Apparently it is recovering, so this should be good news. The media has picked up on a press release from WMO and UNEP. This good news is framed as a role model to follow for climate policy.The link is made in nearly all reports I have looked at, and it is already present in the WMO-UNEP statement, the headline reads 'Ozone Layer on Track to Recovery: Success Story Should Encourage Action on Climate'. And WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud says 'International action on the ozone layer is a major environmental success story... This should encourage us to display the same level of urgency and unity to tackle the even greater challenge of climate change. This latest assessment provides solid science to policy-makers about the intricate relationship between ozone and climate and the need for mutually-supportive measures to protect life on earth for future generations.'
This framing has occurred also in 2012 which arguably saw the smallest area covered with very low levels of ozone in Antarctica. The causal link is clear: since ozone depleting substances have been phased out, the recovery should follow in due course, taking into account the long lifetime the recovery will last decades however.
The coming years could see a new ritual in reporting. Linking the success story of ozone to the problem of climate change would help making progress. After all, it was the Montreal Protocol which in 1987 paved the way for the ban of CFCs and other chemicals.
The 'urgency and unity' demanded by Mr Jarraud is reflected in press comments, such as George Monbiot's. He explains the difference between the success of Montreal and the failing efforts to deal with climate change through the power of neoliberal ideology, or market fundamentalism. But was't it the arch neo-liberal governments of Reagan and Thatcher that oversaw the Montreal treaty? Yes, but the ideological movement was still in its infancy. Only after the mid 1990s did it become all influential:
'This extreme political doctrine – that governments must cease to govern – has made direct, uncomplicated action almost unthinkable. Just as the extent of humankind’s greatest crisis – climate breakdown – became clear, governments willing to address it were everywhere being disciplined or purged.'
I have seen many attempts to analyze the difference between ozone and climate, and commented on them (see, for example, here and here). This one leaves me speechless.