The information on this website is not a substitute for diagnosis and treatment by a qualified, licensed professional.

Click here for information on ordering this book online

Clearer, Cleaner, Safer Greener
Copyright (c) Gary Null, 1990

Part 1 Chapter 2
Ozone Depletion

ALL environmental problems we face today are somehow related. There is a general lesson to be learned from the state of our planet as a whole. it goes something like this: For many years now we have treated our planet as an inexhaustible resource. We have acted as if there were unlimited air, water, oil, and forests. Now, the planet is letting us know that it cannot continue to be treated in this way.

Each environmental issue, while being part of this larger scheme, also has its own message to teach us. In the case of the depletion of the ozone layer of our atmosphere, we are learning that even the most innocuous of chemicals, chemicals that are almost completely nontoxic to humans and cause no damage to the earth, per se, can wreak havoc miles above us in ways we could never have imagined. On a more encouraging note, there is something else that we may learn from this particular problem. Contrary to what industry spokespersons and some government officials are saying, even a total elimination of these chemicals will not necessarily be painful or require great sacrifice. There are already viable alternatives to ozone-depleting chemicals that are safe, inexpensive, and just as effective. While we may not be able to undo the damage that has already been done, moving to prevent further damage may turn out to be much easier than we have been led to believe.

When we talk about "ozone depletion," the type 4 ozone to which we are referring is found in the upper reaches of the atmosphere, some ten to thirty miles above the surface of the earth. Atmospheric ozone is a gaseous compound made up of three oxygen atoms. it is formed in the stratosphere as a result of the interaction between the sun's ultraviolet rays and regular oxygen molecules, which contain two oxygen atoms. The ultraviolet radiation causes the oxygen molecule to split into highly reactive individual atoms that then recombine, some in pairs to form oxygen, some in trios to make ozone.

The primary importance of ozone in the upper reaches of the atmosphere is to shield the earth from the potentially damaging effects of the sun's ultraviolet rays. In the absence of this shield, life on Earth would be fairly close to impossible. Brian Toon, an associate fellow at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, says, "Without ozone, we'd all have to go back to living under the water."

According to William Walsh, staff attorney for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a nonprofit environmental organization, the depletion of the ozone layer currently taking place is, with the possible exception of nuclear weapons, one of the gravest crises we face here on Earth. Unlike nuclear war, atmospheric devastation is occurring right now. Despite extensive tests and computer modeling, scientists are still unable to determine whether it is too late to preserve the atmosphere as we currently know it for a sustainable and livable world in the future.

We can begin to understand the importance of the ozone layer by looking at just how essential it is to life as we know it. According to Walsh, "If we saw a decrease of the ozone layer of seventy percent, for example, for a Caucasian to go out into the sun would result in blistering sunburn after only ten minutes of exposure. If there was a fifty percent decrease, a Caucasian would have about an hour in temperate climates before he or she would experience a sunburn to the point of blistering. Even with only a twenty-five to thirty percent decrease in the ozone, outdoor work such as farming, fishing, and building would be virtually impossible because of the risk of sunburn and resultant skin cancer."

If we continue to destroy our ozone layer as we have done over the past thirty to forty years, there will be a gross increase in the number of skin cancers and other cancers, likely food shortages, ecological disasters, and a variety of other health injuries we have never had to deal with before because we have never been exposed to such great amounts of ultraviolet radiation. There would also be increased weakening of our immune systems. Increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation would decrease our body's ability to stave off other illnesses, an effect similar to the AIDS virus.

Moreover, a reduction in the ozone layer could greatly exacerbate global warming already under way due to the greenhouse effect. A radical loss of ozone might possibly render the world uninhabitable. The stratosphere could heat up by as much as forty degrees Fahrenheit, warming air close to the earth by about four degrees and melting the polar ice caps. Sea levels would rise and submerge many coastal cities. Rainfall patterns could change radically, flooding the deserts, and turning the north-central United States into a dust bowl. A recent study by NASA scientists estimates that 20 percent of the greenhouse effect can be attributed to the destruction of the ozone layer caused by man-made chemicals. Furthermore, some types of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) have up to ten thousand times the heat-holding capacity of carbon dioxide and hence are among the most potent of the greenhouse gases.

Even with relatively minor decreases in the ozone layer's protective capacity, scientists predict that there would be sharp increases in skin cancer, eye damage, and immune-system suppression in humans, while the increase in ultraviolet radiation could also endanger forests, crops, and wildlife. Experts at the EPA estimate that for every 1percent decrease in ozone, skin cancer could increase by 5 to 6 percent.

The production and destruction of ozone in the upper layers of the atmosphere is a continuing natural process that results from the interaction between oxygen and ultraviolet light in the stratosphere. During the last fifty years or so, with the introduction of CFCs, what we are now seeing is both an unnatural and escalated destruction of the ozone layer that protects the earth.

In the mid-1970s two American scientists began to research the group of relatively inert chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons. Their interest in these chemicals was sparked by the findings of a British atmospheric chemist, James E. Lovelock, which revealed traces of the chemicals in analyses of the atmospheric samples taken over the Irish Sea. Lovelock was not particularly concerned about his findings, as the CFCs were reputed to be extremely stable and nontoxic. For this reason, they replaced a number of other chemicals for use in a wide variety of products-as coolants in air conditioners and refrigerators, as propellants in aerosol sprays, as foaming agents for things like automobile seats and dashboards, in certain types of plastic materials such as Styrofoam, and more recently as cleaning agents, particularly for computer circuitry. It was precisely this chemical stability that bothered the two American researchers. If the CFCs were not broken down and remained intact in the troposphere, the layer of the atmosphere closest to the earth, then what happened to them? Did they just float around in deep space for eternity?

The scientists, Mario J. Molina, now of the jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, and F. Sherwood Rowland of the University of California at Irvine, discovered that the CFCs were not innocuous at all. CFCs were so stable that they floated unimpeded through the troposphere and into the ozone layer.

Molina and Rowland discovered that while CFCs do not degrade or chemically alter in the lower atmosphere, upon entering the stratosphere, where they are exposed to the ultraviolet radiation of the sun, they break down to their component atoms of chlorine, fluorine, and carbon. Although scientists are still not exactly sure what occurs after that, most believe that it is the chlorine portion of CFCs that goes on to damage the ozone layer. Furthermore, these chlorine molecules in the upper atmosphere can react many times over, and consequently a single molecule of chlorine can destroy thousands of molecules of ozone.

Around 1982 the CFC hypothesis moved from the realm of theory to that of substantiated scientific fact. At that time the British Antarctic Survey at Halley Bay, a group of scientists who had been monitoring the atmosphere in the Antarctic since 1957 suddenly discovered a large hole in the earth's ozone layer over the South Role. Since then scientists have noted that every year around springtime (sometime between mid-August and mid-October in the Antarctic), huge gaps in the ozone occur. In September 1987, the ozone shield had dwindled to its lowest level ever observed at that time. Scientists measuring the ozone levels found that at an altitude of eleven miles the ozone shield had been reduced by 50 percent. Later that same year National Science Foundation official Peter E. Wilkniss reported to Congress that scientists at the McMurdo Station in Antarctica had observed that ozone levels at some altitudes had dropped as much as 97 percent. The serious depletion caused Wilkniss to express concern "about the health and safety of our workers in Antarctica, who may be exposed to as much as four times the amount of ultraviolet radiation as you would get in summer at the beach in Miami."

Walsh describes this hole as a gaping tear across the upper atmosphere that is as large as the continental United States and as deep as Mount Everest is tall. Additionally, the scientists found high levels of active chlorine in their samples of the atmosphere. Findings above the McMurdo Station indicated levels of chlorine monoxide to be up to one hundred times greater than those found elsewhere.

Robert Watson, chief scientist for NASA's ozone project, believes that there is no question that there is chlorine in the Antarctic in quantities enough to destroy a dramatic level of protective ozone.

When scientists first discovered the hole in the ozone, they were cautious not to extrapolate their findings to other parts of the globe. Watson, for example, posited that the ozone depletion was probably due to the peculiar atmospheric conditions at the South Pole; he was still uncertain whether there would be a worldwide fallout. Most scientists admit that they just do not yet know enough about what goes on in the high reaches of the atmosphere to be able to say with any certainty what is going on. Theoretically the depletion that is seen in Antarctica could have occurred anywhere. One of the great problems with ozone depletion is that we do not know enough about upper atmospheric science or the chemical reactions between ozone and chlorine to really predict with any degree of accuracy what we can expect from our continued loading of chlorine into the atmosphere. The same NASA report that noted the gaping hole in the ozone above Antarctica also concluded that those recorded losses were more than twice the amounts that had been predicted by computer modeling in the years prior to the satellite survey. No one can explain these great losses. Today's depletion ratio, both in Antarctica and above the continental United States, was originally the rate of depletion that was predicted for the next century. So we are on a very fast track-much faster than anyone had dared to project when ozone depletion was first discovered.

Scientists now believe that CFCs are instrumental in the depletion of ozone at all latitudes, but weather conditions at the poles do contribute to the problem. Atmospheric measurement over Switzerland, South Dakota, and Maine all show some ozone depletion in late winter or early spring. This is confirmed by findings showing ozone losses since 1969 as high as 3 percent over parts of North America and Europe and as high as 5 percent over parts of the southern hemisphere. This is particularly disturbing given the EPA prediction that each percentage decrease in ozone could increase incidence of skin cancer by 5 to 6 percent.

We also know now that massive ozone depletion is not confined to the South Pole. In October 1988, scientists in the Arctic made findings similar to those of their southern counterparts. Evidence points to the poles as being particularly susceptible to a sort of accelerated ozone depletion, especially when compared to the changes which are taking place much more slowly elsewhere on the planet.

The process begins when the CFCs are broken down by ultraviolet rays primarily over the tropics and temperate zones. Global winds then tend to blow these component parts toward the North and South Poles, where the extreme climatic conditions come into effect. The CFC by-products adhere to airborne ice crystals during the winter. In the spring, when the crystals are hit by the sun's rays, the ultraviolet light causes the chemical reaction between the chlorine and the ozone. While the ozone is destroyed by the reaction, the pollutants survive to cause more destruction, over and over again.

When chlorofluorocarbons were first introduced in the 1930s, they were considered chemical marvels. Because of their stability, CFCs were almost completely nontoxic to humans, as well as being nonflammable and non-corrosive. In fact, they were considered to be so safe that, up until the findings of Rowland and Molina, CFCs were called upon to replace a number of more hazardous chemicals.

But that was before. What happened after CFCs became linked with damage to the ozone layer provides a good example of how corporate America can react when a source of its revenues is threatened.

Although the United States accounts for only 5 percent of the world population, it is a major contributor to the use and production of ozone-depleting CFCs. We produce close to 30 percent of the 2.4 billion tons of CFCs manufactured in the world each year. The DuPont Corporation, the largest worldwide manufacturer of these chemicals, controls approximately 45 percent of the U.S. market and about 25 percent of the world market. in 1974 there was a great debate as to whether CFCs should be banned from aerosol cans. DuPont took out full-page ads in 7he New York Times and 7-he Washington Post urging that there was not enough evidence to warrant such drastic action as prohibiting the use of the chemical in the aerosols.

At that time the company had begun research to develop substitute chemicals that could be used as replacements. In 1978, when aerosols were banned, DuPont and other corporations cut back on their research, virtually eliminating development of alternative chemicals.

They stated that the regulatory climate in the United States indicated there would be no government mandate for a future ban on the chemicals and therefore they did not intend to pursue their research into alternatives.

Now, we've lost about five years of research into alternative ways of cooling air, keeping refrigerators running, and cleaning high-tech electronic equipment. The rush to find alternatives to replace CFCs now could result in the use of other toxic chemicals.

Despite all the posturing and resistance, industry does come around when it has to. But is this all really necessary? Where is the government leadership that dictates policy to the chemical industry? By 1988, E. 1. Dupont de Nemours & Company announced that it would phase out production of CFCs by the year 2640. The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, a Maryland-based public interest group, among others, believes this action isn't enough. Chemical companies have taken the reins from government. it's time that the people force the policymakers to take back control.

Policymakers have made some inroads to curbing the use and production of ozone-harming chemicals, but while they use strong language about the need for a total ban, very little is being done to implement that sort of program. According to an EPA study released in September 1988, an immediate 100 percent reduction is required just to stabilize the chemicals already in the atmosphere. Even if the terms of the Montreal protocol, which call for a 50 percent decrease in production by the year 2000, are met, NASA's Robert Watson believes that the level of CFCs in our skies will double over the next fifty years.

PAINLESS SOLUTIONS

Reactions to the depletion of the earth's protective ozone layer have been amazingly swift, given the usual inertia of government and industry to environmental issues, and shockingly slow in light of the severity of the problem.

First, a positive note. The American government was the first in the world to place an outright ban on the use of CFCs in aerosols in 1978. That was done only a few years after the work of Rowland and Molina on ozone destruction by the chlorofluorocarbons, and before the huge hole in the ozone layer was discovered in Antarctica in 1982. Despite the predictions and warnings from CFC manufacturers that Americans just could not survive without their aerosols, most of us weathered the transition without the least withdrawal effect.

One important point that is often overlooked in the debate about abolishing, or at least significantly decreasing, production and use of CFCs is that their importance to society may be more hype than reality. Unlike oil, which powers our automobiles and power plants, and for the moment really is a necessity in society pending the development of alternatives, chlorofluorocarbons on the whole serve convenience functions only. The choices we face when looking at the end to CFCs are no more profound than choices like these:

• aerosol versus roll-on deodorant;

• Styrofoam versus recyclable paper containers for our fast food;

• CFC as opposed to soap or other nontoxic cleaning products for computers.

Even in situations that may represent necessity rather than convenience, like refrigeration, air conditioning in certain climates, and dry-cleaning of certain fabrics, carefully designed machines that lock in CFCs could substantially decrease, if not eliminate altogether, the emission of the chemicals into the environment. The one thing delaying a total ban is the insistence of the manufacturers that the world needs CFCs, or at least needs what CFCs can do for us. How true is that? America survived before the invention of aerosols, and is surviving very well now without them. Aerosol use accounts for 40 percent of European use of CFCs. Since Americans have decreased their use to less than I percent of their total CFC consumption, is there any reason to believe that Europeans will have any problems in doing so? How dependent are we on Styrofoam and other blown plastics? Are these products really indispensable, or is that just the manufacturers' wishful thinking? In Asia and the Pacific Rim, 35 percent of CFC consumption is for cleaning purposes, especially the cleaning of electronic circuitry. As there are now safe and nontoxic cleaning agents for electronics, how indispensable are the CFC-based solvents?

Notwithstanding the United States ban on aerosols, other nations have yet to follow the American example. This leads to some serious questions of corporate responsibility. DuPont, for instance, is fully aware of the current scientific evidence concerning the destruction of the ozone layer by CFCs. Presumably it also knows that the problem is a global one. Yet the company continues to market its products to foreign countries for uses that are outlawed in this country. There is no moral justification for this practice on any level, but for even the most selfish and shortsighted Americans, the proof is now in that this affects us here at home every bit as much as it affects the Europeans or South Americans who are using the CFC-propelled aerosols. Unless we are looking for illusory solutions rather than real ones, a first step in stopping the use of CFCs worldwide would be to put a ban on production by U.S. companies.

In recognition of the need for a global approach to solving the ozone-depletion problem, representatives of 46 nations meet in Montreal in September 1987 to discuss an agreement freezing the production of CFCs at 1986 levels and phasing in a 50 percent reduction in usage starting in 1989. To become effective, the agreement required ratification by eleven nations representing 66 percent of global consumption of CFCs. After a slow start, thirty-one countries had ratified the treaty by December 1988.

The United States has been more of a leader regarding ozone-depleting chemicals than it has on other environmental issues. In September 1988, prior to ratification of the treaty by the requisite number of nations, then head of the EPA Lee M. Thomas called for the complete elimination of CFCs and halons (another chlorine-based chemical linked to ozone depletion and used primarily in fire extinguishers). While the United States is talking tough, when it comes to action, Americans are still dragging their feet. Legislators have yet to act on the EPA chiefs proposals. in the meantime, the twelve European Community nations, not the United States, were the first to agree in March 1989 to a total ban on the production and use of ozone-destroying chemicals by the end of the century. William K. Reilly, head of the EPA, urged President Bush to endorse a worldwide ban, but for the moment the U.S. is vacillating-torn by environmental concerns on one hand, and by threats from industry representatives that substitute chemicals will be more expensive and not necessarily safe.

Another piece of good news is that contrary to what we are being told by industry and sometimes the press, there are viable solutions on the horizon that are neither costly nor energy intensive, and many of them are within the reach of the individual. Many alternatives to CFCs are already available, but what is lacking is a corporate commitment to make the switch and a legal mandate that would ban the production and use of atmospherically damaging chemicals.

The demand for CFC-based cleaning solvents in the computer industry has practically tripled since 1976-just about the time that CFCs were being banned for aerosol use. The United States produces about 40 percent of the worldwide supply of these solvents. And while industry maintains that there are no viable substitutes for the ubiquitous CF-113, the most commonly used of these solvents, there has actually been great progress made in recent years toward very safe nontoxic solutions for cleaning electronics equipment that could greatly reduce the amount of CFC emissions. According to Walsh, one IBM manufacturing plant in California alone emits more than a million pounds of CFCs into the atmosphere annually. in recent years, high-tech companies like IBM, Digital Corporation, and AT&T have been experimenting with new aqueous cleaning solutions and have found them effective in cleaning electronic circuitry. They have also tried other newly developed products called terpenes, which are nontoxic, biodegradable, and non-corrosive substances derived from citrus rinds and pine trees. There are also techniques being developed that would allow for the design of no-clean circuitry that would not even require the use of solvents for maintenance and cleaning at all.

Since the ban on CFCs for aerosols, the single largest use for these chemicals is refrigeration, which accounts for 45 percent of all U.S. consumption of CFCs today. Both refrigerator manufacturers and the chemical industry are making claims about the problems associated with a move away from CFC-based refrigerants. In fact, if the rigidfoam insulation in refrigerators and freezers were replaced by vacuum insulation, the same type used in Thermos bottles, CFC use would plummet. The Solar Energy Research Institute has found that vacuum panels take up less space than foams and actually add to the efficiency of appliances.

There are a number of other possibilities for refrigeration that are safe and just as efficient as CFCs, like helium-cooled refrigerators. Helium has long been used as a coolant in space and military application. One New Jersey-based company is currently adapting that technology for use in refrigerators. Redesign that would prevent all leakage of CFCs and legislation that would mandate the recycling of refrigerants when units are discarded would also eliminate the release of the CFCs into the atmosphere.

There are also a number of actions that each of us can take as individuals and as a group. The first and probably the easiest is to stop buying Styrofoam and similar foam products. These products are poison to the ozone layer and poison when they are burned. Some of the largest users of Styrofoarn are fast-food and take-out restaurants. Whenever you patronize these restaurants, you can begin your environmental action by requesting the operators to package your food or serve your coffee in containers that are made of something other than blown foam. The companies that make Styrofoarn are moving toward other alternatives that do not require ozone-depleting chemicals to manufacture the substance, but it is impossible for the consumer to tell which has been manufactured safely and which has not. It is better just to stay away from the product altogether.

Something else the individual can do is to give some serious thought to the use of air-conditioners, particularly automobile units, which virtually all use ozone-destroying chemicals. Many of us switch on the air-conditioner in the summer merely out of habit; we would not even consider not buying an air-conditioned automobile. For those of you who live in relatively temperate climates, you may want to reconsider things like these.

In the United States, car air-conditioners account for about 20 percent of the consumption of CFCs, the largest single share of gases contributing to the ozone-depletion problem. In fact, engineers estimate that about 65 percent of a car's air-conditioning fluids leaks before the car ever gets to the repair shop, and this leakage accounts for about a third of the emissions from automobiles. if you decide to buy a car air conditioner, never try to repair or refill it yourself. You should have it checked periodically and serviced by reputable professionals who use recycling equipment that enables them to get all the CFCs out of the air-conditioner, fix it, tune it up, and then return CFCs to the unit without releasing any of them into the air. When looking for repairmen, you should ask whether they have such recycling equipment. The number-one action that you as a consumer can take is to make sure that your car air-conditioning system is not leaking any ozone-depleting gases. Second, when taking vehicles in for service, if you're told that the coolant from your air-conditioning system needs to be replaced, ask the service station about what will happen with the coolant that is drained from the automobile. The coolant is traditionally drained and vented into the atmosphere, leading to destruction of the ozone layer. Ask your auto mechanic about it.

While automobile and chemical manufacturers are gearing up for the testing of new air-conditioning chemicals, the news is that these chemicals are certainly not any great step forward. General Motors officials are saying that the new chemicals will require a total redesign of existing units, but they fear that fuel economy and design may have to be compromised to accommodate the change.

People should keep informed through their newspaper or call their local legislators, because approximately twenty states will soon be voting on legislation that would require recycling of car air-conditioner chemicals. We also encourage people to write or call not only their local representatives, but also their congressmen and senators, urging them to pass legislation to ban ozone-depleting chemicals rapidly and guarantee safe substitutes so that we do not find ourselves in yet another toxic crisis down the road a bit.

According to Cynthia Pollack Shea, senior researcher at Worldwatch Institute in Washington, D.C., we should avoid buying foods like eggs and meat packed in polystyrene foams. ozone-depleting gases are used to make those bubbles. Ask the manager at your local grocery store whether or not those foam products are blown with ozone-depleting CFCs, and if they are, ask if trays can be purchased from another Supplier. Request paper or cardboard wrapping.

When discarding old appliances that use CFCs as a coolant, find out what will happen to the old coolant. Will it be drained or recycled? What will happen to the old appliance? Will the insulation foam be covered and incinerated to keep the CFCs from reaching the stratosphere?

When YOU buy a home computer, ask if the computer chips need to be cleaned with a CFC-based solvent. Many currently are, but alternatives are available. You can clean computer chips with a water or alcohol solution, and some don't require cleaning at all.

When you buy furniture, ask whether or not the cushions in that furniture have been inflated with CFCs. Flexible foams are one of the major uses of fluorocarbons and alternatives are available for blowing the foam.

CFCs are also widely used in rigid-foam insulation. When engaging a contractor to install insulation in your home, ask whether or not that particular insulation is blown with CFCs. Use an alternative, fiberglass, cellulose, or foam that is not blown with CFCs.

The more questions you as a consumer ask dealers and repairmen, the more they will be aware of the high level of concern and their role in the problem.

For more information contact:

Worldwatch Institute
1776 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 452-1999