By Tracy Sorensen
Over the past three years, stratospheric ozone depletion over all areas of the globe except the tropics has accelerated alarmingly. Predictions of increases in the rates of skin cancers and eye cataracts are being lent weight by recent news from Chile, where scientists are linking ozone depletion to reports of blindness in animals and mutations in plants.
The evidence of accelerating depletion has produced international cooperation on a level previously unknown. In a revision of the
1987 Montreal Protocol announced in London in July 1990, the world's industrially advanced countries agreed to phase out the production of the main ozone-depleting chemicals by 2000, while the Third World was set the same target for 2010.
The changes already in train in the wake of the revised protocol will clearly avert tragedy on the scale which would have occurred if the production of ozone-destroying chemicals had continued and increased at 1970s levels. The revised protocol thus stands as a positive example of what steps could be taken over other issues — global warming, for example — if the environment were given international political priority.
But there is no room for complacency. The revised protocol did not happen "in the nick of time" but in the midst of crisis. Even if the production of all ozone-depleting substances were stopped tomorrow, the chemicals produced until now would continue to leak into the atmosphere for decades. An immediate, total phase-out would still mean living with the consequences of ozone depletion until the last decade of next century.
Meanwhile, the revised protocol, while it is a vast improvement on the 1987 version, is still seriously limited by a number of factors. These include the non-inclusion of some important ozone-depleting chemicals in the timetable for phase out; the speed of the phase-out process; and the fact that the agreement allows the use of alternative chemicals which are also ozone-depleting, toxic or global warmers.
While 59 nations and the European Community were parties to the agreement, that leaves the rest of the countries in the world unobliged to comply. Third World countries have pointed out that promised funds from advanced countries (the main sources of ozone depletion) for ozone-friendly technology and research are inadequate: some refused to sign the protocol for this reason. Then there is the problem of enforcing compliance by the signatories.
An overarching concern is the pressure exerted by the powerful chemical companies to ensure the changeover to ozone-benign production does not interfere with their profits — creating "solutions" which are only partial, damaging to other parts of the environment, and against the interests of the Third World.
Ozone depletion
Stratospheric ozone, which naturally forms and degrades in dynamic protective shield against harmful ultraviolet radiation. Increased contact with this form of energy from the sun is associated with increased skin cancer, eye disease and immune response suppression in humans and animals, and damage to plant life.
(It should be noted that ozone at ground level — a component in photochemical smog — is a noxious gas: a case of a substance being useful in one place and not in another.)
Chlorofluorocarbons (chemicals used in the production of refrigerators, air conditioners, industrial cleaning solvents, aerosols and foam plastics) and halons (used in some fire extinguishers) have been identified as the most aggressive ozone-destroying chemicals. The concentration of CFCs in the lower atmosphere was thought to be rising at between 4 and 10% a year in 1989.
Chlorine atoms released by CFCs in the stratosphere are capable of reacting with tens of thousands of ozone molecules before they break down themselves. CFCs and halons (which release similarly behaving bromine atoms) are capable of lasting for 100 years or more in the atmosphere.
An October 1991 United Nations report on the ozone layer noted that ozone depletion was occurring at triple the rate of the 1970s. It noted that since the previous international scientific review in 1989, the hole over Antarctica had expanded and deepened, and that depletion over the Arctic had occurred in line with an observed increase in chlorine levels. At the same time, significant depletion had been noted for the first time in the middle latitudes of both the northern and southern hemispheres. Tropical ozone levels appeared to be unaffected.
The New York Times reported on October 23 that the Environmental Protection Agency had noted a 4.5-5% decline in ozone over the United States and other northern hemisphere counties in the winter and early spring. The EPA calculated that as a result, some 12 million US citizens would develop skin cancer, and more than 200,000 of them would die, over the next 50 years.
In Australia, research carried out by the CSIRO shows significant increases in ground-level ultraviolet radiation across the continent from Darwin to Hobart. The ultraviolet radiation levels get higher the further south (closer to the Antarctic hole) the measurements are taken.
The information officer for the CSIRO's atmospheric research division, Paul Holper, told Green Left that residents of Darwin now appear to be experiencing 3% more ultraviolet radiation than they were 10 years ago, while people living in Hobart are getting 11% more ultraviolet radiation than they were in 1980.
(Holper advised against Hobart residents moving to Darwin to avoid ultraviolet irradiation: Darwin naturally gets more sun, and therefore more ultraviolet radiation. "So even if the amount of ultraviolet radiation in Hobart doubled as a result of ozone depletion, and no-one is suggesting that, you are still better off than you would be even in Brisbane.") Perhaps the most alarming news in recent months comes from Chile. While the "strange things" being reported there have yet to be conclusively associated with ozone depletion, some Chilean scientists are convinced there is a link.
The November 6, 1991, British Financial Times ran an account of blind salmon, rabbits and sheep, mutated tree buds and a strange red pigment showing up in ocean algae.
"Doctors are being besieged by patients with allergies, eye irritations and skin complaints", Times correspondent Leslie Crawford wrote.
She reported that a researcher at the University of Magallanes in Punta Arenas was convinced the "bizarre occurrences" were the result of ozone depletion. According to Crawford, the researcher, Bedrich Magas, had recorded the same intensity of radiation that is found in the Caribbean in the summer. He said: "Southern Chile does not have a tropical habitat, it cannot take this kind of punishment."
According to Crawford, scientists were desperately trying to raise funds for serious research into the phenomena, and were even canvassing the possibility that Chile would have to import or develop new strains of ultraviolet-resistant crops.
"This kind of genetic engineering is expensive", wrote Crawford, "and it raises the ethical question of why Chile, a developing country with limited resources, should pay for the consequences of ozone destruction caused by the industrialised world."
Montreal Protocol
The June 1990 meeting in London to revise the 1987 protocol produced major improvements on a number of fronts: the number of parties to the agreement had dramatically increased; there was consensus, rather than debate, over the need for urgent measures; and a development fund was set up to help Third World parties fulfil their commitments. The list of controlled substances was greatly extended, and the conference agreed to another revision meeting in 1992.
There were sharp differences of opinion over the phase-out date for the "interim" use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), a chemical substitute for CFCs which is less damaging to the ozone layer. Proposed phase-out dates ranged from 2010 to 2040.
According to the Australian Conservation Council's global change officer, Carrie Sonneborne, breaking through the limitations of the revised protocol will involve speeding up the phase-out process; assuring developing nations of adequate funding for ozone benign technology to facilitate their compliance; and resisting pressure from multinational chemical companies to opt for profit-preserving substitute chemicals which are merely less harmful, rather than ozone benign.
According to Sonneborne, major multinational companies such as DuPont and ICI have invested millions in the development of patented alternatives to CFCs. Recouping their costs involves selling the chemicals and the technology. Paul Holper explains the interest of manufacturers in opting for chemically similar substitutes to CFCs: "What they are interested in is a chemical that you can just drop into the refrigeration unit without having to do major engineering replacement for the coils and compressor and so on. So they want something as chemically similar to CFCs as possible. If you are going to talk about using other chemicals as refrigerants, then you may have to redesign the whole system."
As other environmentalists have pointed out, the DuPont company has been able to profit from the production of CFCs, pressuring governments against opting for change well after their ozone-damaging potential was widely known. It was then able to switch strategically to the development of substitute chemicals, from which it will now make new profits. The chemical companies' ability to make a virtue of necessity is cynical, but if the technology developed was in the long-term interests of the regeneration of the ozone layer, then that could have been welcomed.
Unfortunately, according to the ACF, both HCFCs and HCFCs are powerful greenhouse gases. "And in the case of HCFCs, they still have an ozone depleting potential", said Sonneborne. "There are also concerns around HCFCs over their toxicity to workers."
The fact that there is money to be made by realising existing investments in the development of chemically similar substitutes which are simply less harmful is blocking the switch to alternative, environmentally benign technologies and production methods in industrialised nations and the Third World.
The continued ability of business interests to quietly set the agenda for dealing with ozone depletion is illustrated by the way an upcoming ozone conference is being organised in Canberra in March.
The "Ozone protection for the '90s — a South Pacific, South East Asian Workshop" conference is being organised jointly by the federal government, the Association of Fluorocarbon Consumers and Manufacturers (AFCAM) and the Australian Institution of Refrigeration, Airconditioning and Heating.
While the conference is being touted as a way of getting ozone-safe technology into the region, the ACF has criticised the lack of input sought from non-government organisations developing aid projects in the Third World, environmentalists and consumers.
The conference seems certain to be dominated by the current line of the Australian government and industry representatives: the use of HCFCs as an "interim solution". But why develop and export an "interim solution" which is likely to be phased out by early next century?
"At the moment, the Australian government seems to be advocating HCFCs as the best interim, short term solution", said Sonneborne. "We see that as a problem, because the ACF believes that once HCFCs are entrenched and a lot of money is spent on phasing them in and changing equipment to suit them, they will be around a lot longer than is really healthy for the ozone layer. "I guess the government has come under pressure from industry which has put a lot of money into developing HCFCs. They are not thinking as creatively as they could around totally ozone benign alternatives; they haven't been promoting research in those areas and giving the time and money to commercialise the alternatives that already exist."
No doubt this small experience is a reflection of what will be played out to a greater or lesser extent throughout the advanced capitalist world, unless the environment movement can swing the agenda back in a greener, more socially just, direction.