Editing Ozone depletion (section)

=== Awareness campaigns ===
Public misconceptions and misunderstandings of complex issues like ozone depletion are common. The limited scientific knowledge of the public led to confusion about global warming<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Boyesa | first1 = Edward | last2 = Stanisstreeta | first2 = Martin | year = 1992 | title = Students' perceptions of global warming | journal = International Journal of Environmental Studies | volume = 42 | issue = 4| pages = 287–300 | doi = 10.1080/00207239208710804 | bibcode = 1992IJEnS..42..287B }}</ref> or the perception of global warming as a subset of the "ozone hole".<ref>Compare Sheldon Ungar, 2000 and various web sites such as [[Gavin Schmidt]]'s realclimate complaint in [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/ozone-depletion-and-global-warming/ Ozone depletion and global warming 2005] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141010155135/http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/ozone-depletion-and-global-warming/ |date=2014-10-10 }} or the [http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ozone-hole-and-gw-faq.html UCS FAQ on the topic]</ref> In the beginning, classical green NGOs refrained from using CFC depletion for campaigning, as they assumed the topic was too complicated.<ref name = RG /> They became active much later, e.g. in Greenpeace's support for a CFC-free refrigerator produced by the former East German company [[Volkseigener Betrieb|VEB]] dkk Scharfenstein.<ref name = RG /><ref name=Spiegel>{{Cite news |title=Öko-Coup aus Ostdeutschland |url=http://www.spiegel.de/einestages/oeko-revolution-aus-ostdeutschland-wie-foron-den-ersten-fckw-freien-kuehlschrank-der-welt-erfand-a-951064.html|date=September 13, 2013 |work=[[Der Spiegel]] |language=de |access-date=4 September 2015|last1=Gunkel|first1=Christoph}}</ref>

The metaphors used in the CFC discussion (ozone shield, ozone hole) are not "exact" in the scientific sense. The "ozone hole" is more of a ''depression'', less "a hole in the windshield". The ozone does not disappear through the layer, nor is there a uniform "thinning" of the ozone layer. However, they resonated better with non-scientists and their concerns.<ref name = Ungar /> The ozone hole was seen as a "hot issue" and imminent risk<ref name="PAR">{{cite journal | date=14 May 2007 | first1=Reiner | journal=Environmental Politics | issue=3 | last1=Grundmann | url=http://stsclimate.soc.ku.dk/papers/grundmannclimatechangeandknowledgepolitics.pdf | title=Climate Change and Knowledge Politics | volume=16 | pages=414–432 | doi=10.1080/09644010701251656 | bibcode=2007EnvPo..16..414G | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140826115142/http://stsclimate.soc.ku.dk/papers/grundmannclimatechangeandknowledgepolitics.pdf | archive-date=August 26, 2014 | df=mdy-all | citeseerx=10.1.1.535.4984 | s2cid=153866225 }}</ref> as laypeople feared severe personal consequences such as skin cancer, cataracts, damage to plants, and reduction of plankton populations in the ocean's photic zone. Not only on the policy level, [[Ozone depletion and climate change|ozone regulation compared to climate change]] fared much better in public opinion. Americans voluntarily switched away from aerosol sprays before legislation was enforced, while climate change failed to achieve comparable concern and public action.<ref name = Ungar /> The sudden identification in 1985 that there was a substantial "hole" was widely reported in the press. The especially rapid ozone depletion in Antarctica had previously been dismissed as a measurement error.<ref name="Zehr94" /> Scientific consensus was established after regulation.<ref name = RG />

While the Antarctic ozone hole has a relatively small effect on global ozone, the hole has generated a great deal of public interest because:
* Many have worried that ozone holes might start appearing over other areas of the globe, though to date the only other large-scale depletion is a smaller ozone "dimple" observed during the Arctic spring around the North Pole. Ozone at middle latitudes has declined, but by a much smaller extent (a decrease of about 4–5 percent).
* If stratospheric conditions become more severe (cooler temperatures, more clouds, more active chlorine), global ozone may decrease at a greater pace. Standard [[global warming]] theory predicts that the stratosphere will cool.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/351.htm |title=Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis |pages=Chapter 9.3.2 Patterns of Future Climate Change |year=2001 |work=[[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] Work Group I |access-date=May 28, 2016 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160603033745/http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fwg1%2F351.htm |archive-date=June 3, 2016 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>
* When the Antarctic ozone hole breaks up each year, the ozone-depleted air drifts into nearby regions. Decreases in the ozone level of up to 10 percent have been reported in New Zealand in the month following the breakup of the Antarctic ozone hole,<ref>{{cite web |last=Muir |first=Patricia |url=http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/stratozo.htm |title=Stratospheric Ozone Depletion |publisher=Oregon State University |date=March 6, 2008 |access-date=April 16, 2011}}</ref> with ultraviolet-B radiation intensities increasing by more than 15 percent since the 1970s.<ref>{{cite web|title=Long-term increase in summer UV radiation|url=http://www.niwa.co.nz/news/long-term-increase-summer-uv-radiation|publisher=NIWA|access-date=December 4, 2013|date=1999-09-09}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=McKenzie|first1=Richard|last2=Conner|first2=Brian|last3=Bodeker|first3=Greg|title=Increased Summertime UV Radiation in New Zealand in Response to Ozone Loss|journal=Science|date=September 10, 1999|volume=285|issue=5434|pages=1709–1711|doi=10.1126/science.285.5434.1709|pmid=10481002}}</ref>