Why don't we hear about acid rain or the ozone hole any more?

By Selena Rendall

I overheard a conversation this week. The person speaking was denying climate change. The basis for his argument was that in the ’80s we were warned about acid rain, in the 90’s it was worries about a hole in the ozone layer, and now it's trendy to scare us about climate change. No one talks about acid rain and ozone anymore and it will be the same for climate change soon. It's all a fuss about nothing.

It wasn't my conversation so I didn’t join in, but if I could have, I would have talked about why we are no longer concerned about acid rain and the ozone layer.

We don't talk about these two concerns, because we have worked hard, here in the western world, and addressed these problems. By human action we have dealt with the threat.

Take Acid Rain. Acid Rain is pollution of rain with sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. This pollution results in acidic rainfall. Sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide occur naturally from volcanic sources and lightening strikes, but manmade sources, the result of industrialization, dramatically increased the concentration of these two pollutants, and their impacts have been recognized since the 1850’s. In addition to the impacts on woodlands, lakes and natural areas, the acidic rain damaged buildings, peeled paint and damaged infrastructure. Legislation was passed to clean up air across Europe and North America, requiring industry to use techniques that limited the release of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide.

The hole in the ozone layer was found by scientists researching in Antarctica in the mid-1980’s. The ozone layer provides protection from the sun’s radiation. Damage to this layer is a threat to our health especially through sunburn, skin cancer and cataract development. These scientists showed that the size of the hole in the ozone layer was increasing. The hole is caused by a range of chemicals - solvents, refrigerants, propellants and foam blowing chemicals

In 1985, twenty-three nations came together to sign the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, which led to the Montreal Protocol signed by forty-three nations in 1987. Each of these nations put bans into place, limiting the emission of ozone depleting substances. Each country agreed to do its bit. Remarkably, these agreements were signed before there was consensus about the science or on the likely impacts of the thinning of the ozone layer or the Antarctic hole. Now, thirty years later, the ozone hole is at its smallest size since it was first discovered.

We have dealt with these two man-made problems through legislation – regulations that control industrial processes and the products that can be sold and used. These regulations had an impact on industry. Industry had to turn to alternative processes and chemicals. This meant research and innovation: the search for alternative chemicals, the mining of alternative natural resources, the manufacture of alternative compounds, the research into the impact of new products, the development of new ways of doing things, the assigning of inspectors, the evolution of competition from alternative processes, new choices for consumers, the expansion of industry, etc. etc.

Does anyone today think addressing acid rain or ozone depletion was a mistake? Did we do any harm by addressing these concerns? The list above means jobs, opportunities for investors, returns for shareholders and pension plans, revenue for governments to support health care, infrastructure, education and social programs. The consequences for the environment has been a dramatic recovery from the impacts of acid rain and ozone damage. We should be proud of these accomplishments.

Why don’t we apply this way of thinking to climate change?