2008 Woodie Awards
Ozone, the real story
Reader's response to Ben Lieberman
Jameson F. Chace
Issue date: 12/6/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 3 next >
The editorial written by Ben Lieberman of The Heritage Foundation in the September 2007 issue of the Mosaic (Ozone: the hole story) deserves a rational response from someone within the Salve Regina University. As an environmental scientist I feel compelled to separate fact from fiction.
The editorial by Mr. Lieberman is nothing short of an anti-environmental attack based on erroneous information surrounding one environmental problem (stratospheric ozone depletion) being applied to another (climate change). First, let's be clear on Mr. Lieberman's agenda. He is a Senior Policy Analyst on Energy and Environment for the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation is a conservative organization that functions to influence legislation. Mr. Lieberman has a degree in accounting, a law degree and is a C.P.A. He does not have any formal training in science. The purpose of his article is to persuade the reader to accept the premise that the Montreal Protocol (1987) ban on stratospheric ozone depleting chemicals such as Chloroflorocarbons (CFCs) was based on flawed environmental science followed by misguided environmental policy. Accepting his premise, he persuades the reader to also accept his point of view that climate change policy is equally flawed and unacceptable. He is wrong on both accounts.
The rationale for reducing CFC production is clear. CFCs destroy high altitude ozone, the very thin protective skin of our uppermost atmosphere. Reducing the ozone layer increases the amount of harmful ultraviolet-B radiation (UV-B) reaching the surface of the earth, mostly during the northern hemisphere summer. This has been measured at numerous stations around the world (S. Madronich, National Center for Atmospheric Research) and those data are clearly presented in annual reports by the World Meterological Organization. Increased UV-B radiation exposure is a cause of skin cancer (melanoma and carcinoma), cataracts, and immune system suppression. Individual behavior and increased early diagnosis of different forms of skin cancer may be the primary cause of increased skin cancer rates, just as Mr. Lieberman contends. Yet, at least one study concluded a 5% increase in risk of UV-B impact on skin cancer rates in Great Britain. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency website contends the same: increased UV-B equals increased skin cancer risk. While the amount of UV-B radiation that reaches the earth's surface may be low, it is measurable. Even though the impacts seem slight or perhaps impossible to disentangle from the many other environmental causes of cancer, UV-B radiation poses a real, measurable risk for melanoma and carcinoma.
The editorial by Mr. Lieberman is nothing short of an anti-environmental attack based on erroneous information surrounding one environmental problem (stratospheric ozone depletion) being applied to another (climate change). First, let's be clear on Mr. Lieberman's agenda. He is a Senior Policy Analyst on Energy and Environment for the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation is a conservative organization that functions to influence legislation. Mr. Lieberman has a degree in accounting, a law degree and is a C.P.A. He does not have any formal training in science. The purpose of his article is to persuade the reader to accept the premise that the Montreal Protocol (1987) ban on stratospheric ozone depleting chemicals such as Chloroflorocarbons (CFCs) was based on flawed environmental science followed by misguided environmental policy. Accepting his premise, he persuades the reader to also accept his point of view that climate change policy is equally flawed and unacceptable. He is wrong on both accounts.
The rationale for reducing CFC production is clear. CFCs destroy high altitude ozone, the very thin protective skin of our uppermost atmosphere. Reducing the ozone layer increases the amount of harmful ultraviolet-B radiation (UV-B) reaching the surface of the earth, mostly during the northern hemisphere summer. This has been measured at numerous stations around the world (S. Madronich, National Center for Atmospheric Research) and those data are clearly presented in annual reports by the World Meterological Organization. Increased UV-B radiation exposure is a cause of skin cancer (melanoma and carcinoma), cataracts, and immune system suppression. Individual behavior and increased early diagnosis of different forms of skin cancer may be the primary cause of increased skin cancer rates, just as Mr. Lieberman contends. Yet, at least one study concluded a 5% increase in risk of UV-B impact on skin cancer rates in Great Britain. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency website contends the same: increased UV-B equals increased skin cancer risk. While the amount of UV-B radiation that reaches the earth's surface may be low, it is measurable. Even though the impacts seem slight or perhaps impossible to disentangle from the many other environmental causes of cancer, UV-B radiation poses a real, measurable risk for melanoma and carcinoma.
Be the first to comment on this story