MASSIVE NEW THREAT TO THE ENVIRONMENT PLEASE READ AND POST SOLUTIONS?

No conservatives allowed(I'm conservative my self but not a But%26amp;^% dumb$%^).


Laughing Gas: The Latest Threat to the Ozone Layer





Humankind doesn't have a great track record when it comes to cleaning up environmental messes, but there was one time we really outdid ourselves. That was back in 1989, when over 190 nations signed the Montreal Protocol, phasing out the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The decade before, scientists had discovered that CFCs were blowing a hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica, exposing us to dangerous ultraviolet radiation and boosting the risk of skin cancer. Today, CFCs are no longer in widespread use, and the ozone layer appears to be on the mend.








But even with that battle all but won, scientists are finding a new man-made threat to the ozone layer: nitrous oxide (N2O), otherwise known as laughing gas. A study published in the Aug. 28 Science found that N2O - a by-product of agricultural fertilizer and a number of other industrial processes - is now the biggest ozone-depleting gas in the air, and could present a real threat to the ozone layer in coming decades. And worse, unlike CFCs, N2O - which also adds to global warming - is not regulated by the Montreal Protocol, meaning there is no global effort to try to reduce emissions. (Read "Can Steven Chu Win the Fight Over Global Warming?")








"Pretty soon human-caused N2O emissions will be greater than all other ozone-depleting substances combined," says John Daniel, an atmospheric scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and a co-author of the Science study. "It will be the dominant gas in the future."








The idea that N2O poses a threat to the ozone layer is not new, but the Science study is the first comprehensive look at the exact concentrations and consequences of the gas. The investigators found that although N2O is only one-sixtieth as dangerous to the ozone layer as CFCs on a gram-by-gram basis, the sheer amount of N2O - each year nearly 1 billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent are released globally - means that it now poses a more significant threat to the atmosphere. (N2O emissions are calculated in terms of their impact on global warming, and CO2 is used as a kind of base level.) (See Q%26amp;A: "Regional Nuclear War and the Environment.")








The news isn't all bad: the fact that scientists can now turn so much of their attention to the dangers of N2O is in part because CFC levels have dropped so low, thanks to the Montreal Protocol. But N2O is likely to prove much more difficult than CFCs to phase out. While CFCs had a relatively narrow range of uses - and chemical companies like DuPont were able to come up with replacements quickly - N2O is all around us, tied intimately to our industrial way of life. The millions of tons of soil fertilizer used in U.S. agriculture alone add N2O into the atmosphere, as do livestock manure, sewage treatment and automobiles. And it's not just our doing: two-thirds of global N2O emissions come from the planet itself, as bacteria in soil and the oceans break down nitrogen. Though N2O is regulated by the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 as a greenhouse gas - and one that is nearly 300 times more potent for global warming than CO2 - that treaty doesn't cover all nations, and will expire in 2012. "The question is how are we going to reduce these gases," says Daniel. "We need to bridge that gap between science and policy."








Such a multifaceted problem will require a multifront solution, and some good ideas might come up at the U.N. Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen in December. Reducing the quantity of fertilizer used in farming, switching to a less meat-heavy diet and lowering the number of cars on the road while boosting fuel economy will all help. The planet itself will continue churning out its own N2O, of course, but the planet did that for eons. It was our N2O production that pushed the gas past the tipping point - requiring that we now push it back. "It can be a win-win phasing out these gases, both for climate and the ozone," says Robert Portman, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA and a co-author of the study. If we fail, we won't be laughing about nitrous oxide.








Guys this appears to be pretty darn scary but ALSO a great opportunity to quickly change peoples minds about policy. I think if we introduce this to the public there will be more awareness and a quicker need to take down the problems.





Please post your soluttion and/or thoughts.|||I must agree that the threat from dihydrogen monoxide is far more severe than n2o could ever be. 99% of all n2o produced is for use by dentists and so can never be a true environmental threat like h2o already is.|||My solution:


Stop pretending to be something your not.|||Woooo.... was there a fear-monger convention recently?





Everyone who's a scientist knows that laughing gas goes up to the Bozone layer.|||Why doesn't somebody just come out and say why they want to control energy.|||that question is way too long|||Does this mean we have to limit the use of Viagra? Viagra works by increasing nitrous oxide levels in the bloodstream...





Seriously, this is the problem of any manmade edict. As soon as you create a rule, people start looking for ways to circumvent it instead of showing some social responsibility by honoring the intent of the regulation.





In my first job, I tended to monitor the mainframe logs surrediptiously to sort out what my computer operators were doing at night and would investigate and take action to correct any misbehaviour such as sleeping on the job without revealing how I knew of the transgressions. Of course, there were limited metrics to monitor such as operator response time to tape mount requests from which to infer the overnight events. After I transferred stateside, my replacement, against my advice, decided to make the log analysis public and simply have the rule that whomever had the lowest average mount times would get a free lunch every week at a decent restaurant. One fella always got the free lunch and eventually my replacement started to wonder why and when the issue was investigated, it turned out that the particular employee was simply suspending all jobs so that nothing would be running hence his response time to any requests was zero during his shift.





If you remember, during the recent economic disheavals, one of the criticisms against Obama's interventions was that the economy would recover faster once the investors were confident that Obama would not intercede. Obama was reserving the right to adjust his intervention to account for issues that he had not foreseen and the investors were waiting till when they could be certain that whatever loophole they discovered would not be plugged before they got their return on investment.





We've never really progressed from playing soccer in the school yard when we would shout out "No Changees" whenever too many rules were being made on the fly.





It isn't possible to predict every possible factor both known and unknown when preparing legislation so ultimately something will not be covered despite the best intentions.|||That is nothing new. Liberals calling themselves conservative because it gives them credibility. Why is that?





There is nothing new in this. It is typical hysterical non scientific fear mongering and paranoia from the left.





The concentration is 293 ppbv now and it was measured at 276 ppbv in the 1800's. It is only an assumption that the massive increase of 6% must be from humans and it has to be catastrophic. I know that I am going to find it difficult to sleep tonight.





http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1995/95鈥?/a>|||I have a solution, let the world die a slow agonizing death. It would be better to burn up from global warming or drown under the raising seas of melting glaciers than have to listen to anymore Eco-nuts come up with 200 more things that are going to hurt the environment. So far we have Freon, CO2, Acid Rain, Aerosol Cans, Plastic Packaging, Styrofoam, Gasoline Vapors, Fertilizers, Diesel Emissions, Coal Emissions, too many People, and Cows Farting. Those are just the ones that come to mind, that are killing our planet. The planet needs to just burst into flames and get it over with. As long as the Eco-Nuts catch fire a little bit before I do, I'll die a happy man.|||I think the biggest threat to the polar ice caps are ppl peeing in the oceans that can really cuase it to warm it.





i am giulty of it and i am trying to get a bailout from the us governemt to stop the situation and global warming. So far all my request have been rejected but i will keep on trying!|||From what I understand this is one of the gases that is measured by parts per trillion. Also, most Industrialized nations have banned CFC's for around 40 years. It was the early to mid 1970's that the notion that CFC's cause the ozone hole.





Also, your additional details about Republicans bring about a trillion dollar war when the Republicans did not hold a large enough majority to pass any bills without Democrat help.|||sry guys nothing we can do about it :(


Even if we change China and India are going to pass us fast in pollutants and do u think they are going to slow their economy to help the environment. Unless something absolutely drastic happens from our leaders were doomed.


well hey its not that bad, if wont effect your lifetime its just your children's children's children that are going to die from our mistakes.|||Point of information, the U.S. has a marvelous record of cleaning up after ourselves. By 1900 the forest was gone from lake Erie to the Ohio river and south. The streams were choked with mud from thousands of tiny hillside farms throughout Appalachia. The deer, bear, beaver, otter, turkey, piliated woodpecker and a host of other wildlife was extirpated. Raw sewage flowed unfiltered from the cities and industry into our streams. Our sky was black from the burning of coal in industry and homes.


Today, Ohio is over 30% of Ohio is forested. Our streams and Lake Erie are comparatively, beautifully clean. Wildlife is so abundantly back that we can enjoy seeing deer, beaver and otters even in our suburbs and urban parks. Our air is, comparatively, marvelous.


We have much work to do with our environment, but let us always enjoy and be encouraged by our successes.|||The biggest threat to the environment and people is Dihydrogen Monoxide. It will kill people or animals if they inhale it. It's everywhere. It's even in our schools and in our homes, and no one cares. Children are exposed to it every day. Everyone needs to write to their representatives about it.|||1) There is no question.


2) You give no references.


('Take my word for it' is not good science.)


3) The so-called question is longer than most blog posts.


Unclear what you are looking for - this site usually deals in short answers.





Perhaps you are looking for answers in the wrong venue?


Or perhaps you just wanted someone to listen?





Point of information to Jim: our record of cleaning up after ourselves is abysmal. See the two sites listed below. That is but one example of many.