Back in the ozone: How we plugged the hole in the sky
The hole over Antarctica quickly became a potent symbol of human overreach. Scientists had been warning since the 1970s that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the miracle chemicals that made spray-on deodorant, whipped cream in a can, and frost-free freezers possible, could destroy ozone molecules in the upper atmosphere. But it wasn't until 1985, when British scientists Joe Farman, Brian Gardiner, and Jonathan Shanklin published shocking measurements from Antarctica that it was fully apparent. The data showed a massive seasonal depletion of ozone each spring.
The problem was simple chemistry, though with catastrophic implications: CFCs drifted up to the stratosphere, where intense UV light broke them apart, releasing chlorine atoms that shredded ozone molecules like confetti. Less ozone meant more UV radiation reaching Earth's surface, increasing the risk of skin cancer, cataracts, crop damage, and who knows what else.
A rare plot twist
In environmental stories, the plot often goes like this: scientists warn, politicians dither, lobbyists stall, and the problem worsens. But the ozone saga took a refreshingly different turn. The images of the gaping hole and the undeniable science spurred action. Just two years after the Antarctic discovery, the world signed the Montreal Protocol in 1987, which is a global agreement to phase out ozone-destroying substances. It remains the most successful environmental treaty in history, with every single United Nations member country signed on.
Industry initially grumbled (of course), warning of costs and inconvenience, but quickly pivoted to invent safer alternatives. The chemical companies that had made fortunes from CFCs soon made fortunes from the replacements. It was, in its way, capitalism at its most adaptable.
The long, slow healing
Fixing the ozone hole was never going to be instant. CFCs are stubborn chemicals, hanging around in the atmosphere for 50 to 100 years. Even after production stopped, the stockpiles we'd already released were still floating upwards to do their damage. The ozone layer, battered for decades, needed time to recover.
The Ozone 'hole': This satellite image was obtained by the NASA Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS). It is centred on the South Pole where the so-called ozone 'hole' was first observed by the British Antarctic Survey in the mid-1980s. This was achieved through measurements from the land base at Halley Bay using a device to measure ozone UV absorbance. Pic: NASA 2018
But something remarkable happened: it started working. By the early 2000s, scientists detected the first signs that ozone levels were stabilising. In 2018, NASA confirmed the hole was shrinking, and that it wasn't just due to natural fluctuations, but because the Montreal Protocol was working exactly as intended. By 2023, scientists reported that the Antarctic ozone hole was on track to heal completely by the mid-21st century.
An accidental climate bonus
The Montreal Protocol didn't just protect the ozone layer, it also delivered an unexpected climate win. CFCs are not only ozone-destroyers; they're also powerful greenhouse gases, thousands of times more potent than CO₂ at trapping heat. By phasing them out, the treaty avoided an enormous amount of future warming.
So, in a strange twist, the effort to protect us from UV rays also gave us breathing room on carbon emissions. Though sadly, we've used that room to keep emitting CO₂ at record levels. Still, it's a rare and satisfying example of an environmental win.
Not quite out of the woods
Lest we get too smug, there have been bumps along the way. In 2018, scientists detected unexpected spikes in CFC-11 (one of the banned substances) traced to illegal production in parts of China. But (here's the encouraging part) because the Montreal Protocol has teeth, countries investigated, cracked down, and the emissions dropped back down. Imagine if we treated carbon emissions with the same global seriousness.
There's also the newer problem of HFCs [hydrofluorocarbons] (the CFC replacements), which don't harm ozone but are still potent greenhouse gases. The 2016 Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol now addresses that, aiming to phase down HFCs too. It's like realising your roof's fixed but your walls are mouldy... you keep patching until the whole house is sound.
A story worth remembering
In a world where the news is usually a cascade of crises, the ozone recovery is the feel-good environmental story we need. It's proof that science can spot a problem before it becomes irreversible, global cooperation is real and possible, industry can innovate its way out of trouble when pushed, and nature can heal if we give it the chance.
It's also a lesson in timing. We acted before the damage spiralled beyond repair, and the payoff is now visible. Contrast that with climate change, where we're still foot-dragging, and the lesson is clear: earlier action saves bigger headaches later.
Looking up
So, where are we now? As of 2025, the ozone layer is still healing. If all goes well, the Antarctic hole will be gone by around 2066, and the rest of the planet's ozone will return to 1980 levels decades before that. Children born today could live to see a fully repaired sky.
It's worth looking up sometimes and remembering that we, collectively, fixed something. We didn't rely on miracle tech or some billionaire's pet project, we relied on science, diplomacy, and a shared sense of 'let's not fry ourselves'. And it worked.
The next time someone says 'people never change' or 'countries can't work together', tell them about the ozone hole.
Then remind them that if we could do it once, we can do it again, whether it's climate change, biodiversity loss, or the plastic in our oceans. After all, we once had a hole in the sky. Now we have a blueprint for how to mend the planet. And that, in anyone's book, is a good news story.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
a day ago
- Irish Examiner
Back in the ozone: How we plugged the hole in the sky
Once upon a time, well in the 1980s, the world looked up and discovered we'd poked a hole in the sky. Not metaphorically, not in some sci-fi dystopia, but literally, a yawning gap in Earth's ozone layer — the invisible shield that protects us from the Sun's harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays. And the culprit wasn't alien invaders or a rogue comet, but something far more mundane: hairspray, fridges, and air-conditioners. The hole over Antarctica quickly became a potent symbol of human overreach. Scientists had been warning since the 1970s that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the miracle chemicals that made spray-on deodorant, whipped cream in a can, and frost-free freezers possible, could destroy ozone molecules in the upper atmosphere. But it wasn't until 1985, when British scientists Joe Farman, Brian Gardiner, and Jonathan Shanklin published shocking measurements from Antarctica that it was fully apparent. The data showed a massive seasonal depletion of ozone each spring. The problem was simple chemistry, though with catastrophic implications: CFCs drifted up to the stratosphere, where intense UV light broke them apart, releasing chlorine atoms that shredded ozone molecules like confetti. Less ozone meant more UV radiation reaching Earth's surface, increasing the risk of skin cancer, cataracts, crop damage, and who knows what else. A rare plot twist In environmental stories, the plot often goes like this: scientists warn, politicians dither, lobbyists stall, and the problem worsens. But the ozone saga took a refreshingly different turn. The images of the gaping hole and the undeniable science spurred action. Just two years after the Antarctic discovery, the world signed the Montreal Protocol in 1987, which is a global agreement to phase out ozone-destroying substances. It remains the most successful environmental treaty in history, with every single United Nations member country signed on. Industry initially grumbled (of course), warning of costs and inconvenience, but quickly pivoted to invent safer alternatives. The chemical companies that had made fortunes from CFCs soon made fortunes from the replacements. It was, in its way, capitalism at its most adaptable. The long, slow healing Fixing the ozone hole was never going to be instant. CFCs are stubborn chemicals, hanging around in the atmosphere for 50 to 100 years. Even after production stopped, the stockpiles we'd already released were still floating upwards to do their damage. The ozone layer, battered for decades, needed time to recover. The Ozone 'hole': This satellite image was obtained by the NASA Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS). It is centred on the South Pole where the so-called ozone 'hole' was first observed by the British Antarctic Survey in the mid-1980s. This was achieved through measurements from the land base at Halley Bay using a device to measure ozone UV absorbance. Pic: NASA 2018 But something remarkable happened: it started working. By the early 2000s, scientists detected the first signs that ozone levels were stabilising. In 2018, NASA confirmed the hole was shrinking, and that it wasn't just due to natural fluctuations, but because the Montreal Protocol was working exactly as intended. By 2023, scientists reported that the Antarctic ozone hole was on track to heal completely by the mid-21st century. An accidental climate bonus The Montreal Protocol didn't just protect the ozone layer, it also delivered an unexpected climate win. CFCs are not only ozone-destroyers; they're also powerful greenhouse gases, thousands of times more potent than CO₂ at trapping heat. By phasing them out, the treaty avoided an enormous amount of future warming. So, in a strange twist, the effort to protect us from UV rays also gave us breathing room on carbon emissions. Though sadly, we've used that room to keep emitting CO₂ at record levels. Still, it's a rare and satisfying example of an environmental win. Not quite out of the woods Lest we get too smug, there have been bumps along the way. In 2018, scientists detected unexpected spikes in CFC-11 (one of the banned substances) traced to illegal production in parts of China. But (here's the encouraging part) because the Montreal Protocol has teeth, countries investigated, cracked down, and the emissions dropped back down. Imagine if we treated carbon emissions with the same global seriousness. There's also the newer problem of HFCs [hydrofluorocarbons] (the CFC replacements), which don't harm ozone but are still potent greenhouse gases. The 2016 Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol now addresses that, aiming to phase down HFCs too. It's like realising your roof's fixed but your walls are mouldy... you keep patching until the whole house is sound. A story worth remembering In a world where the news is usually a cascade of crises, the ozone recovery is the feel-good environmental story we need. It's proof that science can spot a problem before it becomes irreversible, global cooperation is real and possible, industry can innovate its way out of trouble when pushed, and nature can heal if we give it the chance. It's also a lesson in timing. We acted before the damage spiralled beyond repair, and the payoff is now visible. Contrast that with climate change, where we're still foot-dragging, and the lesson is clear: earlier action saves bigger headaches later. Looking up So, where are we now? As of 2025, the ozone layer is still healing. If all goes well, the Antarctic hole will be gone by around 2066, and the rest of the planet's ozone will return to 1980 levels decades before that. Children born today could live to see a fully repaired sky. It's worth looking up sometimes and remembering that we, collectively, fixed something. We didn't rely on miracle tech or some billionaire's pet project, we relied on science, diplomacy, and a shared sense of 'let's not fry ourselves'. And it worked. The next time someone says 'people never change' or 'countries can't work together', tell them about the ozone hole. Then remind them that if we could do it once, we can do it again, whether it's climate change, biodiversity loss, or the plastic in our oceans. After all, we once had a hole in the sky. Now we have a blueprint for how to mend the planet. And that, in anyone's book, is a good news story.
Irish Independent
2 days ago
- Irish Independent
Experts say US plans for lunar nuclear reactor are ‘cock-eyed'
'The whole proposal is cock-eyed and runs against the sound management of a space programme that is now being starved of money,' American national-security analyst, nuclear expert and author Joseph Cirincione told the Independent. Nuclear has been used in space since the 1960s. The US launched its first test reactor into orbit in 1965, and the former Soviet Union has sent up dozens. Nasa says that a new 100-kilowatt reactor could be used to power a future base at the lunar South Pole, and fuel prospective missions to Mars and beyond. Nuclear would help to fill gaps in solar energy that occur when that side of the moon is in darkness. The majority of space experts have said that placing a reactor on the moon is possible, so why is Nasa's current plan 'cock-eyed'? The problem is the proposed timeline. Interim Nasa administrator Sean Duffy – who also serves as US president Donald Trump's transportation secretary – pushed to expedite the project detailed in a memo this week. Mr Duffy said the administration wanted to have a nuclear reactor ready to launch by 2030. Earlier this year, China and Russia announced a plan to build a nuclear reactor for a lunar base by 2035. 'The first country to do so could potentially declare a 'keep-out' zone, which would significantly inhibit the US from establishing a planned Artemis presence if not there first,' Mr Duffy said. Nasa first announced in 2021 that it would put a reactor on the moon 'within a decade'. In 2024, the agency said that their target date for delivery of a reactor to the launchpad was the early 2030s. But Mr Cirincione – who is vice-chair of the Centre for International Policy, a non-profit that advocates for a peaceful approach to foreign policy – says essentially no progress has been made. 'It was in the last Trump administration that Nasa had put out a press release ... about how they're going to develop these small, modular nuclear reactors for use on the moon, and it was going to be ready by 2026,' he said. 'Oh, really? So where is it?' He believes it could take up to 20 years for a nuclear reactor on the moon to become a reality. Nasa would need a working launch vehicle, a small and adaptable reactor, and the ability to land on the moon. Right now, the SpaceX Starship is the only option – but it has exploded during several of its test flights. Accelerating the [Fission Surface Power] programme could come at the expense of … core elements of Nasa's public-serving mission The agency has been working with Boeing on a space launch system – the main competitor to SpaceX's Starship – but that programme would be cancelled under the Trump administration's proposed cuts, which slash 24pc from Nasa's overall budget. There are also the scientific and technological advances needed for the nuclear reactors. They must be able to withstand harsh conditions on the moon, including temperature swings from 121C during the day to -246C at night. Many scientists and nuclear energy experts have shared in Mr Cirincione's scepticism. Kathryn Huff – a former nuclear energy official at the US department of energy, and a professor at the University of Illinois – wrote in a Bluesky social media post that she's not 'bullish' on 'unrealistic timelines'. 'The 2030 target does not align well with recent budgetary trends,' Dr Huff said in a statement shared by the university. 'Accelerating the [Fission Surface Power] programme could come at the expense of other critical priorities, including earth science, climate observation and space-based weather forecasting – all core elements of Nasa's public-serving mission.' Alfredo Carpineti, an Italian astrophysicist, wrote in IFLScience this week that the proposal is unfeasible: 'Even if we allow landing the nuclear reactor on December 31, 2030, the timing is really too short for something that must not have any faults if you want to operate it safely.' Others were more optimistic about Nasa's accelerated timeline. Sebastian Corbisiero – a senior technical adviser at Idaho National Laboratory who leads the US energy department's space reactor programme – told the Independent that a nuclear reactor on the moon is 'doable' by 2030. 'Nuclear reactor technology has been around for decades, so its well known,' he said. 'Some key differences with a space reactor is that it needs to fit on a rocket – so there are mass and volume requirements – and that the system needs to operate in vacuum, so components will need to be built to survive that environment.'
The Irish Sun
3 days ago
- The Irish Sun
Baby lizard hatched at British zoo after extremely rare ‘virgin birth'
A BABY lizard was hatched at a British zoo following an extremely rare 'virgin birth'. Izzy the eastern casquehead iguana was conceived with no male involvement. She hatched from one of two marble-sized eggs laid by five-year-old female Alma, which went through parthenogenesis — a form of reproduction when an embryo develops from an unfertilised egg. The process, which happens in fewer than one in 1,000 vertebrate births, sees the body find a way of filling in for genes usually provided by sperm. Izzy, whose species is native to Central and South America, was born on Sunday at Battersea Park Children's Zoo in South West London. Manager Jamie Baker, 30, said: 'We were amazed. "We've no male eastern casquehead iguanas so when we discovered one of our females had laid eggs, it was exciting. 'We didn't think they'd hatch but decided to incubate them anyway as we were aware that the species have been known to reproduce via parthenogenesis.' He said Izzy, a genetic clone of her mum, was about the size of an adult little finger. He said: 'She's growing well. "She's in her nursery enclosure feeding on fruit flies and tiny crickets. 'We're keeping her on her own because if we left her in with the adults they'd eat her. Moment iguana casually crawls onto tennis court before worker is forced to shoo it away "They're not an animal that gives parental care. 'Our priority is to get Izzy to a good enough size so that she can move in with the adults.'
