If I had a billion dollars to save the ozone layer …

The scene: A backyard barbeque on a lazy Sunday afternoon. After downing too many burgers too quickly, Pat, Riley, Sasha, Tory and Vic are shooting the breeze. A housecat wanders through, settling down on Riley’s lap, and immediately, Pat reaches for an asthma inhaler.

Riley: Pat, are you still using one of those evil ozone-destroying metered dose inhalers? If I had a billion dollars to save the ozone layer, I’d spend it all to get rid of those asthma inhalers. With every puff you take, you’re ejecting more freons into the atmosphere, bringing the rest of us one step closer to succumbing to skin cancer.

Pat: You’re right. This is still the same old over the counter inhaler, and I do feel guilty. I’m stuck, because I don't really have enough money for doctors and prescriptions, and it works for me, especially on those days when the ozone levels are really high. Hey, now what do you think about that? Maybe all the millions of inhalers out there could actually cut down on the ozone?

Riley: No, no. You're thinking of the bad ozone down here at ground level. The ozone your inhaler is messing up is way up high in the atmosphere and is really important for protecting us all from the sun. Anyhow, the FDA just said that by 2008 you're going to have to find a replacement for your inhaler regardless.

Pat: Well, OK, you're right about the good and bad ozone. But asthma inhalers are really only a tiny source of ozone destroying chemicals. If I had a billion dollars to save the ozone layer, I’d worry more about methyl bromide, which is not only an ozone destroyer but also toxic to humans.

Tory: Don’t dump on methyl bromide. It may destroy ozone, but methyl bromide is also an important pesticide and fumigant. It's on target to be banned completely by 2005, and after that date, it will be allowed through “critical use exemptions” only when no other technology exists. That means it will probably be used only for emergency fumigation to meet import/export requirements and keep businesses in operation. I don’t think methyl bromide is such a big problem.

If I had a billion dollars to save the ozone layer, I’d worry more about forcing individuals and U.S. corporations to really adhere to the rules laid out by the Montreal Protocol. In the U.S., air conditioners and refrigerators built before 1996 use CFCs, but the CFCs aren’t a problem as long as they don’t leak out into the atmosphere. Current EPA rules prohibit venting refrigerant to the atmosphere, yet every year there are plenty of violations. In June 2001, a hotel in Salt Lake city was fined $216,000 for cutting a bunch of old refrigerant lines. But for everyone who is caught violating the laws, there must be dozens more who get away with destroying the ozone layer. I’d put my money into enforcement.

Sasha: I agree that enforcement matters, but the problems in the U.S. are trivial compared with what developing nations face. If you remember, developing countries never wanted to adhere to the Montreal Protocol in the first place. They complained that developed countries in North America and Europe had the privilege of building their powerful economies in whatever ways they could, polluting as much as they wanted as they went. Not surprisingly, developing countries think they shouldn’t have to suffer economic hardship to help the planet recover from problems that they didn’t create.

Developing countries negotiated a special status for the Montreal Protocol. They are allowed an extra 10 years before they have to stop using CFCs. Developing countries also receive considerable economic aid to help them develop CFC-free industries. But nobody is really adhering to the new rules. Developed countries are dumping old technology in developing countries. For example, second-hand European refrigerators were sold in Zambia for years after they were banned in Europe. And phasing out CFC productions is taking more time than it should. According to Greenpeace, India says that, “unless the North (developed countries) compensates it for not building new CFC plants, it will go ahead and build them.” If I had a billion dollars to save the ozone layer, I’d put my money into United Nations aid programs.

Vic: Forget saving the ozone layer. We can talk all we want about what should be done, but the political process is functioning well. The Montreal Protocol is renegotiated regularly. New technology is coming on board. To my mind, the biggest problem now is that the ozone layer isn’t going to recover nearly as fast as scientists initially thought. We might have to wait 45 years before we even seen signs that the ozone layer is recovering, and unfortunately global warming could slow the recovery. If I had a billion dollars, I’d spend it on education. We should be staying inside, wearing big hats and slathering on sunscreen to protect ourselves from the sun’s harmful rays. Speaking of which, could you pass that bottle of Coppertone?

. . . . . . .

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/health/20060124-1432-asthmainhalers.html

FDA panel recommends federal ban on nonprescription asthma inhalers that harm ozone

By Andrew Bridges

ASSOCIATED PRESS

2:32 p.m. January 24, 2006

WASHINGTON – Millions of nonprescription inhalers used for decades by asthma sufferers, often against the advice of doctors, could be taken off drugstore shelves because they contain propellants that harm the ozone layer.

An advisory panel voted 11-7 Tuesday to recommend that the Food and Drug Administration remove the "essential use" status that Primatene Mist and other similar nonprescription inhalers require to be sold, spokeswoman Laura Alvey said. Final revocation of that status would mean a de facto ban on their sale.

The FDA usually follows the advice of its outside panels of experts, though a decision can take months. If the agency opts to follow the recommendation, it would begin a rulemaking process that would include public comment, Alvey said.

Wyeth Consumer Healthcare estimates that 3 million Americans use Primatene Mist for mild or intermittent cases of asthma, spokesman Fran Sullivan said. About two-thirds also use a prescription inhaler but rely on Primatene as a backup. Another 700,000 use the inhalers because they don't have a prescription or lack health insurance, he said.

The company is the biggest maker of epinephrine inhalers, with $43 million in sales last year. The drug opens air passages to the lungs to relieve temporarily wheezing, shortness of breath and troubled breathing, according to the FDA.

The over-the-counter inhalers proposed to be banned contain the drug epinephrine along with chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, which propel the medicine into the lungs of asthmatics.

CFCs were long used as aerosol propellants in a variety of products but are being phased out because they harm the Earth's protective ozone layer. In March, the FDA said inhalers using CFCs to dispense the prescription drug albuterol would be banned at the end of 2008.

On Tuesday, Wyeth asked that the FDA stay any such ban on Primatene Mist until it is ready to market an approved CFC-free version, said its representative, Dr. Sumon Wason. Wyeth hopes to have such an inhaler ready for sale in 2009 or 2010, Wason added.

"We were asking for time to continue with the reformulation process," Wason said following the vote, adding that the company would try to negotiate a delay.

Many doctors question whether over-the-counter inhalers like Primatene Mist should even be sold. Most recommend the use of prescription albuterol inhalers.

"I'd like to see it go away, personally, because I'd like to see people get proper treatment and I think people who are using Primatene are not," said Dr. Kathleen Sheerin, an allergist with the Atlanta Allergy & Asthma Clinic.

Tuesday's vote was only to consider whether Primatene Mist and similar inhalers can be considered an "essential" use of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons. That's a requirement if they are to be legally distributed.

Wyeth, based in Madison, N.J., argued that its product meets the three criteria needed for it to be considered essential.

"It provides an important public health benefit, there's no other OTC alternative to CFC epinephrine inhalers, and the environmental risk from the release of CFCs from Primatene is small and justified given the benefit it provides," Sullivan said.

One of the concerns with Primatene, which has been used since the 1960s, is its effect on the heart, said Tim Op't Holt, a respiratory therapist with Victory Health Partners, a Mobile, Ala., clinic for uninsured patients.

"It's like putting a tack in the wall with a sledgehammer, because epinephrine has such a potent cardiovascular effect," Op't Holt said.

Sullivan said, "The reality is, if every patient could have access to prescription products, it would probably serve them better."

-------------

Questions:

1. What is your character's point of view on ozone mitigation? Look for technical or scientific information related to that point of view and summarize. (Credible resources)

2. This dialogue mentions two types of ozone-destroying chemicals: methyl bromide and CFC (technically chlorofluorocarbon and also known by its trade name, Freon). What uses of each are mentioned here? What other uses do you know of?

3. What international treaty was written to preserve the ozone layer? Why is the ozone layer important?

4. As a group, based on what you know now, if you had a billion dollars, what strategies would you recommend to “save the ozone layer”? What additional information do you need to more thoroughly consider this question?

Some weblinks, but please pursue your own searches as well:

American Lung Association

US Environmental Protection Agency methyl bromide

US Environmental Protection Agency critical use exemptions

United Nations Environmental Programme (do your own searches)

Links from the ozone lecture