I completely agree with that ... but try to mention that to someone who owns an SUV. It's like they don't understand your language.
Aren't they building some kind of underground road in Chicago or somewhat? so that they could plant more trees. above ground and less air pollution.
I wouldn't know ... though I wouldn't be surprised, I think they have plans like that in every major city in North America in some form or another. I know that they have plans to revamp the entire water front in a city near my place to make it "greener". The plan involves moving a major highway into the city underground and completely redesigning the water front to make it look pretty. It's a 10 to 12 year project. All I will say is that it's about time they did something about it.
Fuck, our country doesn't really care about the environment as much as the devil does, the kyoto protocol should be ratified asap.
What is the problem? Ozone in the atmosphere is in a constant balance between production due to high energy IR absorbtion and reactions. Because ozone and free oxygen atoms are unstable, they react with nitrogen, hydrogen, chlorine, and bromine compounds that are found naturally in Earth's atmosphere. Making more ozone would simply enhance the reactions. Now when there is no IR, there is no ozone. This happens to be in the winter at the poles. So the "hole" in the ozone layer is pretty natural and nothing is going to happen. If there is no sun, there is no IR radiation and hence there is no danger for it. Edufer can explain very nicely why the hole in the ozone layer is more than a hype, it's a scam. Now about carbon dioxide. This stuff is rather harmless and a couple of hundred billion cubic meters more or less is no big deal. Plants love it and in the end it will be added to the total biomass.
I think alot of you have overlooked a major property of Ozone (O3). Ozone is without a doubt reactive & highly toxic to humans and will destroy lung tissue. It also reacts with N2 in the air to form NOx (Nitrous Oxides group) wich are also deadly poisonous! Ironic since this is the stuff blocking most large amounts of UVA-UVB from ground level. Another thing (about CO2) most CO2 as you know is much denser than air and is mostly ~70% absorbed by the ocean as food for plaktoni, algea and kelp.. the rest is absorbed by trees. I don't think CO2 is nearly as much an issue as NOx which is the real urban nightmare!! NOx is the key behind local heat island effects (rebounding IR radiation) and Smog!
Next point to make is O3 + NOx at ground level is responsible for what is know as ground level Ozone.
All I know is that I really enjoy the ozonized air after thunderstorms. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I asked this question back in highschool, and the answer I was given was: "We would desroy more O3 in transporting the O3 we created to the upper atmosphere than would could deliver using current equipment. Ground level O3 is bad, and it takes a long time to get ground level O3 up into the Ozone layer. Lightning creates alot of the upper-atmosphere Ozone, so what we need is a few decades of normal thunderstorms, during which time we don't destroy the O3 that is created."
Again I think that the ozone item is grossly overrated as well as the CO2 global warming issue. Perhaps have a good look at this page. Check out figure 10-1, bottom graph. See that the peak of the solar radiation is in the near UV range at some 0,5 um. Notice also that the ozone layer only absorbs about 25%, not even close to a hundred percent. So with some variation in the ozone layer there will be no real dramatic changes. Moreover, taken the absorbtion characteristics of CO2 compared to water vapor in the right upper graph and given the about 10-1 ratio of water vapor against carbon dioxide in the air it is incredible to assume that increasing the amount of CO2 slightly will have such dramatic impacts as the global warmists want us to believe. Forget Kyoto, control water vapor, not carbon dioxide.
The problem with the idea of producing ozone and plugging holes in the layer we have. We already have a ground level ozone pollution problem in many of the cities in the United States. Once the ozone is at our layer of the atmosphere it generally like to stay in it's same relative location. For the ozone to reach the upper layers of the atmosphere it would take a very very long time, no idea of exact time period it would take but it is a very long time. If you want to deliver the ozone then whatever your using to deliver the ozone could cause more pollutants to enter the atmosphere and therefore destroy more of the ozone layer. If we want to fix the problem lets think about stopping destructive emissions and reducating the public to care about the earth rather than profits. Or how about finding a way to collect the present CFC's and their complexes that are cauing the damage.
Do you mean then O3 isn't so toxic?or that generation of ozone is futile? If you are downplying ozone's toxicity... breath in a lungful of ozone from an industrial ozone generator. You'll have no lungs left!
I am by no means downplaying the toxicity of O3 my main point if you want to boil it down to the points you mentioned is then that. Production of O3 unless a delivery system to the usefull layer of the atmosphere is sensless since there are still a number of cities that are non-atainment zones by clean air standards becuase of among other things low level O3 concentrations. You may be able to find those cities off the EPA website. But what I am really getting at is we should concentrate of reeducating the world especially industry leaders that stopping their polluting ways is the first step, then we can talk to those lunatics who drive hummers but will never even imagine going off road.
