In awarding the 1995 Nobel Prize in chemistry to the originators of the stratospheric ozone depletion hypothesis, the Swedish Academy of Sciences has chosen to make a political statement. Quoting from the citation: "The three researchers have contributed to our salvation from a global environmental problem that could have catastrophic consequences [emphasis added]." The selection committee evidently decided to reward global environmentalism rather than a fundamental advance in the basic science of chemistry.

An Oct. 13, 1995 New York Times editorial acknowledged, with obvious approval, that politics played a role in the award. The Associated Press on Oct. 12, 1995 quoted Henning Rohde, a member of the Swedish Academy, as saying: "The timing is good in view of the [December 1995] Vienna meeting [to tighten the provisions of the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer]." He added: "I personally hope that the Nobel prize will put some pressure on the participants [to speed up the production ban on CFCs and other chemicals]."

Regrettably, Rohde's comments also point to the use of the award to stifle ongoing scientific disputes that can be resolved only with more conclusive data. He acknowledged the existence of these disputes but opined that "the Nobel prize will put a rest to this debate on whether the ozone hole [sic] really is a result of CFCs."

Antarctic Hole Not The Issue

Rohde sets up a straw man: The controversy does not center on the Antarctic ozone "hole"—which, though genuine, is merely a temporary and localized thinning. Rather: How good is the evidence for a claimed trend of global ozone depletion? [Answer: Debatable; see S.F. Singer, Science, 261:1101, 1993.] Are the observations sound? [Answer: Disputed.] Is the record of sufficient length to eliminate the large natural variations? [Answer: Doubtful.] Is there any credible evidence for a long-term upward trend of ultraviolet radiation at the Earth's surface? [Answer: No, it is based on faulty statistical analysis; see P.J. Michaels, S.F. Singer, P.C. Knappenberger, Science, 264:1341-2, 1994.] Can one accept the projected skin cancer fi-ures used by the Environmental Protection Agency to estimate the future benefits of a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) ban? [Answer: No, the figures are in conflict with solid laboratory data; see R.B. Setlow et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 90:6666-7O, 1993].

Further research will likely prove the CFC-ozone issue to have been a minor environmental problem. In the meantime, hasty policies to ban CFC production by the end of 1995, though a financial windfall for chemical companies and appliance manufacturers that sell replacements, will impose substantial economic costs—up to $ 100 billion—on U.S. consumers and make life worse for the poor, who depend on cheap refrigeration, especially in developing nations.

Partisan Overtones

The debate over ozone science has, unfortunately, acquired partisan overtones. Al Gore now attacks the Republican Congress for pursuing an "environmental jihad" on this issue, and editorial page editors vilify Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) and Tom DeLay (R-Texas) for having the temerity to question the science supporting the CFC ban and asking to hear both sides of the debate. Ad hominem attacks are replacing reasoned discussion.

Editorial writers still confuse the Antarctic ozone hole with global depletion—not surprising, given comments like Rohde's—and accept at face value the catastrophic rhetoric of the United Nations World Meteorological Organization (WMO): "[The 1995 Antarctic ozone hole is] growing at its fastest rate ever, perhaps to unsurpassed size" (WMO statement, September 1995). This echoes the Swedish Academy statement and earlier hype by a National Science Founda-tion official (quoted in the Manchester Guardian, March 16, 1995): "It's terrifying. If these holes keep growing like this, they'll eventually eat the world."

The final word on the state of the Antarctic hole in 1995 was given in a news story in the Oct. 20, 1995 issue of Science (R.A. Kerr, 270:376, 1995). It reported no observed increase over 1994 and no further increases in future years, according to model calculations. How many newspapers carried this upbeat story? And why should we have any confidence in future statements by WMO? It's well to remember also that WMO spon-sored the report Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1994, frequently invoked as authoritative in support of a ban on CFCs. It is noteworthy that the WMO assessment does not address squarely the full spectrum of human activities that can deplete ozone in the lower stratosphere (where most of the ozone resides), concentrating instead on CFCs and other halocarbons.

Time and again, journalists have run with a story that amounts to little more than "science by press release." They have succumbed to tales of blind sheer and rabbits, plankton death, and the disappearance of frogs—all blamed on ozone depletion. Yet a little common sense could help to stem the tide of scare stories, punitive regulations, and politically motivated Nobel prizes.

From the very outset it has been clear that the feared global ozone depletion would lead to a trivial increase of ultraviolet radiation at the Earth's surface, equivalent to moving just 60 miles closer to the equator, the distance from Washington to Richmond. (UV increases naturally by some 5,000 percent between pole and equator—as the sun angle gets steeper.) This equivalence has been openly acknowledged by ozone scientists in press conferences and congressional hearings. It puts the lie to fears of cataract epidemics, immune system failures, and various ecological disasters.

The problem now is that the action of the Swedish Academy, with the science still unsettled, is being promoted as a scientific endorsement, not only of ozone depletion theory but also of all of the horror stories put out by activist groups. Unfortunately, it legitimizes extreme policies in order to achieve "salvation" from nonexistent "catastrophes."