MODERN TIMES
Art Hobson
ahobson@uark.edu
NWA Times 1 August
2009
Global warming:
lessons from ozone depletion
The
ozone story begins in 1928 when the General Motors Corporation first
synthesized chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) chemicals. During the 20th century, CFCs grew into a $700 billion
(annually, in today's dollars) industry dealing in refrigerants, aerosol spray
propellants, and other products.
In
1974, chemists hypothesized, based only on laboratory experiments and not on
atmospheric measurements, that CFCs could remain in the atmosphere for decades,
slowly drifting upward until reaching the stratosphere 25 miles overhead. They could then interact with the
intense sunlight at that altitude to destroy some of ozone that existed there
in small amounts. This could be a
disaster. Because ozone absorbs
most of the sun's high-energy ultraviolet radiation, humans and most other life
could not survive without it.
An
international debate ensued. Environmentalists
argued for a protective CFC ban while industry argued that the science was only
theoretical and a ban would cost money and jobs. In 1978, a consumer boycott caused a U.S. ban on CFC
spray-can propellants, but other
CFC applications persisted, as did the debate.
In
1986, a large and comprehensive international scientific study concluded that
CFCs and related substances in the atmosphere had doubled since 1973 and could
pose a real threat. Despite the
lack of direct atmospheric evidence, this report stimulated environmentalists,
scientists, the United Nations, a U.S.-led international coalition, the Reagan
administration, and, importantly, the U.S. chemical industry led by the Dow and
Du Pont Corporations, to take remarkably swift and strong action. Within just a few months, these parties
drew up the world's first international environmental treaty, the Montreal
Protocol.
This
revolutionary treaty got completely rid of CFCs and several related chemicals
within just 14 years! Furthermore,
it granted China, India, and other developing countries an extra ten-year grace
period to produce and consume CFCs, with industrialized nations providing
assistance to compensate these nations for their missed opportunity to benefit
from the decades of CFC use that industrialized nations had enjoyed.
Today
it seems surprising that the conservative Reagan administration and large
business interests cooperated with scientists and environmentalists to draw up
and approve this treaty, especially in the absence of direct evidence. It's a good thing they did. Even with the treaty, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 200,000 Americans have died or
will die from skin cancers associated with excess ultraviolet caused by ozone
destruction by CFCs. Just after
the treaty was approved, new evidence showed a large "hole" in
stratospheric ozone had opened up over Antarctica, caused by CFCs. We now know that, without the treaty,
ozone depletion would have been much worse by now, millions would have died,
and millions more would have contracted glaucoma and other diseases.
Within
the Reagan administration, conservative ideologues such as Secretary of the
Interior Donald Hodel debated this issue with realists such as Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for Environmental Affairs Richard Benedick. Luckily, the realists won. Benedick was the chief U.S. negotiator
of the treaty. I heartily recommend his book "Ozone Diplomacy."
Because
chemical giants Dow and Du Pont took the science seriously, they played a
constructive role in drawing up the Ozone Treaty despite their earlier
opposition to action on ozone depletion.
And they had the good sense to see that their business interest lay not
in continuing to fight the science, but rather in joining the realists to ban
CFCs. They knew that refrigerants,
spray propellants, and such would always be in demand, and that Dow and Du Pont
could be leaders in developing the new ozone-friendly versions of these chemicals.
Today,
the evidence that global warming is a looming catastrophe caused by fossil
fuels is far more compelling than was the 1986 evidence that ozone depletion
was a looming catastrophe caused by CFCs.
By 2001 the global warming evidence was compelling although not absolute
because scientific evidence can never be absolute (see my textbook, Chapter
1). Yet the fossil fuel industry,
the automobile industry, and others continue fighting tooth and nail against
responsible action.
For
example, from 1989 to 2002 the fossil fuel industry sponsored a an
anti-scientific propaganda campaign known as the Global Climate Coalition to
persuade congress and the people that global warming was non-existent. During 2000 to 2008 these forces
dominated the Bush administration, which worked consistently to falsify global
warming science and dismiss global warming action. Today, congress is barely able to pass any legislation, no
matter how weak, to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
In
analogy with the ozone campaign in 1986, one might expect that the U.S. would
lead the international effort against global warming, and that the fossil fuel
industry should join in fighting global warming. But these haven't happened. Progress against global warming will continue to be
impossible in the face of opposition, propaganda, and delay from fossil fuel
interests. Will U.S. industry wake
up to global warming reality, as it woke up to ozone reality? Earth hangs in the balance.