To the House Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,

My name is S. Fred Singer. I am professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and the founder and president of The Science & Environmental Policy Project in Fairfax, Virginia.

Relevant Background:

I hold a degree in engineering and a Ph.D. in physics. I have specialized in atmospheric and space physics. My professional career includes the early design of satellites, for which I received a Special Commendation from President Eisenhower. I established the U.S. Weather Satellite Service in 1962, was its first director, and received a Gold Medal award for that effort from the Dept. of Commerce. I devised the instrument that is currently used to measure stratospheric ozone from satellites.

As a Deputy Assistant Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1971, I chaired an interdepartmental panel of scientists looking into the possible effects of a proposed fleet of supersonic transports (SSTs) on stratospheric ozone. Ours was the first group to examine possible damage to the ozone layer and potential health consequences, including skin cancers. During the 1980s, while serving as Chief Scientist of the Department of Transportation, I provided expert advice to the White House Science Adviser on the effects of man-made substances on the ozone layer.

Outline of Testimony: This morning I would like to review with you very briefly the current status of the science, and then touch on three topics: First, I want to state clearly that there is no scientific consensus on ozone depletion or its consequences. Next, I want the record to show that the 1987 Montreal Protocol [on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer] was negotiated without adequate concern for scientific evidence. Finally, I want to comment on why it makes no scientific sense at this time to phase out methyl bromide.

Scientific Summary:

The bottom line is this: Currently available scientific evidence does not support a ban on the production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs or freons), halons, and especially methyl bromide. There certainly is no justification for the accelerated phase-out of CFCs, which was instituted in 1992 on nothing more than a highly questionable NASA press conference.

In fact, the history of the CFC-Ozone depletion issue is rife with selective use of data, faulty application of statistics, disregard of contrary evidence, and other scientific distortions. The policy before and since the Montreal Protocol has been driven by wild and irresponsible scare stories: EPA's estimate of 3 million additional skin cancer deaths, blind sheep in Chile, plankton death, the disappearance of frogs--all passed along to the public by an uncritical news media.

The hypothesis that CFCs deplete ozone is still just that: a hypothesis. The theory did not predict the Antarctic ozone hole and cannot predict what will happen globally. There is no firm evidence as yet for a long-term depletion of global ozone. Much of data is contaminated; the ozone record is dominated by large, natural fluctuations on many time scales; and there are even long- term changes of natural origin extending over decades. In spite of what you may have read, there is no credible evidence for a long- term increase of ultraviolet radiation at the earth's surface--as a result of a depletion of ozone. And finally, laboratory experiments have now established that malignant melanoma, the deadly form of skin cancer, may be caused by a band of ultraviolet radiation that is not absorbed by ozone at all.

For backup and more detail I refer you to numerous publications. Some are attached to my testimony and I ask that they be entered into the record.

No Scientific Consensus:

The argument constantly used to validate ozone depletion is the claim that there is a scientific consensus. But "consensus" is a political concept, not a scientific one. Scientific truth is never arrived at by a show of hands; every advance has come from an idea that didn't conform with prevailing opinion. "Consensus" had it that the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, that the atom could not be split. Consensus has been claimed also for the global warming issue. The official report from the UN- sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mentions the existence of "minority" views, but the editors could not, or perhaps would not, "accommodate" them.

Policies Based on Speculation:

Turning to the matter of scientific support for the Montreal Protocol, we have the statements of the chief U.S. negotiator, State Department official Richard Benedick. In his book, Ozone Diplomacy, on page 2, we read: "Perhaps the most extraordinary aspect of the treaty was its imposition of substantial short-term economic costs...against unproved future dangers--dangers that rested on scientific theories rather than on firm data."

Again, on page 18: "In July 1987, practically on the eve of the final negotiating session in Montreal, NOAA concluded that the 'scientific community is currently divided as to whether existing data on ozone trends provides sufficient evidence... that a chlorine-induced ozone destruction is occurring.'" And further: "Writing in 1989, [Prof.] Sherwood Rowland, [an originator of the CFC-ozone theory and fervent advocate of a ban on CFCs,] observed that 'statistical evaluation through 1986 gave no indication of any trend in global ozone significantly different from no change at all.'"

Benedick does not mention the fact that, as late as 1988, published evidence on stratospheric chlorine showed no upward trend, thus indicating that neither CFCs nor other manmade chemicals were contributing significantly to the total--above known natural sources, like volcanoes and oceans. An article by MIT professor Ronald Prinn in a book edited by Rowland, and published in 1988, makes this point quite clear.

It is apparent from the above quotes that the negotiators and their scientific supporters were not at all inhibited by the absence of scientific evidence--or indeed by the presence of contrary information. To quote Benedick again, the negotiators were quite aware of the "very real short-run economic dislocations" but viewed the whole matter mainly as an "unusual challenge to diplomacy". Indeed, the 1987 Montreal Protocol was to become the first example of a treaty controlling the production and release of a manmade chemical worldwide.

Phasing Out Methyl Bromide Makes No Sense:

Phasing out CFCs on an accelerated schedule, with no firm scientific basis, is bad enough; but a ban on methyl bromide makes absolutely no sense at this stage. There are at least three scientific arguments against it: (1) Unlike CFCs, which do contribute to stratospheric chlorine--along with many natural sources--we have no evidence that bromine or any of its compounds are increasing in the stratosphere. This is not surprising; the minute amounts of bromine can hardly be measured. (2) Unlike CFCs, methyl bromide enters the atmosphere primarily from natural sources in the world's oceans. (3) Finally, methyl bromide has an atmospheric lifetime of only about a year, while CFCs can survive for a century. In other words, if methyl bromide were ever found to cause a problem, it would disappear from the atmosphere within a year or so after its production is stopped.

A Common-Sense Perspective:

Let's put the issue in perspective. Promoters of the ozone-CFC theory are projecting about a 5 percent depletion. This would create a 10 percent increase in surface ultraviolet radiation--on a clear day. But UV naturally increases by some 5,000 percent from the poles to the equator because of the steepening angle of the sun.

The projected UV increase from a worst-case global ozone depletion therefore is the equivalent of moving just 60 miles closer to the equator, say from Washington, D.C., to Richmond, Virginia. A number of scientists associated with the CFC-ozone depletion theory, including Dr. Robert Watson, have acknowledged this publicly.

This insignificant effect is the basis for all of these scare stories and an international policy that will conservatively cost the U.S. economy alone some $100 billion dollars.

The scare stories cannot pass what I call the common-sense test. New Yorkers moving to Florida experience a more than 200 percent increase in UV because of the change in latitude. Why aren't they dropping like flies? Mail-order nurseries in the upper mid-west ship field-grown plants all over the United States. Why don't these plants die?

What If CFC Policy Is Wrong?

Are halocarbons--like CFCs, halons, etc.--really the culprit when it comes to ozone damage? Let me hypothesize a different scenario, but one which is also scientifically plausible. The Antarctic ozone hole grew in size and extent quite suddenly, between about 1978 and 1983. We know now that this short-lived thinning of the ozone layer depends not only on the presence of chlorine, which comes from both natural and man-made sources, but also on the presence of "polar stratospheric clouds"--ice crystals which form when the humidity is high enough and the temperature low enough.

The critical role of ice crystals as a catalyst for ozone destruction was not predicted by the original CFC-ozone depletion theory. We know, however, that stratospheric water vapor has been rising for some time; two researchers with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration earlier this year published confirming evidence. The most likely source for the increased water vapor is methane gas which is added to the earth's atmosphere from human-related sources like cattle raising and rice growing, and from natural sources like wetlands. When methane reaches the stratosphere, it is eventually oxidized into carbon dioxide and water vapor.

We know that methane is increasing in the earth's atmosphere (as I predicted in 1971). We also know from satellite data that the global stratosphere is cooling--probably as a result of the increase in carbon dioxide--thus increasing the potential for polar ice crystal formation. It is quite possible, therefore, that the controlling factors in the creation of an ozone hole in the Antarctic--and potentially elsewhere--are methane and carbon dioxide rather than an increase in chlorine from CFCs. If this is so, then ozone holes would persist, even in the absence of CFCs, because the ice crystals would continue to facilitate ozone destruction using the chlorine from natural sources.

In this scenario, a worldwide ban on CFCs would prove a costly and futile exercise.

Conclusion:

Promoters of the CFC-ozone depletion theory have insisted that governments take drastic action--even without firm scientific evidence--because if we don't do something now it will soon be too late. I disagree. If we don't know the extent of a problem--or if it exists at all--then we cannot be sure that the actions taken will have any beneficial effect.

We are flying blind on this issue, at a huge cost to the U.S. economy and ultimately to every American household. In less developed countries, absence of low-cost refrigeration--for food preservation and vaccines--could, unfortunately, exact an even higher price in human lives.

Dear Mr. Barton,

I am pleased to respond to your letter of October 10 and provide the three items of information you requested in connection with my testimony of August 1. I also wish to comment on the cost-benefit figures presented by the EPA witness Mary Nichols.

1. Scientific publications: I have published well over 150 scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals, many of which are listed below. A number of these articles are relevant to the atmospheric ozone issue; they are referenced in the summary article in the Journal of the Franklin Institute, submitted with my testimony.

Journal of the Franklin Institute, Physical Review, Physical Review Letters, Reviews of Geophysics, Journal of Geophysical Research, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Astrophysical Journal, Physics of Fluids, Icarus, Environmental Geology, Environmental Conservation, Environmental Science and Technology, Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Science, Nature. This is not a complete list; there may also be others.

2. Methyl Bromide: The most recent scientific summary on MeBr is the attached article by Dr. James H. Butler, which appeared in Nature (vol 376, pp.469-470, 10 August 1995). "Methyl Bromide Under Scrutiny" summarizes a workshop held in June 1995. As can be readily seen, the Butler article confirms my August 1 testimony. Because its atmospheric "lifetime" is only about one year--compared to decades for CFCs--the "precautionary principle" does not apply to MeBr; its atmospheric burden could be reduced within a few years if there should ever be a problem.

An important global source of MeBr is bio-mass burning, most of it human-related. But the ocean is both the largest source and the second-largest sink.

While uncertainties in stratospheric MeBr measurements are still very large, we may state that abundances there are lower by a factor of three or four than calculated. And finally, there is no evidence whatsoever for an upward trend (to indicate that human sources are more important than natural sources).

3. Solar ultraviolet radiation getting to the Earth's surface: UV-B covers the wavelength region of 280 to 320 nanometers and is absorbed by ozone--strongly at 280 and weakly at the long wavelength end. By the time we reach the UV-A region, covering wavelengths of 320 to 400nm, the absorption by ozone is essentially zero.

There have been two major changes in our view about skin cancer incidence. Whereas EPA had assumed that 100% of all malignant melanomas are due to UV-B, the Setlow experiments suggest that 90-95% are due to UV-A and therefore unaffected by any change in the thickness of the ozone layer. This reduces the EPA mortality figures by a factor of 10 to 20!

When it comes to non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSC), there is agreement that these generally non-lethal cancers are produced by UV-B. The EPA assumes that a 1% increase in UV-B radiation would lead to a 2% increase in the incidence of NMSC. This is again an overestimate by perhaps a factor of ten--for the following reasons:

The EPA numbers are derived by noting that the incidence of NMSC is 5 times greater in Albuquerque than in Seattle, while calculated (clear-sky) UV intensity increases by a factor of 2.5. But one cannot simply relate the ratio of skin cancers to the ratio of UV-B. EPA's high ratio of 2:1 hides two unjustified assumptions: (i) that the fraction of clear days in Seattle is equal to that in Albuquerque, and (ii) that people in Albuquerque walk around in raincoats rather than short-sleeved shirts and typically get no more body exposure per day than people in Seattle. When these two assumptions are allowed for, the skin cancer-to-UV ratio may well drop by a large factor. Additionally, in deriving its mortality figures, EPA assumes that people's future behavior will not change: i.e., (i) people will not learn to protect themselves from the sun; and (ii) people will not seek medical treatment for skin cancer.

4. EPA cost-benefit analyses: EPA witness Mary Nichols quoted benefit numbers (for avoiding a hypothetical ozone depletion) of up to $32 trillion (!) and benefit-cost ratios of 1000 ! No backup was presented for these truly amazing numbers-- which should be subjected to scrutiny by appropriate experts.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to amplify my testimony. I will be pleased to provide ny further information.

Sincerely yours,

S. Fred Singer