Whatever happened to the hole in the ozone layer? - Stephanie Honchell Smith

譯者: Song Ian 審譯者: Helen Chang

In the 1980s, the world faced a huge problem:

在 1980 年，世界正面臨 一個非常嚴重的問題

there was a rapidly expanding hole in the ozone layer.

在臭氧層裡有一個正在迅速擴大的洞

So, what happened? And is it still there?

發生了什麼？這個問題還存在嗎？

Let’s go back to the beginning.

讓我們從頭說起

The Sun makes life on Earth possible,

太陽讓地球上的生物可以生存

but too much exposure to its UV radiation damages plant and animal DNA.

但是過量暴露在紫外線下 會破壞植物和動物的 DNA

Thankfully, about 98% of that radiation is absorbed by ozone molecules

慶幸的是有 98% 紫外線被臭氧層吸收

dispersed in the stratosphere,

分散在平流層

which are continuously broken apart and reformed in this process,

不斷破碎，並在這個過程中重組

maintaining a delicate equilibrium.

維持微妙的平衡

But in the early 1970s, two chemists— Mario Molina and Sherwood Rowland—

然而在 1970 年代早期有兩位科學家

馬里奧·莫利納和舍伍德·羅蘭

demonstrated that widely used chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs,

發現廣泛使用的化學品 稱為氯氟烴或 CFC

could upset this balance.

可能會破壞這種平衡

CFCs were developed in the 1920s by three US-based corporations

CFC 是在 1920 年代開發的 由三個美國公司

as coolants for refrigerators.

作為冰箱的冷卻劑

Unlike existing alternatives— such as ammonia or methyl chloride—

與現有的替代方案不同 例如：氨水或氯甲烷

CFCs were non-flammable and non-toxic—

CFC 不易燃且無毒

meaning they wouldn't burst into flames or cause deadly gas leaks.

這意味著它們不會起火 或導致致命的氣體洩漏

They also made great propellants, foaming agents, and fire-retardants.

還是很棒的推進劑、發泡劑和阻燃劑

CFCs soon found their way into a variety of everyday items

CFC 很快就進入了 日常用品的各種領域

and became a multi-billion dollar per year industry.

並成為每年數十億美元營收的企業

In the lower atmosphere, CFCs don’t break down or react with other molecules.

在低層大氣中 CFC 不會分解 或與其他分子反應

But Molina and Rowland showed that in the stratosphere,

但莫利納和羅蘭表示在平流層

they're broken apart by UV light, releasing chlorine atoms.

它們被紫外線分解，釋放氯原子

These then react with ozone,

然後跟臭氧發生反應

destroying it faster than it can be replenished.

被摧毀的速度超過填補的速度

A single chlorine atom can destroy thousands of ozone molecules

一個氯原子就可以破壞 成千上萬的臭氧分子

before finally reacting with something else and forming a stable molecule.

然後才與其它東西反應 成為穩定的分子

Seeing the threat to their bottom line,

看到底線受到威脅

CFC producers pushed back to discredit the scientists,

CFC 供應者反擊並且詆毀科學家

even accusing them of working for the KGB.

甚至指責他們為前蘇聯的 國家安全委員會工作

Initial estimates showed that within 60 years,

初步估計顯示，在 60 年內

CFCs could reduce ozone concentrations by 7%.

CFC 減少臭氧濃度達 7％

But by 1985, it became clear that ozone depletion, especially over Antarctica,

但到 1985 年，很明顯臭氧層 快速地消耗，南極洲尤甚

was happening much faster.

Here, the extremely cold temperatures and unique structure of Antarctic clouds

南極洲因為極端的天氣 與獨一無二的南極雲層

accelerated ozone loss.

加速了破壞臭氧層的速度

Scientists stationed in Antarctica noticed a massive drop

駐紮在南極洲的科學家 注意到臭氧層濃度巨降

in overhead ozone occurring every spring.

特別是在每年春天的時候

Satellite data revealed the vast extent of these losses

衛星數據顯示巨大的損失程度 和化學測試證實

and chemical tests confirmed that the cause was unquestionably CFCs.

原因無疑是 CFC

NASA soon released visualizations, which were broadcast around the world

美國宇航局很快發布了可視化效果 送至世界各地播出

and captured public attention.

引起了公眾的注意

If ozone depletion continued, rates of skin cancer would skyrocket.

如果臭氧層消耗繼續 皮膚癌的發病率會飆升

Photosynthesis would be impaired, making plants—

光合作用會受損，造成植物——

including rice, wheat, and corn—

包括米、小麥和玉米——

less productive and more susceptible to disease.

生產力較低，更容易受到影響到疾病

Global agricultural production would plummet,

全球農業生產會暴跌

and entire ecosystems would collapse.

整個生態系統都會崩潰

But many politicians— weighing immediate economic concerns over long-term ones—

但許多政客置眼前的利益 於長期的利益之前

disagreed about what to do.

不同意該做些什麼

The fight to ban CFCs found two unlikely allies

在禁止 CFC 的鬥爭中

美國總統雷根和英國首相柴契爾夫人 成為了兩個不太可能的盟友

in US President Ronald Reagan and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

Despite their general opposition to government regulation,

儘管他們通常反對政府監管

Reagan, who had undergone treatment for skin cancer,

接受過皮膚癌治療的雷根 和受過化學家訓練的柴契爾夫人

and Thatcher, who was trained as a chemist,

recognized the need for immediate action.

認知到需要立即採取行動

The US and UK, along with Canada, Norway, Sweden, and Finland,

美國、英國、加拿大、 挪威、 瑞典和芬蘭

led calls for an international ban on CFCs.

領導呼籲國際禁止使用 CFC

In 1987, representatives signed the Montreal Protocol,

1987 年，代表們簽署了蒙特利爾議定書

requiring the rapid phasing out of CFCs

要求迅速淘汰 CFC

and creating a fund to assist Global South countries

設立一個基金來協助 全球的南方國家

in obtaining affordable, non-ozone depleting alternatives.

以獲得負擔得起的 不消耗臭氧層的替代品

It was later ratified by every country on Earth—

後來得到全球各國的認可

the only treaty in history to achieve this.

是地球歷史上唯一如此的條約

In 1995, Molina, Rowland, and their Dutch colleague Paul Crutzen,

1995 年，莫利納、羅蘭 和他們的荷蘭同事保羅克魯岑

were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

在化學領域共同獲得諾貝爾獎

As the use of CFCs declined,

隨著 CFC 使用量的減少

the ozone hole began shrinking,

臭氧層的洞開始縮小

and is predicted to disappear entirely by 2070.

並且預計會在2070年完全消失

But we’re not out of the woods yet.

但我們還沒有走出困境

While the ban was a win for the climate, as CFCs are potent greenhouse gases,

雖然禁令是對於氣候的勝利 由於 CFC 是強效溫室氣體

the alternatives that replaced them— hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs— are too.

替代它們的替代品氫氟碳化物 或 HFC 也是如此

While generally less potent than CFCs,

雖然不如 CFC 有效

HFCs still trap more heat than carbon dioxide

HFC 仍會吸收更多熱量 相比於二氧化碳

and are contributing to climate change.

並正在加劇氣候變化

To address this, in 2016, the Kigali Amendment

為了解決這個問題 2016 年的基加利修正案

was added to the Montreal Protocol,

calling for an 85% cut in global HFCs by 2047.

要求到 2047 年在全球 HFC 中削減 85%

This alone could avoid up to 0.5°C of global warming by the end of the century.

僅此一項就可以避免到本世紀末 高達 0.5°C 的全球變暖

Today, as we face the existential threat of climate change,

今天，當我們面臨 氣候變化的生存威脅時

the Montreal Protocol serves as a model for the decisive global cooperation

以《蒙特利爾議定書》為範本 為了決定性的全球合作

we need to combat it.

我們需要與之抗爭

The question is, what will it take for us to come together again?

問題是，什麼能讓我們再次攜手合作？