Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

What If the Ozone Hole Were Discovered Today? We’d Probably Let It Fry Us

Posted on  

"What If the Ozone Hole Were Discovered Today? We’d Probably Let It Fry Us"

Share:

google plus icon

The legacy of Nobelist Sherry Rowland

by Jeff Turrentine, an OnEarth Magazine repost

F. Sherwood Rowland, the chemist whose work on ozone layer depletion won a Nobel Prize, died last Saturday in California. Rowland earned his place in environmental history by being one of the first scientists in the world to discover that chlorofluorocarbons, or “CFCs” for short, were flying right out of our air conditioners and aerosol cans and combining with sunlight to destroy stratospheric ozone. With his colleague Mario Molina, Rowland published the 1974 article in the journal Nature that blew the lid, so to speak, off the ozone-layer issue.

Meanwhile, the actual lid of the ozone layer was quite literally blowing off, evidence of which finally came to light a few years later when scientists detected a massive hole over Antarctica that was allowing previously blocked ultraviolet radiation to enter the earth’s biosphere. Once people learned — thanks in large part to the scientific foundation laid a decade earlier by Rowland and Molina — that this increase in UV radiation could be responsible for a host of ailments ranging from sunburn to cataracts to cancer, individuals and nations banded together to take decisive action. The chain of events that these scientists’ findings set in motion culminated in a national moment of concerted effort, the likes of which we haven’t seen since.

In the current poisoned political climate, one wonders when — or if — we’ll get to see it again.

The direct result of Rowland’s discovery was the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty that attempted to reverse the ozone-depleting trend by severely curtailing its root cause: the production, and subsequent release into the atmosphere, of CFCs. The president of the United States signed the protocol in December 1987. In his accompanying letter to the Senate — a body that would, only a few months later, vote 83-0 in support of the protocol — our nation’s chief executive lauded it as a “historic agreement” and proudly noted America’s “leading role” in its negotiation.

Note the year, please. The Montreal Protocol was signed, of course, by none other than Ronald Reagan as he neared the end of his second term, and right as his vice president was launching a campaign to become the next occupant of the White House. The Senate that lent its unanimous support to the protocol was still reeling, at the time of this dramatic display of bipartisanship, from bitterly contested midterm elections the year before, when Democrats had retaken the chamber from Republicans and wrested control of its powerful committees.

David Doniger, currently the policy director of the climate and clean air program at NRDC (which publishes OnEarth), got to know Sherwood Rowland while working on ozone-layer issues during the 15 years between Rowland’s discovery and the ultimate passage of the protocol. “He was a very good scientist, but he was more than that,” Doniger recalls. “He was a true citizen-scientist, in that it seemed to come quite naturally to him to report on the results of his work out in the public sphere.”

Doniger is quick to note, however, that Rowland and Molina initially were met with a chilly reception when they first published their paper. Manufacturers of products that emitted CFCs sensed the danger that their findings posed and sprang into action. “When scientific findings — even very robust ones — threaten industry, industry pushes back, often with a campaign to confuse the issues and harass the messengers,” Doniger told me. “It happened to Sherry Rowland then, and it’s happening to Michael Mann right now.” (Mann, the climate scientist best known for the much-debated — and repeatedly vindicated — “hockey stick” graphic, was the subject of a two-year investigation launched by Virginia’s attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, a conservative Republican who has been highly critical of government efforts to regulate carbon emissions. On March 2, Virginia’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mann, tossing the case out.)

Sherwood Rowland’s legacy is easy to discern. A 2006 report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration stated that “[t]he Montreal Protocol is working: There is clear evidence of a decrease in the atmospheric burden of ozone-depleting substances and some early signs of stratospheric ozone recovery.” The scientific work that Rowland and Molina performed, not to mention the doggedness with which they advocated for action, educated and galvanized people. The impulse to do something about the problem cut across national, cultural, political and demographic lines. Though there was resistance — Reagan’s arm had to be twisted somewhat by members of his cabinet before he would sign — science, and a sense of shared duty, prevailed.

Fast-forward to our current debate over the causes of climate change and the proposed solutions. No, scratch that sentence: fast-forward to our current debate about the very existence of climate change, and whether or not it’s an actual catastrophe-in-the-making or some kind of academic conspiracy designed to topple economies and frighten people unnecessarily. That we’ve gone from arguing over how best to address the problems that science presents to us to arguing over whether science is lying to us is a sign of how degraded our process has become. The notion of a unanimous Senate vote in support of immediate and drastic action on climate change is pretty laughable today — or would be laughable, if it weren’t so dispiriting.

But the science is there — just as it was for our political leaders back in 1987. Sherwood Rowland had to wait a dozen years to see the real-world results of his scholarship. We’ve been waiting at least that long for industry and politicians to cast aside their cynicism and accept the facts as they are, not as they wish them to be. We can’t wait around for another dozen years.

Jeff Turrentine is OnEarth’s articles editor. A former editor at Architectural Digest and reporter for The Washington Post. This piece was originally published at the OnEarth website.

« »

8 Responses to What If the Ozone Hole Were Discovered Today? We’d Probably Let It Fry Us

  1. Spaceman Spiff says:

    An on-line NASA article: a world avoided –

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/world_avoided.html

    • Yvan Dutil says:

      Denialist mode one

      «These are model results! You cant trust any model done by those liberal governement paid scientist who are protecting their job by creating false problems.»

      Denialist mode off

      • Spaceman Spiff says:

        As with global climate disruption, the “other side” doesn’t submit an alternative physical model to explain the observations (paleo or present). They simply bitch about the positions of pebbles at the base of a mountain range, and the media declares the two to be comparably worthy of consideration.

        My point was that ozone layer disruption via CFCs was a problem first predicted, then discovered by scientists, who then offered a solution. Nations recognized that yes, mankind can alter dramatically the face of this Earth, that we’re smart enough and capable enough of doing something about it, and that nations can come together to do so…

        I guess we’ve since then forgotten about mutual nuclear annihilation (“what can man possibly do to this Earth?”), or the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine. Or maybe we’re playing out an alternate version of it.

  2. Mike Roddy says:

    We have gone from being a liberal democracy that was a beacon to the world to a government entirely ruled by money. Until that changes, we are going down, and taking the world with us.

  3. Raul M. says:

    Thanks Joe and friends,
    As some do know UV rays can bounce into shaded areas and can bounce from pavement.
    While that is being figured out, it would be a good thing to have outdoor workers ( ag, elec. linemen, Solar installers, road builders, etc.) start using clear contact lenses because a worker could be lost before even learning the trade well.
    Eyes don’t suntan well. Some contact lenses block almost all os the UV rays.

  4. Alex V. says:

    Thank you Joe for the article – and thanks to Mr. Rowland.

    This analysis does give me hope for the President and his second term.

    I firmly believe that upon getting re-elected President, he will be much more forceful in getting something of significance passed to address global warming.

  5. Sasparilla says:

    A very nice article. As was pointed out the industries threatened by CFC phaseout did respond, but they were a drop in the bucket financially (compared to industries threatened by climate change) and many constantly created new products (different than the oil or coal industry or natural gas industry).

    The CFC industry didn’t have the resources and long history of playing dirty in US politics that the fossil fuel industries did (the CFC industry didn’t hire the PR firms the cigarette companies used to delay lung cancer action on their industry – while the fossil fuel interests did).

    All that said, things are so different on the GOP side these days that the premise of the article is probably true – the GOP would probably block action (on principle) and let everybody fry (including plants that produce our food – they & their fruit get sunburned with enough UV’s). The GOP probably couldn’t let action happen on CFC’s today simply because of how it would look in relation to their stance on climate change…

    Thank goodness we aren’t just figuring out the CFC problem at this point….(climate change and UV overload…talk about how to wipe everything out on land during this century).

  6. Green Cooling says:

    The more significant difference was that the fluorochemical producers had another range of patentable products sitting on the shelf, the hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), that could easily replace many applications of CFCs which had no ozone impact, but were still very significant contributors to global warming. These concerns were raised by Greenpeace International and few others in the early 1990s, and ignored, and are now finally being taken seriously. Regrettably this is mainly due to the imminent availability of the HFOs, patentable fluorochemicals that have low GWP, but are flammable, toxic when they burn, and degrade rapidly into acids (TFA).

    Meanwhile, Denmark banned HFCs in large applications between 1996-2006 and natural refrigerants such as hydrocarbons, CO2 and ammonia are coming back into vogue. The question now is can this happen fast enough to preserve and extend the climate benefits achieved by including HFCs in the Montreal Protocol, and avoiding the risks posed by HFOs?