The article “U.S. eyes ozone treaty to curb greenhouse gas” from msnbc.com talks about how the Obama administration is going to use the existing U.N. treaty in order to fix the ozone hold as a way to enact mandatory reductions in hydrofluorocarbons (HCFCs).

The Obama administration is leaning towards asking 195 nations to ratify the ozone treaty.  “Regulation of these gases could begin as soon as next year — significantly faster than any regulation of these potent greenhouse gases” via ongoing U.N. talks, wrote Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.

Adora Andy from the EPA said that while a final decision has not been made, the administration hopes to regulate the gases.  The change, which involves a global cut in greenhouse gases, would transform the ozone treaty into a strong tool to help fight global warming.

“Now it’s going to be a climate treaty, with no ozone-depleting materials, if this goes forward,” an EPA technical expert said. This expert said that ozone treaty, the Montreal Protocol, created the entire market for HFCs.  Including these HFCs in the treaty would take care of the problem.  I think this statement is interesting because we studied the Montreal Protocol in class and the effects it had on reducing air pollution, specifically CFCs.

Experts on unsure about how the Montreal Protocol will work together with the Kyoto Protocol.  The Kyoto Protocol is the world’s climate treaty, which regulates HFCs.  This program was rejected by the Bush administration.  Since the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, negotiations are taking place in December to determined what is to be done next.

The Montreal Protocol was so successful because it almost completely eliminated the use of CFCs which are blamed for the hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica.

HFCs do not have the same effects as CFCs in that they do not affect the ozone layer, which is why they replaced CFCs as coolants in many everyday objects.  Although HFCs help the ozone layer problem, experts say they are contributing to another problem.  The United States and the UN now want to phase out HFCs as well and relate this amendment to the Montreal Protocol.

Located above is an example of a product used to eliminate the presence of CFCs.  It was banned, however, because it contained a high number of HFCs.  This shows how the solution to one problem can cause another problem.

Unlike most pollutants, HFCs can have an impact within a lifetime.  HFCs do most of their damage during the first 30 years they are in the atmosphere.  This differs from CO2 whose impact takes place over a longer period of time.  The fact that HFCs do their damage so quickly shows just how dire the situation is and how quickly actions needs to be taken.

“Retiring HFCs is our best hope of avoiding a near-term tipping point for irreversible climate change. It’s an opportunity the world simply cannot afford to miss, and every year we delay action on HFCs reduces the benefit,” said Alexander von Bismarck, executive director of the Environmental Investigation Agency, a nonprofit watchdog group in Washington.

This article is important because it shows how important it is to save our atmosphere.  Some changes are happening very rapidly and need to be taken care of immediately.  The HFCs problem is an example of this and no one is quite sure how to handle it, but they know something must be done.  I look forward to hearing how this issue is taken care of.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30506271/page/2/

photo from AP images