THE STRATOSPHERIC OZONE DEBATE

by Shandon L. Guthrie

Perhaps one of the most controversial issues of the current decade has to be revolved around the survival of the most important planet to us in this solar system: Earth. Society has been bombarded with pronouncements such as the logo that echoes, "Save our Planet." In an answer to this call we, as a world, have been asked to participate in the Montreal Protocol decision in an attempt to maintain a stratospheric layer commonly called the ozone layer (0₃). The Montreal Protocol decision, made in 1987 in Montreal, was concocted by members from industrialized nations in order to determine a policy to reduce the problem of stratospheric ozone depletion.⁽¹⁾ Originally, this bill was introduced in order to target the year 2000 for a total phase-out of all freon.⁽²⁾ The follow-up meeting to the Montreal Protocol altered the target date to 1996. The man responsible for this rushed quota is former EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) director William Reilly who proclaimed that in the U.S. alone there would be five million cases of skin cancer and 70,000 deaths over the succeeding 100 years.⁽³⁾ The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the ethical repercussions of the elements of the Montreal Protocol as a moral decision in regard to ozone depletion. The issue involved in regard to ozone depletion is whether or not we, as moral decision-makers, are obligated to regulate society's use of freon and other alleged harmful agents to stratospheric O₃.

Before an evaluation of the issue at hand, it will be useful to define some terms used in explaining the chemical and physical components of stratospheric ozone depletion. Ozone is the name given to the chemical composition O₃ which makes up the layer in our stratosphere. The O₃ molecule is a chemical representation of three oxygen atoms bonded together. Since UV (the shorthand for Ultraviolet radiation) is ultimately harmful to complex living organisms such as humans, then some element of protection is required to avoid overexposure to UV.⁽⁴⁾ This is where the role of our ozone layer enters the picture. The ozone layer intercepts UV light before passing through the atmosphere. As a consequence, the O₃ molecules divide into O and O₂. In effect, Nature (God?) has provided us with a cosmic sunscreen. Likewise, this process allows oxygen to combine with molecules and atoms containing oxygen properties in order to form additional O₃. In addition to the diffusion of O₃ molecules via UV interference is the dividing property of chlorine found in CFC's.⁽⁵⁾ The chlorine element in CFC's is the dangerous portion. This element "bangs" into an O₃ molecule incurring similar damage as UV with the exception that the chlorine element actually replaces the oxygen producing various structures [O₃ + Cl --> OCl + O₂, and OCl + O₃ --> Cl + 2O₂]. The fear of losing our ozone is attributed to the widespread use of freon containing CFC's. In addition, aerosol cans such as hair spray and bug spray cans also contribute to producing ozone depleting agents. Mankind has been indicted by environmental extremists on the grounds that we are committing planetary suicide. Is such a scare reasonable? Is regulation beneficial? Is regulation obligatory? In the following section, I will present the most common arguments used to answer these questions in the affirmative. In addition, an evaluation of each will be given.

I. THE ARGUMENT FROM THE FACT THAT CFC'S DESTROY OZONE

Most environmental extremists argue that since CFC's deplete stratospheric ozone, then we, as a world subject to its effects, ought to regulate CFC output in our atmosphere. The material implication of this argument rests on the alleged fact that ozone depletion is occurring. Further, ozone depletion has only become a problem since the presence of industrialization. Thus, there should not be any resistance to the ostracization of freon and other CFC producing agents.

Since the main thrust of this argument lies in the question of whether or not industrialization-produced CFC's deplete ozone, then it will be beneficial to evaluate the evidence in order to determine if this is so.⁽⁶⁾ There are five arguments that can be given to support the idea that ozone depletion is either not caused by industrialization or not being caused at all.

A. Freon and hair sprays producing CFC's cannot be the cause of stratospheric ozone depletion since records of ozone "holes" have been around prior to their proliferation. For example, the Cambridge meteorologist Dr. Gordon Dobson, in 1956, evaluated the hole in the ozone above the Antarctic region and explained it away in natural terms.

B. In regard to the presence of the Antarctic hole, Drs. Rogelio Maduro and Ralf Schauerhammer explain why this hole exists. They say that a seasonal phenomenon called thermal drafts occurs every spring. These thermal drafts are the result of temperature differences between the ice pack covering the ocean (0 degrees Celsius) and the global ice cap itself (-80 degrees Celsius).⁽⁷⁾ Further, the Grolier Encyclopedia (Grolier, Inc., 1993) makes the statement, "The natural forces at work in this high-altitude layer maintain a mixture of gases that includes atomic oxygen, 0, ordinary oxygen, 0(2), and ozone, 0(3). The quantities of each form fluctuate diurnally and seasonally in response to solar radiation, temperature changes, and other catalytic influences" (emphasis mine).

C. Maduro and Schauerhammer have produced a chart categorizing the different annual chlorine emissions from different sources. Seawater produces 600 million tons of chlorine, volcanoes produce 36 million tons of chlorine, biomass burning produces 8.4 million tons of chlorine, and ocean biota produce 5 million tons of chlorine. The output of chlorine in CFC's is a shocking low of .0075 million tons (or 7,500 tons).⁽⁸⁾ If anything is causing the stratospheric ozone to deplete it would appear that CFC's are least likely to be suspect.

D. John Delouisi of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration monitors the UV radiation that enters the earth's atmosphere. In eight different monitoring stations around the U.S., each meter demonstrated that UV radiation has decreased 8 percent from 1974 to 1985.⁽⁹⁾ This would lead one to believe that there is either a decrease in UV radiation or an increase in our ozone.

E. Chlorine itself has an atomic weight of 35.453 which is substantially heavier than any of the elements in the atmosphere (the two main elements being oxygen--an atomic weight of 15.9994--and nitrogen--an atomic weight of 14.0067). No one to date has explained how chlorine "floats" up to the stratosphere.

The evidence for ozone depletion is extremely weak and even imaginary in some cases. However, in the case of proposition C above, even if ozone depletion is occurring, it does not follow that this depletion is a result of CFC's from freon and aerosols. Quite clearly this argument represents a post hoc fallacy. With this being the result of scientific analyses we must conclude that any regulation of CFC's on the grounds that they deplete O₃ molecules is presumptuous and false.

II. THE ARGUMENT FROM PLANETARY ENTITLEMENT

It has been argued by some environmental extremists that human beings are living on earth by permission.⁽¹⁰⁾ As a part of nature, we have a responsibility to place Nature above personal welfare since earth has had no control over population and industrialization. One friend of mine charged, "Earth never asked us to be here and we do not have the right to just intrude on alien soils and destroy them." He further bolstered his argument by adding, "What if your neighbor set up camp on your front lawn and invited friends over. Further, they set up a campfire causing some 'environmental' depletion of the air you breathe and the lawn you cherish. Because they do not have the moral right much less the legal right to be on your lawn, then they would be obligated to forbid campfires."

I respond to this argument by first attacking the analogy. The analogy used has little correlation to the earth and its inhabitants. First, private property is owned by a person. The jurisdiction of this person includes that which is on his property. If someone set up a campfire on private property, the problem would not be because it bothers you or offends you morally but rather because it intrudes on what you own. The earth is not private property and, therefore, not subject to the jurisdiction of anyone.⁽¹¹⁾

The second obvious problem with this argument is that it begs the question in assuming that ozone depletion is occurring due to freon and aerosol emissions. If these activities do not cause ozone depletion, then regulation is not necessary. Therefore, this argument avoids the real issue.

Finally, there is no reason to believe that human beings have no right to live on earth. An arbitrary declaration that humans are not entitled to be here is without warrant. As a matter of fact, the fact that we are here should be clear evidence that we retain some entitlement, not the other way around. Further, if we were destroying our ozone layer then our "caretaker" would certainly submit a warning to use all prior to purging humanity from the earth.

III. ARGUMENT FROM THE NON-NECESSITY OF CFC'S

Still other environmental extremists view regulation of CFC's apart from their consequences (in this case, ozone depletion). They argue that since CFC's are not required in aerosol products, then, regardless of whether or not they deplete ozone, we should prohibit CFC's. After all, why should we risk any problems that CFC's may induce?

The first problem with this argument is the false dichotomy that is depicted. It assumes that all necessary items ought to remain while all unnecessary items ought to be regulated as to avoid any possible negative outcomes resulting from their existence. This must be incorrect since lotions and gels are not necessary for survival. Lotions and gels contain glycerin which may deplete the mesosphere. Even though the evidence clearly is against such a proposition, why would we risk this possibility?

Secondly, the presence of CFC's is necessary for the financial well-being of people who cannot afford replacement products.⁽¹²⁾ Should Americans be coerced to replace coolant systems with alternative ones then we might witness a rapid decrease in our mortality rate. Some pretty convincing cases have been erected as to the need of CFC coolant systems. Do not get me wrong. I would not be opposed to replacing CFC existent chemicals in favor of alternative ones. My contention lies solely in the fact that such an alteration would squeeze additional funds from society unnecessarily.

IV. ARGUMENT FROM COMPASSION

This is commonly argued among sensitive environmental extremists that we ought to be compassionate about our planet. We should not wreck a perfectly decent environment because unacceptable consequences will result in a tarnished world and an aesthetically tainted planet.

This argument clearly presupposes that which must be proven. CFC's have not been demonstrated to deplete the ozone layer. To voice an opinion that one ought to be compassionate merely asserts that using CFC's is to not be compassionate. Since CFC's have no affect on our stratosphere, then it would not be a matter of compassion to allow continued use. Besides, what if I lobbied to regulate CFC's out of anger against business men who develop freon with CFC's? If CFC's from industrialization did destroy ozone, then perhaps I would be justified regardless what my motive was as long as the right thing was being done. Must I do everything out of compassion? The point is whether or not I am doing the morally correct thing, not whether or not I am being compassionate about it (although that would be important for other reasons).

V. ARGUMENT FROM DIVINE REVELATION

Atheists, of course, do not argue that the Bible is a written revelation from any divine being (or God). Yet, some environmental extremists rank themselves as orthodox Christians adhering to the Bible as the inspired word of God. Some Christian theologians have added to the debate by defending regulation in the name of God. Two of these men are Richard D. Land and Louis A. Moore.⁽¹³⁾ In their work, they defend the need for regulation of alleged environmental hazards. Land and Moore propose that the existence of ozone depletion by CFC-producing products is real.⁽¹⁴⁾ The argument from divine revelation centers its apologetic around Genesis 2:15 which states, "Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it" (New American Standard Version).

In responding to this argument I must emphasize that it begs the question as well. The need to "cultivate" and "keep" the land is certainly something that Christians ought to do. However, the problem is whether or not ozone depletion is occurring at all! Secondly, it must be demonstrated that 2:15 indeed mandates regulation laws. The verse merely renders a purpose and not a policy.⁽¹⁵⁾ Finally, one can grant the interpretation Land and Moore offer and still uphold the idea that ozone depletion is not occurring. The burden of proof rests on the person who would suggest that stratospheric ozone is being depleted.

CONCLUSION

We have seen five arguments in favor of regulating ozone-depleting agents and have examined them in the light of scientific, philosophical, and biblical evidence. The clear testimony of the evidence suggests that the Montreal Protocol may by too hasty and that further attempts at regulating imaginary problems result in heated controversy and planetary hypochondria.

END NOTES

1. Need I mention that the United States has agreed to assist in funding this bill?

2. Freon is a primary refrigerant in cooling systems ranging from kitchen refrigerators to air conditioners.

3. All information and data pertaining to the Montreal Protocol is taken from Whatever Happened to the American Dream? by financial columnist Larry Burkett (Chicago: Moody Press, 1993) pp. 113-14.

4. It must be noted that some UV exposure is necessary for organic growth (i.e. "flora" organisms utilize UV in the process of photosynthesis in order to produce sugar and carbon dioxide).

5. CFC is the abbreviation for a chlorofluorocarbon. This is the molecular structure found in freon gas.

6. At this point the reader may be speculating my plan to deny the antecedent to the biconditional argument (a fallacy to any student of logic). However, my goal in this response is to deny the consequent regardless whether or not CFC's deplete the ozone. I am also responding to the forerunner argument to this one. It is assumed that if human industrialization produces CFC's, then these CFC's are destroying stratospheric ozone. My contention is that the consequent in this is false.

7. Rogelio A. Maduro and Ralf Schauerhammer, The Holes in the Ozone Scare: The Scientific Evidence That the Sky Isn't Falling (Washington, DC: 21st Century Science Associates, 1992), pp. 1-13.

8. ibid., p. 13.

9. Robert W. Lee, "The Evidence Is Thin," The New American, 6/1/192, p. 12.

10. By permission I mean that human beings live on earth either by random chance or by divine decree, not by choice.

11. Even if one were to accept God as the property owner, the argument fails since ozone depletion does not affect God. Further, God has not regulated CFC's nor has made any pronouncements against them.

12. Refrigerators utilizing CFC's as their primary coolant average around $500 while alternative coolants (sulfur dioxide, methyl chloride, or anhydrous ammonia) may cost around $700 (not to mention a 50% decrease in lifetime). See Burkett, American Dream, p. 120.

13. Land and Moore are the editors of and contributing authors to The Earth Is the Lord's: Christians and the Environment (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992).

14. Ibid., p. 201.

15. Still, some have argued that Genesis 2:15 demonstrates that Man was made for the environment, not the other way around. This is immediately dismantled in Genesis 1:28 where dominion is clearly given to mankind.