone-depleting substances that helped the ozone layer heal, and according to scientists, it could fully recover within the next 40 years. This could mean 443 million fewer cases of skin cancer and 63 million cases of cataracts prevented by the end of the century. The story of the ozone layer serves as a powerful case study for how people can unite to solve environmental challenges. "Can you imagine if we all came together and did that for greenhouse gas emissions?" asked Zee at the end of the video. Reducing harmful carbon pollution today could help prevent extreme weather events, sea level rise, and habitat loss in the future. While Zee's video is a celebration of a past win, it also serves to clarify ongoing misconceptions. She responds to a social media comment that falsely claims environmental scientists have been moving the goalposts from the ozone crisis to global warming to climate change. Do you think America has a plastic waste problem? Definitely Only in some areas Not really I'm not sure Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. It is important to understand the distinction between these two crises. The ozone crisis was caused by specific chemical compounds that damaged the protective atmospheric layer. On the other hand, global warming refers to the rise in Earth's average surface temperature because of harmful greenhouse gases. Climate change is the broader term that includes warming along with shifts in weather patterns, precipitation, and sea levels. "Can this be a main segment on the main news. More people need to hear this," one user wrote. "Same with bird eggshells cfcs and ddts! We helped that! We can band together for change," another commenter pointed out. At a time when misinformation spreads fast online, accessible explanations like this one can help turn the tide — again. Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
The National
30-05-2025
- Politics
- The National
How the global space race could blast another hole in the ozone layer
A growing global desire to venture into deep space could pose a new threat to life back on Earth – 40 years after the alarm was raised over damage to the ozone layer and its stark consequences for humankind. It was 40 years ago this month that a team of scientists from the British Antarctic Survey published a study that sent shock waves through not just the scientific community, but the world as a whole. They revealed that, from the late 1970s onwards, a hole had been forming each southern hemisphere spring in the ozone layer above the Antarctic. It was a human-made crisis, because the thinning had been caused by the release into the atmosphere of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and related substances used as refrigerants and aerosol propellants. Left unchecked, this destruction could have had increasingly serious consequences, because ozone – a gas whose molecules are made up of three oxygen atoms – filters out the most harmful solar radiation and allows life as we know it to exist. Slowly, the Antarctic hole is healing, thanks largely to the groundbreaking Montreal Protocol, an agreement that came into force in 1989 to restrict the use of CFCs and related gases containing chlorine and bromine. New challenges take flight But even as the crucial healing process continues, the international community is being urged to remain vigilant. In particular, researchers are concerned that rockets that take off for space exploration and to launch satellites are causing damage because the exhausts of these craft release soot directly into the stratosphere. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a US government agency, released a study in 2022 suggesting that 'a significant boost in space flight activity may damage the protective ozone layer'. Also, when satellites reach the end of their life, return to the Earth's atmosphere and burn up, they release nitrogen oxide, chlorine, aluminium and lithium, which can destroy ozone. The UK's University of Southampton said last year that up to 50,000 satellites could be launched into orbit by 2030, while each day over the coming decade dozens will re-enter the Earth's atmosphere and burn up. Rasmus Flytkjaer, head of space at the consultancy London Economics, says that it is unclear if concerns about the environmental impacts of launches and re-entries are having 'an observable impact' on the industry. The problem of space debris continues to grow, which may indicate that environmental impacts from the industry are tackled only when appropriate regulations are in place. Yet Mr Flytkjaer says that standardised global regulations have yet to be put in place, and the sector is 'looking to the UN to become that organisation' that brings them in. 'As the countries haven't agreed, the UN have to tackle this,' he says. 'There are differences between jurisdictions, meaning that satellites not approved in one jurisdiction may be approved in another.' If suitable regulations are in place, the impacts could be much reduced: Mr Flytkjaer said that a wooden satellite, LignoSat, launched last year, was used to demonstrate that satellites did not have to be made from metals that harmed the ozone layer. Another concern is the possibility of hypersonic air travel, which would involve aircraft flying at five times the speed of sound or more. Several companies are developing this technology. 'They will be flying high up, maybe at 30km altitude,' says Prof Guy Brasseur, of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Germany and the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in the US. 'I don't know how much the engines will emit because nobody knows what kinds of engine will be used, but there's the potential for emissions of large amounts of water vapour and nitrogen oxide depending on the technology used.' Further threats include climate change, which with its complex effects on the atmosphere, could cause damage in more than one way. 'Climate change with change the circulation of the stratosphere. It's predicted to make the ozone column in the tropics thinner. The tropics is a region that's not really had depletion in the past, but it's where lots of people live,' Prof Brasseur says. Also, Prof Brasseur says that even as the troposphere warms, global warming will lead to a cooling of the stratosphere, which is likely to result in clouds forming in the stratosphere above the poles more frequently. The interaction of clouds, CFCs and ozone could result in more ozone being destroyed and a thinning of the protective layer above the Antarctic. So, while the world can celebrate the progress made so far in helping to heal the hole in the ozone layer, the future of his critical protective chief remains uncertain. How ozone hole led to global concern 'I guess it was the first strong indication of humans on the planet Earth could have a global impact on the environment, in a supposedly pristine, remote region,' said Prof Martyn Chipperfield, who researches the ozone layer at the University of Leeds in the UK. 'The ozone layer is essential for life on Earth. Life would not have evolved without the ozone layer forming … because it filters out short-wavelength harmful ultraviolet radiation. There's strong, justified concern about us damaging the ozone layer.' The protective ozone layer lies in the stratosphere, which sits between about 11 and 50km above the Earth's surface, directly on top of the troposphere, which stretches up from ground level. The coldness of the stratosphere above the Antarctic accelerates the depletion of ozone by CFCs, and the Arctic too has experienced thinning, but less because temperatures inside the stratosphere there are not as low. Life-saving progress A 2020 report from the US Environmental Protection Agency said that, when considering people born in the US up to the year 2100, the protocol is expected to prevent about 63 million cataract cases, 443 million skin cancer cases and 2.3 million skin cancer deaths. Prof Chipperfield describes the protocol as having been 'a big success', but he cautions that the atmospheric abundance of ozone-depleting gases 'will only gradually decay' because CFCs and similar compounds are stable and remain in the atmosphere for many decades. 'The hole still appears very strongly most years, but the rate at which it grows in September is slowing down. So we do think the Antarctic ozone hole is responding to the decreases in chlorine and bromine,' he says. Prof Chipperfield – who completed his PhD under the supervision of the late Joe Farman, one of three authors of the original report about the ozone hole – said that it will not be until around 2070 that the ozone layer over the Antarctic returns to its 1980 state, which is typically used as the baseline for comparisons.
