🚀 go-pugleaf

If you are talking about the amount of UV decrease at the current 
time, you may have a point.  But in environmental problems such 
asthis, one must think about the problem in a long-term way. The 
CFC's that are currently in the stratosphere were released in the 
atmosphere years ago.   From the graphs I've seen, without the 
curbs on CFC production contained in the Montreal Protocol the 
CFC's realeased into the atmosphere now would lead to a large
increase in the stratosphere 20-30 years from now.  This would 
lead to much larger ozone depletion which would lead to a much
larger increase in UV radiation.
  
The fact that we can detect any increase in UV radiation at all
right now scares me a whole lot, for it's telling me that, had we
not acted, we would be in one hell of a mess a couple of 
decades from now.
 
Of course I suppose that, to save some money, we can ignore 
the problem now (after all, it's not affecting us a whole lot) and 
then deal with a much bigger problem later but, somehow, I 
have the feeling we'd end up spending a lot more money that 
way.

Colin Seftor

Greig Ebeling <eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au> wrote in article
<5e3fnb$gvs$1@coffee.DIALix.COM>...
> Jay, you are missing the point.  That ozone depletion results in
> increased UV is irrelevant.  It is the AMOUNT of increase which
> matters, and IMO this is insignificant against the effects of human
> behavioural patterns, and natural variations.
> 
> Even if some form of biological affect can be discerned, the question
> still remains:  How great is the effect in terms of cost to the
> community, and how does this compare to the cost of minimising the
> potential for harm?  Not forgetting that in a world of limited
> resources, there are other environmental projects worthy of resources,
> which are having more immediate and devestating biological effects.
> 
> ...Greig