The Hole in the Ozone

Aug. 30, 2006

When first reported in the press in 1974, the earth’s “hole in the ozone layer” was at times portrayed with humor – as if scientists had become Chicken Littles, warning that the sky was falling. But by the 1990s a second hole had appeared, this time over the Arctic. By 2000 the hole had become a chasm spanning 11 million square miles.
The destruction of the ozone layer, which is our sunscreen, was caused by chlorine in the propellants used in spray cans, in our refrigeration, in making Styrofoam, and in our air-conditioning units. We were fortunate that we didn’t use Bromine which is 45 times more effective in destroying ozone than chlorine.
As a result of the hole in our ozone layer, we have experienced a rise in skin cancer, cataracts, and damage to our immune systems. Unfortunately, for a decade after the discovery linking chlorine to ozone decline, the problem kept getting worse, yet scientists were unable to marshal proof positive that initial discovery was right.
The DuPont Company was responsible for most of the manufacture of chlorine, and in retaliation, it and other producers launched a massive public relations campaign aimed at discrediting the, then, tenuous link between their products and the problem. And they had a point, for science was still unable to provide conclusive proof of the damaging impact of chlorine.
By 1987 however, when scientific proof of the link between chlorine and ozone depletion was announced, it had given birth to the Montreal Protocol, in which governments pledged to phase-out the offending chemicals.

HOPEFUL FINDING
Today, there are stirrings of hope that we may have beaten that particular problem, for in 2004 the ozone hole over Antarctic was reduced by 20 percent. Although not completely certain that this means an end to the problem, we have hope that our ozone layer will be returned to its former strength in 50 years.
One could be forgiven for thinking that with such stunning all-round success to point at, the nations of Earth would have jumped at the chance to address climate change using a similar mechanism. And at first, there was a great enthusiasm for an international treaty to limit emissions of greenhouse gases. So what happened?
In the later 1980s – when the Montreal Protocol demonstrated that constraints could be applied to damaging emissions and action to restrict greenhouse gases was emerging – carbon-based industries embarked upon a propaganda blitz in an attempt to discredit the threat of global warming. While it is true that the evidence is currently not conclusive, can we afford to dismiss studies by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, and NASA regarding climate change?

TIME TO LISTEN
Due to fear of prohibitive costs, the United States refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol. The same fear was raised about Montreal Protocol. Yet, even though hard to believe, it turns out that government regulation of offending chemicals was good for the economy. Furthermore, the early adoption by the United States of regulations to reduce emissions of chlorine gave American-based firms a head start on the rest of the world in innovating alternative chemicals. Lastly, not all countries signed the protocol, and yet we hopefully have made great progress.
Well, we have come full circle. In 2005 the journal of Science published proof positive of global warming. Perhaps now we will listen.
It is of paramount importance to understand that the Kyoto Protocol is the only international treaty in existence created to combat climate control change. For those who urge abandonment or who criticize Kyoto, there are two questions: What do you propose to replace Kyoto with, and how do you propose to secure international agreement for your alternative?

Ronald C. Marshall is a resident of Petoskey.