A warming trend may in time affect the place or way people live but it will not be the global catastrophe which is sometimes pictured. A New Age world-view and a hunger for research grants, however, have caused people to view our earth as a fragile planet. Evidence to contradict this is abundant but not much published. The media usually paint a gloomy picture. The earth and its atmosphere, however, are holding up in a wonderful way. Recently the greenhouse scare has cooled off considerably under increasing scepticism from scientists and the public alike.

The “greenhouse effect” is not the only concern for the atmosphere. Frequently we hear about the ozone layer. The protection “Mother Nature” provides for us, we are told, is systematically eroded by chemicals which we dump into the atmosphere! Already we are told to stay indoors because of the sun's harmful radiation. Is it possible that the ozone scare is also overdone? What are the facts and what are the questions concerning ozone depletion? In 1991, a small number of scientists openly started to question the ozone depletion theory. Since then more people, including the popular radio talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, believe the ozone scare is a scam. Their arguments provide us with an opportunity to place also this issue in a proper perspective.

What is Ozone?⤒🔗

Natural ozone occurs as a gas which is made up of oxygen. In regular oxygen, the atoms combine as pairs (O₂), whereas ozone molecules are made up of three oxygen atoms (O₃). Too much ozone in our air creates problems, not only for many crops, but also for people. Ozone is one of the gases responsible for photochemical smog in cities like Los Angeles.

Most atmospheric ozone, however, is found much higher, at about 25 kilometres above the earth's surface. Even there, however, its concentration is only 12 ppm (parts per million). Despite this relatively low concentration, the ozone here is crucial for its ability to absorb ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun. Ultraviolet radiation at high concentrations has the ability to produce skin cancer.

A complex balance exists in the production and breakdown of this high-level ozone. As an ozone molecule (O₃) absorbs UV radiation, it breaks up into oxygen (O₂ and O). Consequently, ozone must be produced to compensate for this ozone loss. If this were not so, the upper atmosphere would already have lost the ozone it had at creation. God provided for this eventuality; the same sunlight that breaks down ozone also makes it.

The balance between ozone production and breakdown is not without fluctuations. The sun's output of UV radiation, for one, is not constant. Due to these changes, scientists have found that ozone concentrations can fluctuate by as much as 12 per cent. Certain chemicals like chlorine are also able to break up ozone. Large quantities of chlorine may be pumped into the higher atmosphere by major volcanic eruptions. Despite such natural attacks on the ozone layer, it has kept up very well.

The Ozone Depletion Theory←⤒🔗

If UV radiation can cause skin cancer and if the ozone in the upper atmosphere is the main way to keep out this radiation, we have to be careful not to destroy this ozone layer. During the 1970s several theories were suggested which implicated various human activities in the destruction of the ozone. Most of these ideas have been forgotten or proven wrong. One theory, however, is still going strong. Twenty years ago scientists Rowland and Molina suggested that certain chemicals used in spray cans as well as for refrigeration and insulation could be responsible for ozone depletion. These gases, called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), don't break up easily, so some will eventually end up in the upper atmosphere. Here, the UV radiation which breaks up ozone is also capable of removing the chlorine atoms of the CFCs. The released chlorine is thought to set up a chain reaction which will upset the balance of ozone production and breakdown. Scientists think that depletion of the ozone shield could result in 5 to 20 per cent more UV reaching populated areas within the next 40 years.

The Antarctic Ozone Hole←⤒🔗

Rowland and Molina's theory was not without effect. Although people were unwilling to give up air conditioning, refrigeration, and the most effective chemicals used to douse fires, non-essential use of CFCs was banned in the States in 1977. This resulted in a replacement of the gases used to push out the contents from spray cans. After this ban the CFC issue lost publicity and during the next eight years it lay dormant.

The event which revived the issue was the rediscovery of the Antarctic ozone hole. The media failed to tell us that this phenomenon had already been known for thirty years. During the dark Antarctic winter, ozone continues to be broken down by chemicals like chlorine, but due to the lack of sunlight this ozone is not being replaced. Normally upper level winds would bring in ozone produced in other areas; this is usually what happens at the Arctic. At the Antarctic, however, from September through October a huge spiralling air movement keeps the air isolated from the normal atmospheric circulation. During this period the ozone layer grows much thinner resulting in the “ozone hole.”

The idea was created that this hole in the ozone layer represented the beginning of the end. The media still give the impression that the ozone hole is proof for Rowland and Molina's theory and that this hole could expand across the globe. Although it is true that the ozone hole appears more intense now then during the fifties, this does not warrant the scary scenarios we have been offered. Every Antarctic spring, the sun and winds rapidly restore the ozone layer to normal levels.

Still, the war is not over. Cutting CFCs from spray cans may have been a change we hardly noticed, but the next stage will be different. Many buildings have been designed with air conditioning as vital component. Air conditioning as we know it, however, is on its way out. The state of Vermont has already placed a total ban on car air conditioners.

The Holes in the Theory←⤒🔗

Last summer a brother loaned me a book which attacks the ozone depletion theories. He works as an engineer-consultant in the heating and cooling industry, and is concerned about the bans on CFCs which is starting to take its toll. Written by Maduro and Schlauerhammer and published in 1992, this book, The Holes in the Ozone Scare, is the best documented of its kind.

The authors “prove” that natural sources of chlorine are much greater than what is produced by CFCs. Other scientists claim that natural chlorine is rained out before it reaches the upper atmosphere, and in the case of sea salt this is probably true. The chlorine emissions from volcanoes, however, should not be ignored. Volcanoes are known to emit huge quantities of chlorine and other chemicals. During violent eruptions much of this is blasted into the upper layers of the atmosphere. But for various reasons, including the securing of research funds, many scientists downplay this effect.

Maduro and Schlauerhammer further reveal some of the history of ozone depletion theories. History provides valuable lessons indeed. The case of the supersonic jets is a case in point. In the early 1970s scientists predicted that supersonic jet exhausts would have an effect like that of the fourth angel of the Apocalypse (Revelation 16); by 1978, they had changed their view completely, suggesting a role of net ozone production. S. Fred Singer, former chief scientist of the U.S. Department of Transportation, wrote in 1989,

Few outside my special field know about these wild gyrations (swings) in the theoretical predictions. But those of us, who lived through them, have developed a certain humility and affection toward the ozone layer. It's a matter of some irony that current theory predicts that aircraft exhaust counteracts the ozone-destroying CFCs. But remember: it's only a theory, and it could change.

The book provides interesting evidence about the removal of CFCs. Rowland and Molina, in their theory, assumed that CFCs were not absorbed or broken down by the earth; therefore they had to end up in the upper atmosphere. Recent research suggests that a large part of the emitted CFCs is stored in soils and forest vegetation. There is even some indication that certain micro-organisms may be able to break down CFCs in the soil. Research in this area, however, has not been encouraged.

Is UV radiation really that bad? As children, during dark winter weeks, we were given an extra dosage of artificial UV light. Donning dark glasses we had to sit in front of a UV lamp for sufficient formation of vitamin D in the body. In St. Petersburg, Russia, physicians have extensive experience using UV radiation in the treatment of a variety of diseases. At the Dutch Institute of Human Development, doctors prefer the use of UV radiation over medicines for mental as well as physical treatment.

The only data available on UV trends (is the amount really increasing?) are from a study by a renowned skin cancer specialist in 1988. It showed that UV radiation over the US had actually decreased rather than increased. Since he published these findings, the scientist has been the victim of an “inquisition” and experienced such great funding cuts that he had to discontinue his research.

Early in 1992, measurements were made in the upper atmosphere, where unusually high concentrations of chlorine monoxide were detected. Before the project was finished or the data were analyzed, the media were informed and an ozone crisis was upon us. The publishing of preliminary data was foolish but it was the environmentalists who took things out of context and the media which allowed them to do so. In an edition of the CBC Journal, Jan Sinclair of Greenpeace warned, “Keep your children out of the sun between 10 and 3. If I lived in Canada, I would be seriously alarmed.” Dr. Joe Waters of NASA cautioned that “we have not seen an increase in ozone yet,” after which Jan asked him what he would do if he lived in Canada. Dr. Waters hesitated and then confessed that normal ozone levels in the southern US are normally about 10 per cent lower than in Canada, and that was exactly the kind of ozone reduction they feared might occur in Canada. (The trek to warmer areas and the time spent at the beach are responsible for a great deal of increased skin cancer.) His comments were completely ignored, however, as the focus of discussion shifted to the irresponsible industries and governments that just allow the production of CFCs to continue.

The chlorine, which may have originated from Mt. Pinatubo's eruption, disappeared and the feared reduction of ozone levels to southern US amounts never materialized. In the meantime, however, the US government had decided to eliminate all CFCs by 1996. Mission accomplished by the environmentalists.

The Cost of Change←⤒🔗

The advantages of CFCs are obvious; they are not poisonous like other refrigerants, they do not corrode air conditioning systems like their alternatives, and they are much cheaper than alternative chemicals. Several car companies have already switched over to the new technology. If you recently bought a new vehicle with air conditioning, you may soon find out what this all means: earlier breakdowns with repairs at triple the previous cost. Halon 1301, now banned from use, is a compound which has saved lives; it's the only gas which is extremely effective in dousing fires in small spaces without danger to human life.

The author’s further point out that Third World countries may not be able to afford the new technology and chemicals, which may cost thirty times as much as the CFCs currently used. The Western nations, through their financial controls in the World Bank, may be able to force most of the poor countries to give up refrigeration. Maduro and Schlauerhammer picture their own scary scenario in which millions will die as a result of the ban on CFCs; refrigeration of food and vaccines, as well as agricultural chemicals, being the main areas of concern.

Maduro and Schlauerhammer also show how a few influential people in the chemical industry have secured the market for CFC-replacing chemicals. They form another power block to ensure the ban of CFCs. Here the authors go a bit far, I think. They picture a major environmental conspiracy with huge financial resources and political clout. The authors ridicule the banning of DDT, as representing a situation similar to that of CFCs. Apparently, they do not at all consider environmental damage. Besides, the data and examples they provide give only their side of the argument. It is good to be critical, but we have to maintain a sound balance.

Making Up the Balance←⤒🔗

In a response to Maduro and Schlauerhammer's book, an article in Science magazine last summer admitted that current understanding of global ozone is “fraught with uncertainty.” Where such is the case, it depends on a person's world-view and priorities to decide upon a course of action.

Since we confess that God maintains His wonderful creation, our view of the earth must differ from the environmentalists'. Western culture in its science, art and education has declared God dead. As it realizes that mankind is incompetent to maintain the environment, panic sets in. Spaceship Earth is adrift in an empty universe. As man cannot live without God, Satan has provided a substitute in Gaia, the goddess Earth. The people who will die if CFCs are banned in the Third World will be sacrifices to Gaia.

Let us stay away from the extremes. Stewardship includes responsibility, but it also gives us a very special position as crown of the creation. God does not want us to sacrifice people to save the earth.

Do not call conspiracy everything these people call conspiracy; do not fear what they fear, and do not dread it. The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, He is the one you are to fear!Isaiah 8:12, 13