Ozone, the real story

By: Jameson F. Chace
Posted In: Opinion

The editorial written by Ben Lieberman of The Heritage Foundation in the September 2007 issue of the Mosaic (Ozone: the hole story) deserves a rational response from someone within the Salve Regina University. As an environmental scientist I feel compelled to separate fact from fiction.

The editorial by Mr. Lieberman is nothing short of an anti-environmental attack based on erroneous information surrounding one environmental problem (stratospheric ozone depletion) being applied to another (climate change). First, let’s be clear on Mr. Lieberman’s agenda. He is a Senior Policy Analyst on Energy and Environment for the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation is a conservative organization that functions to influence legislation. Mr. Lieberman has a degree in accounting, a law degree and is a C.P.A. He does not have any formal training in science. The purpose of his article is to persuade the reader to accept the premise that the Montreal Protocol (1987) ban on stratospheric ozone depleting chemicals such as Chloroflorocarbons (CFCs) was based on flawed environmental science followed by misguided environmental policy. Accepting his premise, he persuades the reader to also accept his point of view that climate change policy is equally flawed and unacceptable. He is wrong on both accounts.

The rationale for reducing CFC production is clear. CFCs destroy high altitude ozone, the very thin protective skin of our uppermost atmosphere. Reducing the ozone layer increases the amount of harmful ultraviolet-B radiation (UV-B) reaching the surface of the earth, mostly during the northern hemisphere summer. This has been measured at numerous stations around the world (S. Madronich, National Center for Atmospheric Research) and those data are clearly presented in annual reports by the World Meterological Organization. Increased UV-B radiation exposure is a cause of skin cancer (melanoma and carcinoma), cataracts, and immune system suppression. Individual behavior and increased early diagnosis of different forms of skin cancer may be the primary cause of increased skin cancer rates, just as Mr. Lieberman contends. Yet, at least one study concluded a 5% increase in risk of UV-B impact on skin cancer rates in Great Britain. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency website contends the same: increased UV-B equals increased skin cancer risk. While the amount of UV-B radiation that reaches the earth’s surface may be low, it is measurable. Even though the impacts seem slight or perhaps impossible to disentangle from the many other environmental causes of cancer, UV-B radiation poses a real, measurable risk for melanoma and carcinoma.

Mr. Lieberman also erroneously contends that increased UV-B radiation has had no effect on ecosystems, despite the cries of environmentalists twenty years ago. While the effects have not been found in northern latitudes, it has been found in the southern hemisphere where the ozone hole is most pronounced. The genetic code of life (DNA) on which all life depends has been altered in plankton, krill and several Antarctic fish species (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA). UV-B radiation affects more than people. Although Lieberman is correct that a rippling effect of UV-B impacts through the entire ecosystem has not been detected. While ecosystem impacts are very difficult to detect, additional studies showing UV-B caused DNA disruption among southern hemisphere plants should create genuine concern for our own DNA, and perhaps concern for those who cannot readily find a good bottle of UV-B sun protection lotion, such as humpback whales.

The question to consider is this: “was the Montreal Protocol 1987 worth it?” Was the economic loss of finding new refrigerants and aerosol propellants worth the very small increase in protection from UV-B radiation? Mr. Lieberman contends that it wasn’t, and by that same token neither will any policy to address climate change.

It is very interesting that the exact same arguments against signing the Montreal Protocol 1987 were dredged up for Kyoto Protocol 1997 policy to reduce carbon dioxide (a treaty that the United States has yet to sign). The arguments were that changes required to eliminate CFC production would be too costly, that those changes could lead to economic recession, and that the industrialized nations shouldn’t have to sign a treaty that developing nations were not required to sign. Despite these dire predictions our society has successfully moved towards alternative greener refrigerants and propellants, minimizing ozone depletion; and we hope that developing countries will follow the lead of industrialized nations.

A visit to Mr. Lieberman’s website produces a recent editorial of his reasoning against a climate change policy response, much of which comes through in an abbreviated form in the Mosaic article. The science is as clear on climate change today as it was on ozone depletion in 1986. Lieberman is wrong on ozone science, although he has the right to challenge whether the cost of restrictions outweighed the risk of increased UV-B radiation. He is also wrong on climate change science. The greenhouse effect has been studied and accepted for over 100 years. The Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change embodies over 2,000 scientists who are very clear about the science and the impact greenhouse gas emissions. The warming period we are in is real; the cause is partially natural but largely forced by human activities, primarily of those in the industrialized nations. The debate centers on how much of an impact we will face in the future, and which populations will face the greatest risk. Mr. Lieberman doesn’t seem concerned about the billions of people in developing nations who will bear most of the “hurt” that comes with climate change.

The United States is the largest emitter of carbon dioxide per capita and by total volume. We are truly “number one” when it comes to climate change impact. The impacts of climate change will primarily be observed through changing rainfall patterns and sea level rise, and mostly felt by coastal regions in the developing nations. Mr. Lieberman, however, seems to be more concerned about China’s greenhouse gas impact, perhaps because of the large population, exploding industrialization, and that China doesn’t have to sign the Kyoto Protocol. The amount of CO2 emitted by China per capita pales by comparison to our own. Similar to the Montreal Protocol, the countries that have had the largest impact stepped up to do something about the problem. Unlike the Montreal Protocol, the Kyoto Protocol was meant to be the first, baby step towards stabilizing human induced climate change. The treaty encourages the signatories to develop renewable sources of energy, more efficient appliances, and encourage economic growth in those “green” sectors. This is a technology race that the United States has yet to enter, and all the other industrialized nations (except Australia) have a 10-year head start. The Kyoto Protocol will be reauthorized in 2012 and is likely to be much stronger than it is now. The climate science is very clear, and it is time to debate which type of climate change policy is the best course of action. The self-serving anti-environmental rhetoric of Lieberman impedes progress; we need economists and policy analysts such as Lieberman to step up to the climate challenge and assist in the creation of viable policies to combat a global environmental problem of which the United States is the major cause.