Georgetown Debate Seminar 2011Ozone Depletion DA RBDD Lab

1NC—OZONE DA (WITH STRATOSATS CP)The ozone is recovering now, but can still be damaged SN 11 (Science News, “Ozone hole on the mend” http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/74280/title/Ozone_hole_on_the_mend //Donnie)

Scientists may have spotted Antarctica’s ozone hole on the road to recovery , at least a decade sooner than they thought healing would be noticeable. In 1989, an international agreement called the Montreal Protocol began phasing out chemicals that have gnawed away at Earth’s protective ozone layer . Most researchers thought it would take until at least 2023 to detect the hole’s slow recovery, but researchers in Australia now claim to have seen ozone ticking upward since the late 19 90s . “The key is to account for large year-to-year fluctuations that have obscured a gradual increase in the long-term evolution of ozone,” says atmospheric scientist Murry Salby of Macquarie University in Sydney. His team published its findings online May 6 in Geophysical Research Letters. First spotted in 1985, the Antarctic ozone hole was quickly linked to chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons, emitted mainly in the Northern Hemisphere but concentrated over the South Pole by atmospheric circulation patterns. Chlorine atoms from these CFCs react with ozone molecules, seasonally destroying the layer that shields Earth from cancer-causing and crop-damaging ultraviolet radiation. Scientists had predicted that ozone loss would bottom out and start recovering by now. They just didn’t think they would be able detect that change yet, since ozone levels vary dramatically from year to year because of complex atmospheric processes, sometimes by almost as much as the magnitude of the ozone hole itself. To better understand these year-to-year ozone fluctuations, Salby’s team looked at “dynamical” influences such as waves that ripple through the planet’s atmosphere much like the ocean’s swells. The researchers found that winter dynamical factors closely tracked how much ozone was depleted the following spring. In essence, these processes control how much chlorine breaks away from CFCs each winter, which determines how much ozone will later disappear. Knowing what caused these year-to-year changes, the scientists could then subtract them out, unmasking the long-term signal of ozone. After plummeting since the analysis began in 1979, that signal leveled off and began creeping up after 1996, Salby says. Using different analytical techniques, other scientists have reported seeing a slowdown in the rate of ozone decline, but not an actual recovery. Not all experts are convinced by the new work. The link between year-to-year dynamics and ozone levels seems strong now but could change on further analysis, says Darryn Waugh, an atmospheric scientist at Johns Hopkins University. “I expect Antarctic ozone to be slowly recovering,” he says, “but would have thought that we need several more years of data to statistically show this.” Atmospheric chemist Paul Young of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., agrees. “My response is slightly cautious, ” he says. “It’s a bold claim.” Salby says he’s confident t he ozone uptick represents a real trend; it has gone on almost as long as the decline observed during the 1980s and 1990 s. He now wants to develop a way to better predict future ozone levels. Whether or not the ozone hole has been spotted recovering, its long-term prognosis calls for many more decades of sick leave ; it is not expected to heal fully before 2070. The northern pole is also having its own ozone issues; this spring, ozone thinned over the Arctic more than scientists have ever seen (SN: 4/9/11, p. 12).

Each launch harms the ozone layer – StratoSats are the alternative.Selby ‘11Darin – Internally quoting Dr. Helen Calodicott and The UTNE Reader – Darin is the AVP Sales & Marketing, Kansas City Southern Railway – Coal and Petroleum Coke Business Unit. Mr. Selby holds a master of business administration and a bachelor of science in business management from Emporia State University. He was recently named by Emporia State University Business School as an Outstanding Alumni – Float to Space – May 17th http://darinselby.1hwy.com/floattospace.html

An old Turkish proverb says that, no matter how far down the wrong road you have gone, you can always turn back. With the fate of the environment at stake, the entire rocketry and jet program must be replaced by a much more benign way of getting the same job accomplished. By utilizing the laws of buoyancy to our advantage, even concepts such as 'fuelless flight' could happen. NASA space shuttle destroys the ozone layer. Utne Reader, July 1991. “Despite all the coverage given to the growing hole in the ozone layer, little or no attention has been paid to Dr. Helen Caldicott's claim that the space shuttle is one of the ozone layer's biggest destroyers. According to Caldicott, 250 tons of hydrochloric acid are released into the air every time a space shuttle is launched. With each launch, one quarter of 1 percent of the ozone is destroyed. So far, claims Caldicott, the space shuttle has destroyed 10% of the ozone. (July 1991) In addition, two Soviet rocket scientists have warned that the solid-fuel rocket boosters used on the shuttle release 187 tons of ozone-destroying chlorine molecules into the atmosphere with every launch, as well as seven tons of nitrogen (another ozone depleter), 387 tons carbon dioxide (a major contributor to the greenhouse effect), and 177 tons of aluminum oxide (linked to Alzheimer's disease). Other solid-fuel rockets, such as the U.S. Delta rocket, the U.S. Titan, and the French Ariane V, also contribute to ozone destruction. “ It's 'friendly fascism' with the 'please-force' all the way to the bank with these militaristic technologies. So, how could we really get to the edge of space, and not at the expense of Mother Earth? A

1***1NC

Georgetown Debate Seminar 2011Ozone Depletion DA RBDD Labcompany called Aerostar already produces stratospheric balloons that expand like pumpkins when ascending. This pleating technique of the balloon allows it to reach unheard-of altitudes They are capable of carrying a six thousand pound payload to 130,000 feet (24.6 miles) above sea level. At that altitude, the balloons are above 99.5% of the atmosphere and the scientific instruments have an unobstructed view of space. Then, at the edge of space, a type of ion space drive propulsion could be used to travel out further. Imagine how much lighter, less cumbersome and less expensive the entire space program becomes when this rocketry stuff gets the axe (what in the world are they spewing anyway?). Stratospheric ballooncraft could replace most of the requirements for rocket launches. It appears that technology is starting to heal technology's woes. No longer do we need to use force to get out there at the expense of the environment. Now we can get invited out to the edge of space, and at a fraction of the cost of rocketry.

Extinction Smith and Daniel 99 (Tyrrel W. Smith, Jr., Ph.D. TRW Space & Electronics Group and John R. Edwards Daniel Pilson Environmental Management Branch “Summary of the Impact of Launch Vehicle Exhaust and Deorbiting Space and Meteorite Debris on Stratospheric Ozone” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA414306 //Donnie) The ozone layer is critical to life on Earth because it absorbs biologically damaging solar ultraviolet radiation. The amount of solar UV radiation received at any particular location on the Earth’s surface depends upon the position of the Sun above the horizon, the amount of ozone in the atmosphere, and local cloudiness and pollution. Scientists agree that, in the absence of changes in clouds or pollution, decreases in atmospheric ozone lead to increases in ground-level UV radiation (Martin [1998], WMO [1998]). Prior to the late 1980s, instruments with the necessary accuracy and stability for measurement of small long-term trends in ground-level UV-B were not available. Therefore, the data from urban locations with older, less-specialized instruments provide much less reliable information, especially since simultaneous measurements of changes in cloudiness or local pollution are not available. When high-quality measurements were made in other areas far from major cities and their associated air pollution, decreases in ozone have regularly been accompanied by increases in UV-B (WMO [1998]). Therefore, this increase in ultraviolet radiation received at the Earth's surface would likely increase the incidence of skin cancer and melanoma, as well as possibly impairing the human immune system (Kerr et al., [1993]). Damage to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems also may occur (Martin [1998], WMO [1998]).

2

Georgetown Debate Seminar 2011Ozone Depletion DA RBDD Lab

1NC—OZONE DA (WITHOUT STRATOSATS CP) The ozone is recovering now, but can still be damaged SN 11 (Science News, “Ozone hole on the mend” http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/74280/title/Ozone_hole_on_the_mend //Donnie)

Scientists may have spotted Antarctica’s ozone hole on the road to recovery, at least a decade sooner than they thought healing would be noticeable. In 1989, an international agreement called the Montreal Protocol began phasing out chemicals that have gnawed away at Earth’s protective ozone layer. Most researchers thought it would take until at least 2023 to detect the hole’s slow recovery, but researchers in Australia now claim to have seen ozone ticking upward since the late 1990s. “The key is to account for large year-to-year fluctuations that have obscured a gradual increase in the long-term evolution of ozone,” says atmospheric scientist Murry Salby of Macquarie University in Sydney. His team published its findings online May 6 in Geophysical Research Letters. First spotted in 1985, the Antarctic ozone hole was quickly linked to chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons, emitted mainly in the Northern Hemisphere but concentrated over the South Pole by atmospheric circulation patterns. Chlorine atoms from these CFCs react with ozone molecules, seasonally destroying the layer that shields Earth from cancer-causing and crop-damaging ultraviolet radiation. Scientists had predicted that ozone loss would bottom out and start recovering by now. They just didn’t think they would be able detect that change yet, since ozone levels vary dramatically from year to year because of complex atmospheric processes, sometimes by almost as much as the magnitude of the ozone hole itself. To better understand these year-to-year ozone fluctuations, Salby’s team looked at “dynamical” influences such as waves that ripple through the planet’s atmosphere much like the ocean’s swells. The researchers found that winter dynamical factors closely tracked how much ozone was depleted the following spring. In essence, these processes control how much chlorine breaks away from CFCs each winter, which determines how much ozone will later disappear. Knowing what caused these year-to-year changes, the scientists could then subtract them out, unmasking the long-term signal of ozone. After plummeting since the analysis began in 1979, that signal leveled off and began creeping up after 1996, Salby says. Using different analytical techniques, other scientists have reported seeing a slowdown in the rate of ozone decline, but not an actual recovery. Not all experts are convinced by the new work. The link between year-to-year dynamics and ozone levels seems strong now but could change on further analysis, says Darryn Waugh, an atmospheric scientist at Johns Hopkins University. “I expect Antarctic ozone to be slowly recovering,” he says, “but would have thought that we need several more years of data to statistically show this.” Atmospheric chemist Paul Young of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., agrees. “My response is slightly cautious,” he says. “It’s a bold claim.” Salby says he’s confident the ozone uptick represents a real trend; it has gone on almost as long as the decline observed during the 1980s and 1990s. He now wants to develop a way to better predict future ozone levels. Whether or not the ozone hole has been spotted recovering, its long-term prognosis calls for many more decades of sick leave; it is not expected to heal fully before 2070. The northern pole is also having its own ozone issues; this spring, ozone thinned over the Arctic more than scientists have ever seen (SN: 4/9/11, p. 12).

Every satellite launch has adverse impacts on the ozone—the impact is total destruction GL 91 (Green Left, “Rockets destroying ozone layer, say scientists” http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/1487 //Donnie)

Two Soviet rocket scientists have warned that the solid fuel rocket boosters used on the US space shuttle release 187 tons of ozone-destroying chlorine molecules into the atmosphere with every launch . Valery Burdakov, co-designer of the Russian "Energiya" rocket engine, pointed out that each shuttle launch produces seven tons of nitrogen (another ozone depleter), 387 tons of carbon dioxide (a major contributor to the greenhouse effect) and 177 tons of aluminium oxide (linked to Alzheimer's disease) before reaching an altitude of 31 miles. Burdakov also notes that the history of ozone depletion correlates closely with the increase of chlorine discharged by solid fuel rockets since 1981 . Soviet rockets employ a fuel combination that is 2000 times less damaging than the shuttle's but which still destroys 1500 tons of ozone per launch. According to Burdakov and his colleague, Vyacheslav Filin, a single shuttle launch can destroy as much as 10 million tons of ozone. This means that 300 total shuttle flights will completely destroy the Earth's protective ozone shield. All other solid fuel rockets also contribute to ozone destruction. Near the top of the list are the US Delta rocket (which destroys 8 million tons per launch), the US Titan, and the French Ariane V. In an article published originally in South, Burdakov warned that, at present rates of increase, rockets will soon be pouring 100,000 tons of chlorine and nitrogen into the atmosphere annually. Extinction Smith and Daniel 99 (Tyrrel W. Smith, Jr., Ph.D. TRW Space & Electronics Group and John R. Edwards Daniel Pilson Environmental Management Branch “Summary of the Impact of Launch Vehicle Exhaust and Deorbiting Space and Meteorite Debris on Stratospheric Ozone” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA414306 //Donnie)

3

Georgetown Debate Seminar 2011Ozone Depletion DA RBDD Lab The ozone layer is critical to life on Earth because it absorbs biologically damaging solar ultraviolet radiation. The amount of solar UV radiation received at any particular location on the Earth’s surface depends upon the position of the Sun above the horizon, the amount of ozone in the atmosphere, and local cloudiness and pollution. Scientists agree that, in the absence of changes in clouds or pollution, decreases in atmospheric ozone lead to increases in ground-level UV radiation (Martin [1998], WMO [1998]). Prior to the late 1980s, instruments with the necessary accuracy and stability for measurement of small long-term trends in ground-level UV-B were not available. Therefore, the data from urban locations with older, less-specialized instruments provide much less reliable information, especially since simultaneous measurements of changes in cloudiness or local pollution are not available. When high-quality measurements were made in other areas far from major cities and their associated air pollution, decreases in ozone have regularly been accompanied by increases in UV-B (WMO [1998]). Therefore, this increase in ultraviolet radiation received at the Earth's surface would likely increase the incidence of skin cancer and melanoma, as well as possibly impairing the human immune system (Kerr et al., [1993]). Damage to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems also may occur (Martin [1998], WMO [1998]).

4

Georgetown Debate Seminar 2011Ozone Depletion DA RBDD Lab

IMPACT CALCULUS Destruction of the ozone makes extinction inevitable—we will all be exposed to harmful radioactive rays.

It also devastates terrestrial bio-d, extinction David N. Diner, Major in the Judge Advocate General's Corps of the United States Army, 1994 (“The Army And The Endangered Species Act: Who's Endangering Whom?,” Military Law Review (143 Mil. L. Rev. 161), Winter, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Lexis-Nexis)

4. Biological Diversity. – The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. 77 As the current mass extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. 78 [*173] Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." 79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, 80 mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.

And, it destroys the oceans, that’s Smith, extinction Robin Kundis Craig, Associate Professor of Law at the Indiana University School of Law, 2003 (“Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection? Fishing and Coral Reef Marine Reserves in Florida and Hawaii,” McGeorge Law Review (34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155), Winter, Available Online via Subscribing Institutions via Lexis-Nexis)

Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally, "ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265] Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860 Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much: if we kill

5***IMPACT

Georgetown Debate Seminar 2011Ozone Depletion DA RBDD Labthe ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us. The Black Sea is almost dead, n863 its once-complex and productive ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, "starving out fish and dolphins, emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of jelly." n864 More importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily unique.

Adopt the precautionary principal or we risk extinction Mikhailov 4 (A.A. Mikhailov Yu.G. Shafer Institute of Cosmophysical Research and Aeronomy, 31 Lenin Ave., 677891 Yakutsk, Russia “Ozone Layer and the Formation of the Ozone Hole” http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0401/0401135.pdf //Donnie)

If we now take no precautions, the following situation can occur. After a time, extraterrestrial people will arrive on our lifeless Earth and see a placard "No rockets!" One of the new-comers will say the another "Evidently, they realized the danger starting from the rockets, but here just one of the ozone holes covered them”.

6

Georgetown Debate Seminar 2011Ozone Depletion DA RBDD Lab

LINEAR IMPACT MODULEEach launch causes a quantifiable increase in skin cancer deaths.Caldicott ‘4Dr. Helen Mary Caldicott is an Australian physician, author, and anti-nuclear advocate who has founded several associations. She has been awarded 20 honorary doctoral degrees and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling. The Smithsonian Institution has named Caldicott as one of the most influential women of the 20th century – from her book – The new nuclear danger: George W. Bush's military-industrial complex – page 143 Solid fuel used in U.S. rockets and in the space shuttle releases chlorine atoms into the stratosphere. The space shuttle, for example, releases 240 tons of concentrated hydrochloric acid (HCI) at each launch. Chlorine, which splits off from the HCI molecule, is the substance that combines with and destroys ozone molecules. Scientists in 1989 predicted that if NASA continued to launch solid-fuel rockets boosters at a rate of ten per year, this would induce a 10 percent depletion in the ozone layer by 2005. Yet the number of civilian and military launches have increased alarmingly since that prediction was made. (For each 1 percent decrease in stratospheric ozone there will be a 4 to 6 percent increase in skin cancer. We are experiencing these effects in Australia, where we see a proliferation of skin-cancer clinics within our cities, and where the hole in the ozone layer of the southern hemisphere was larger in the year 2000 than ever before).

Each time is independently bad—the impact is linear ozone destruction Siegel 90 (Lenny, is the chief researcher for the National toxics Campaign Fund’s Military Toxics Project. “No Free Launch” pg 24, from mother jones magazine, accessed by means of google books, Donnie) Puncturing the ozone: Any time NASA or the air force successfully launches a solid rocket, tens of thousands of pounds of chlorine, in the form of hydrogen chloride, are delivered directly to the stratosphere, where they help shred the ozone layer. Each shuttle launch directly delivers 150,000 pounds of chlorine to the upper atmosphere. While the protectors rightfully focus on limiting emissions of CFC-113 by electronic and other factories, consider this: every two shuttle launches deliver to the stratosphere far more ozone-depleting chemicals than a years worth of CFC-113 from California’s worst factory offender.

7

Georgetown Debate Seminar 2011Ozone Depletion DA RBDD Lab

WARMING IMPACT MODULE Ozone destruction causes global warming Mikhailov 4 (A.A. Mikhailov Yu.G. Shafer Institute of Cosmophysical Research and Aeronomy, 31 Lenin Ave., 677891 Yakutsk, Russia “Ozone Layer and the Formation of the Ozone Hole” http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0401/0401135.pdf //Donnie)

As it was reported in newspapers several years ago, one fine day above the southern region of Chile, near Punta-Arenas the ozone hole is appeared. As a result of the ultraviolet action, the hundreds of cows and sheep’s became blinded, people caught burns. Also, the decrease of the total thickness of the ozone layer will cause the noticeable warming of climate, because ozone takes an active part in the creation of a frame effect. Thereby, the significant changes of weather in some regions of the Earth, floods, a higher of the ocean water level and other very serious consequences would be expected. As a result of people activities, more and more pollution substances penetrate into the atmosphere. A part of these substances is harmful for ozone, promoting its destruction. Among these are the compounds of nitrogen, hydrogen and chlorine. Nitrogen penetrates into the atmosphere in the shape of nitrogenous oxides, when nitrogenous fertilizers are used and at an ejection of spent gases in flights of high-altitude airplanes. The enterprises emitting methane into the atmosphere and also the flights of the highaltitude airplanes and rockets are the major contributes of hydrogen compounds. Chlorine penetrates into the atmosphere as a result of the use of chlorine’s organic components, first of all freon, in the home and industrially.

8

Georgetown Debate Seminar 2011Ozone Depletion DA RBDD Lab

OZONE RECOVERING Ozone Hole trending in the right direction now.Witze ‘11Alexandra Witze is a senior news and features editor at Nature magazine in Washington, D.C. She covered the physical sciences for The Dallas Morning News – Science News, June 4th, 2011; Vol.179 #12 (p. 15) – http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/74280/title/Ozone_hole_on_the_mend

Scientists may have spotted Antarctica’s ozone hole on the road to recovery, at least a decade sooner than they thought healing would be noticeable. In 1989, an international agreement called the Montreal Protocol began phasing out chemicals that have gnawed away at Earth’s protective ozone layer. Most researchers thought it would take until at least 2023 to detect the hole’s slow recovery, but researchers in Australia now claim to have seen ozone ticking upward since the late 1990s.

Ozone layer will recover fully by 2048—UV and CFC reductionFirth 10 [Niall, 9/21/10, UK daily mail, “Ozone layer 'is no longer disappearing and will return to full strength by 2048', says UN report”, http://www.sott.net/articles/show/215411-Ozone-layer-is-no-longer-disappearing-and-will-return-to-full-strength-by-2048-says-UN-report

The ozone layer is no longer disappearing and could be back to full strength by the middle of this century, UN scientists have confirmed. The phasing out of nearly 100 substances once used in products like refrigerators and aerosols has stopped the ozone layer being depleted further, although it is not yet increasing, according to a new United Nations report released last week. Comment: This was the forerunner to man-made global warming. They tried to convince us that the ozone layer was disappearing because of people's fridges. Now that the ozone layer has replenished itself, they can tell us that their measures to control our choices were successful and thus play the same game with 'global warming' aka man-made climate change. Temperatures are plummeting in time for them to congratulate themselves on successfully "reducing carbon emissions." This self-styled "success" will spur them on to increase the draconian measures until millions, if not billions more, are starving and freezing to death. The models used to produce these results are entirely self-referencing; very little empirical measurements taken from the real world are actually used in the production of these reports, which are thinly disguised policy documents masquerading as scientific discovery. And it claimed that international efforts to protect the ozone layer has averted millions of cases of skin cancer worldwide. The ozone layer outside the polar regions is projected to recover to pre-1980 levels by 2048, although the annual springtime ozone hole over the Antarctic is not expected to recover until 2073. Ozone in the stratosphere is important because it absorbs some of the Sun's dangerous ultraviolet radiation. The report, published jointly by UNEP and the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is the first comprehensive update in four years on the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol phasing out chemicals which accelerate both ozone layer damage and climate change. 'It (the Protocol) has protected the stratospheric ozone layer from much higher levels of depletion by phasing out production and consumption of ozone depleting substances,' said the report. The report was written and reviewed by 300 scientists and launched on the UN International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer. Given that many substances that deplete the ozone layer are also potent greenhouse gases, the Montreal Protocol 'provided substantial co-benefits by reducing climate change,' it added. In 2010, reductions of ozone-depleting substances as a result of the Protocol, were five times larger than those targeted by the Kyoto Protocol, the greenhouse emissions reduction treaty. 'Without the Montreal Protocol and its associated Vienna Convention atmospheric levels of ozone-depleting substances could have increased tenfold by 2050,' Mr Steiner said. 'This in turn could have led to up to 20 million more cases of skin cancer and 130 million more cases of eye cataracts, not to speak of damage to human immune systems, wildlife and agriculture.' 

Ozone layer improving- nations working together to save it.Stephen 11 [David, 6/26/11, Ground Report, “Ozone layer recovery”, http://www.groundreport.com/Health_and_Science/Ozone-Layer-Recovery/2939809]

Away from the theory that depleted parts of the Ozone Layer will be naturally repaired in the middle of the 21st century, a developing research work on Ozone Hole Recovery presents an artificial solution before the datemark. The ozone layer is a space of gas found in a layer of the Earth atmosphere, the stratosphere, 19-48km above sea level. Photochemical reactions involving ozone gas at the ozone layer helps to protect planet Earth from dangerous Ultraviolet radiations. Some gas molecules released in substances used by humans once at the ozone layer react with ozone molecules forming

9***UNIQUENESS

Georgetown Debate Seminar 2011Ozone Depletion DA RBDD Labcompounds that cannot protect against harmful Ultraviolet radiations, making the amounts of useful ozone molecules reduced. This lead to what was observed many years back as depletion in part of the ozone layer fondly called the ozone hole. Since this threatened man and the environment, nations   agreed to reduce the use of substances   having gas molecules that   are threat to the ozone layer; this made   ozone layer protection important till date. For factors and conditions of the ozone layer, scientists have posited natural recovery of lost ozone molecules and fade out of harmful gases in use and at that level to about 50years time.   This has   turned   the   focus   to protection from here than recovery from there.

Montreal Protocol was successful- Ozone layer is rebuilding itself.India Express 11 [News channel in India, 5/17/11, IE, “Ozone hole over Antarctica on the road to recovery” http://www.indianexpress.com/news/ozone-hole-over-antarctica-on-the-road-to-recovery/791986/]

Researchers in Australia have claimed that the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica is on the road to recovery, 22 years after the Montreal Protocol to ban chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and related ozone-destroying chemicals came into force. The team is the first to detect a recovery in baseline average springtime ozone levels in the region. "I think this is the first convincing observationally-derived evidence of the ozone rebound," the Nature quoted Adrian McDonald, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand, as saying. "It's the first where the statistical significance is high enough, and you can see the pattern well enough, that you feel comfortable in believing it," added McDonald. The results of Murry Salby, an environmental scientist at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, revealed a fast decline in ozone levels until the late 1990s, then a slow rebound that closely matches what theoretical calculations had predicted, said David Karoly, a climate scientist at the University of Melbourne, Australia. "It is the sort of result that was expected, but is the first to provide detection of an increase in Antarctic ozone levels," he said. Salby's data reveal that average springtime Antarctic ozone levels have already recovered by 15 percent since the late 1990s. However, projecting forward, natural weather-related fluctuations mean that even as late as 2085, ozone will still drop below 1980 levels for at least one year in every 10.

Ozone depletion is the thing of the past- drastically improving now.GGZ 11 [ALEX, FOUNDER AND PRIMARY CONTRIBUTOR TO GO GREEN ZINE, 6/19/11 , “DEPLETION OF THE OZONE LAYER OVER ANTARCTICA IS A THING OF THE PAST” HTTP://WWW.GOGREENZINE.COM/DEPLETION-OZONE-LAYER-ANTARCTICA/]

Depletion of the ozone layer above Antarctica may now be in reversal. Researchers in Australia believe they have detected a shrinking of the ozone hole a full decade before they expected to. Thanks to the Montreal Protocol in 1989, an international decision to curb production of ozone depleting chemicals, the ozone layer now appears to be recovering. Under the Montreal Protocol, the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), a once popular refrigerant and major contributor to the depletion of the ozone layer, was completely banned. While this does seem to be good news, not all scientists are convinced by the data. In addition, the Arctic recently experienced a thinning of the ozone layer. The ozone layer is important because it helps to minimize UVB radiation, sunburns and skin cancer. Recently, it was discovered that whales were getting extreme sunburns due to ozone layer depletion. The ozone layer is not expected to fully recover until the year 2070. However, the progress made in addressing this problem proves that international cooperation in tackling a global environmental issue can yield very positive results.

10

Georgetown Debate Seminar 2011Ozone Depletion DA RBDD Lab

SPACE LAUNCH UNIQUENESSLaunches are unique – declining now, many fail, and the Aff is a much higher percentage of overall launches than you’d thinkThai Press Reports – April 8, 2011 – lexis

Although the worldwide number of launches declined for the first time since 2006 (down from 78 in 2009 to 74 in 2010), the number of payloads increased (up from 111 to 118), the report said. Russia led with 31 launches, followed by the U.S. and China, tied at 15 launches each, marking the first time China's launch rate matched the United States'. Despite the growth in the number of nations with space interests, no new nations entered the launch business, although South Korea conducted a second unsuccessful orbital launch attempt.

Global space launches are not that high – 75 launches per year and many do not reach the stratosphere.Florida Space Report ‘10(Internally quoting Space Policy Online – http://spacereport.blogspot.com/2010/01/january-1-2010.html)

There were 75 space launches in 2009, conducted by 10 countries (including Europe/Arianespace). Russia led the pack with 32 launches (all successful), with the U.S. launching 25 rockets (one of them failed). Europe launched seven (all successful), and China launched six (all successful). Japan, India, Iran, North Korea, South Korea, and Israel were also among those who launched (or attempted to launch) rockets into orbit.

11

Georgetown Debate Seminar 2011Ozone Depletion DA RBDD Lab

NORMAL MEANS LINK (SATELLITES AFFS)Normal means for satellite launches to use a much larger launch vehicle.Brown ‘11(Gary – staff at Discovery’s “How Stuff Works”…as in Discovery magazine, Discovery Channel… “How Stuff Works” – http://science.howstuffworks.com/satellite2.htm)

All satellites today get into orbit by riding on a rocket or by riding in the cargo bay of the Space Shuttle. Several countries and businesses have rocket launch capabilities, and satellites as large as several tons make it safely into orbit on a regular basis.

12***LINKS

Georgetown Debate Seminar 2011Ozone Depletion DA RBDD Lab

RUSSIAN LAUNCHES LINKRussian launches not different – they’re also pollutingThe Moscow Times –March 24, 19 99

Russia and other countries that send rockets into space should protect the environment by adopting international regulations limiting the number of launches, a former presidential science adviser said Tuesday. Alexei Yablokov, head of the Center for Environmental Policy, said that pollution from rocket fuel was a major cause of damage to the earth's ozone layer, and that launches also threatened the health of people living under rocket flight paths.

Russia unlikely to switch to green fuels that do not deplete ozoneRussia & CIS Military Weekly –October 17, 2008 – lexis

Experts from the Montreal Protocol on substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer held a working meeting with specialists from the Russian Space Agency (Roscosmos) and Russian space companies in Moscow, Roscosmos said in a press statement posted on the agency's website. The experts' visit was preceded by a decision made in 2008 at the 19th meeting of the Montreal Protocol, which granted Russia quotas for production and consumption in the rocket space industry of CFC113 (chlorofluorohydrocarbon) in the amount of 140 metric tonnes in 2008 and 130 metric tonnes in 2009. International experts were provided with materials required for complying with this decision, the statement said. Alexander Chulkov of Roscosmos said that, "the use of CFC113 in the Russian rocket and space production technology ensure its high reliability proved by hundreds and thousands of successful launches and tests." Any change in the technology requires a lengthy process of approval that new technologies will not reduce the reliability and safety of Russian space rockets and will not affect international programs, including piloted launches to the International Space Station, supplies of Russian engines for U.S. Atlas-5 class carrier rockets, and the launch of a broad range of spacecraft by Russian carrier rockets for many countries, the Roscosmos official said. These programs cover a long-term period and do not involve a switch to new technologies alternative to the use of CFC113, which is quite an important aspect, the Roscosmos official said. "This includes cost issues, cooperation between collaborators, and international obligations," he said.

13

Georgetown Debate Seminar 2011Ozone Depletion DA RBDD Lab

SPS LINK SPS does insane ozone damage Ross et al 9 (Martin Ross The Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles , Darin Toohey University of Colorado , Manfred Peinemann The Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles & Patrick Ross Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University “Limits on the Space Launch Market Related to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion” http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14777620902768867 //Donnie)

Global fleet launch rates sufficiently large to exceed the 0.2% threshold for any propellant type mix are not likely without revolutionary changes in the space industry. We cannot know when or how such changes might come about though serious planning and discussions are ongoing.36 Various proposals for very large space infrastructure projects, space tourism, or RLVs with very high launch rates have been seriously proposed and significant resources have been invested. All of these proposals would result in large launch vehicles with very high launch rates (i.e., daily) and so it is of interest to evaluate them based on their impact on the ozone layer. One often discussed concept is the use of Solar Power Satellite (SPS) systems for electricity production. A recent study37 indicates that the required annual launch demand for an economically viable SPS system would be about 25 kt per year, over many years, perhaps indefinitely. Figure 4 shows that this SPS launch system would be constrained to use liquid propellant systems in order to ensure that DO3 remains below the 0.2% threshold; an SPS launch system could not make significant use of SRMs in the stratosphere. Since we are able to define LRE ozone loss in only approximate term, we cannot rule out that even an all liquid propellant fleet at SPS launch rates might result in significant global total ozone loss, depending on the actual effect of a specific LRE type. The ambiguity of SPS launch illustrates the need for an improved understanding of rocket emissions of all types. With the current knowledge gaps, we cannot predict with any confidence which (indeed, any) large launch or space systems are plausible with respect to ozone depletion.

14

Georgetown Debate Seminar 2011Ozone Depletion DA RBDD Lab

SHUTTLES LINK Shuttles rip holes—that causes extinction Thomas 6 (William, is an award-winning Canadian journalist specializing in health and environment “Scientist Says Chemtrails, Shuttle Launches Endangering Earth” http://www.chemtrails911.com/docs/Space%20Shuttle%20Launch-Ozone%20Layer.htm //Donnie)

After a year or two, Finley said, millions of tons of aluminum oxide in chemtrails and solid-fuel rocket exhausts falls downward to form a new boundary layer between the troposphere and the stratosphere above. According to Finley, these aluminum oxide deposits are allowing the troposphere where we live, and where weather is formed, to push higher into a weakened stratosphere. Storm clouds are characteristically flat on their “anvil” tops because they are hitting the bottom of stratosphere. As the stratosphere weakens, storm tops broaden and rise. As convection updrafts drill upwards from 13 to14 to 15 kilometers, more moisture is sucked higher, where, Finley explained, “incredibly low temperatures holds hail up there become baseball-size killer stuff”—just like the monster hail that hammered Arizona, stripping paint off cars and causing flash floods, in late July 2006. During the past three decades, researchers have measured a cooling of the stratosphere and a warming of the lower troposphere. These changes could affect the height of the tropopause, the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Such a change could, in turn, affect the height of convection currents within the troposphere, such as those associated with thunderstorms, and could possibly affect the intensity of those storms . It might also alter the positions of the planet's jet streams and thus the movement of weather systems. [www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca] The upwards-expanding troposphere is especially invasive of the stratosphere in the hot tropics, Finley added, “where typhoons and hurricanes form.” Comparing the chemtrail and shuttle - shredded ozone layer to “a tire being eroded to core,” Finley warned that an atmospheric “ blowout ” could be fatal to life on Earth .

15

Georgetown Debate Seminar 2011Ozone Depletion DA RBDD Lab

LAUNCH VEHICLES LINKSending junk into space like your aff releases tons of chemicals—they linger and result in catalytic ozone destruction Smith and Daniel 99 (Tyrrel W. Smith, Jr., Ph.D. TRW Space & Electronics Group and John R. Edwards Daniel Pilson Environmental Management Branch “Summary of the Impact of Launch Vehicle Exhaust and Deorbiting Space and Meteorite Debris on Stratospheric Ozone” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA414306 //Donnie)

Rocket launches can affect the atmosphere both in an immediate, episodic manner, and in a long-term, cumulative manner. The stratosphere is affected immediately after launch along the flight trajectory of the launch vehicle ( LV ) for about 60 to 120 seconds, the time required for the LV to pass through the stratosphere. Formed either directly or indirectly from rocket exhaust, radicals , such as Cl, ClO, H, OH, HO2, NO, and NO2, can cause the catalytic destruction of stratospheric ozone. Other exhaust compounds that presumably could lead to ozone destruction either by direct reaction with ozone or by providing a surface for heterogeneous processes include Al2O3 and ice (Hanning-Lee et al., [1996]). While no experimental evidence exists and no work to date has been performed, Lohn et al ., [1999] has suggested that soot may contribute to catalytic ozone destruction in rocket plumes . The emissions from some types of launch vehicles significantly perturb the atmosphere along the launch trajectory at a range of a kilometer or less from the rocket passage. Ozone is temporarily reduced, an aerosol plume may be produced, and combustion products such as NOx, chlorinated compounds, and reactive radicals can temporarily change the normal chemistry along the vehicle path.

16

Georgetown Debate Seminar 2011Ozone Depletion DA RBDD Lab

ROCKET FUEL LINKSkwo space exploration leaves the ozone today—increases by means of space exploration deplete. Ross et al 9 (Martin Ross The Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles , Darin Toohey University of Colorado , Manfred Peinemann The Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles & Patrick Ross Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University “Limits on the Space Launch Market Related to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion” http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14777620902768867 //Donnie)

Combustion emissions from rocket launches change the composition of the atmosphere. The changes can be divided into transient changes near the launch site that affect air quality in the lowermost troposphere and long-term global changes in the composition of the stratosphere. In this paper, we are concerned with the long-term impact of rocket emissions on the global ozone layer. Ozone depletion has been a critical concern of nations across the globe for many decades, and large-scale industrial processes that alter stratospheric composition are assessed with respect to the amount of ozone depletion they would cause. When an assessment suggests unacceptably large ozone loss for a particular process, regulatory actions to limit or modify that process might be enacted to protect the ozone layer.1 In this paper, we consider rocket combustion emissions in the context of ozone layer protection over the next several decades. Our calculations are not a formal assessment, but are a preliminary evaluation to identify the main areas of concern for the space industry. These concerns include risks associated with overly conservative regulation and a suggestion for new research in order to reduce the likelihood of such regulation. Cicerone and Stedman2 first considered rocket emissions as a source of ozone depletion. Subsequent studies have shown consistently that at current launch rates, ozone depletion from rocket exhaust is insignificant compared to other sources of ozone loss.3 If launch rates and ozone depletion from other sources remain at current levels, this assessment will not change. The potential exists that the demand for launch services could increase significantly in the future.4 Large (factors of ten or more) increases in launch demand could come about for a variety of reasons, including national decisions regarding security, enhanced space exploration, market forces associated with significant reductions in launch costs, or the emergence of new markets such as space tourism, manufacturing, or solar power. Analysts generally assume that if the cost of access to orbit is reduced sufficiently, then large, new markets will emerge for space industry and the launch market. This development would be considered revolutionary, and it is not clear when or if, this might occur. Nevertheless, if space transport follows the ‘‘normal’’ development path of transportation technology enters a period of continual expansion, it would be necessary to reconsider the environmental consequences of large rockets, launched often. In this paper, we consider the implication of such significant increase in demand for orbital launches on the global ozone layer.

Rockets release chlorine gas—that kills the ozone National Geographic 9 (“Rocket Launches Damage Ozone Layer, Study Says” http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090414-rockets-ozone.html //Donnie)

But when solid-fuel rockets launch, they release chlorine gas directly into the stratosphere, where the chlorine reacts with oxygen to form ozone-destroying chlorine oxides. Increased international space launches and the potential commercial space travel boom could mean that rockets will soon emerge as the worst offenders in terms of ozone depletion, according to the study, published in the March issue of the journal Astropolitics. If the space tourism industry alone follows market projections, rocket launches are "going to run up against Montreal Protocol," said study co-author Darin Toohey of the University of Colorado at Boulder. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, an international treaty, prescribes measures intended to hasten the recovery of Earth's depleted ozone layer.

Empirics prove—rockets cause immense damage Mikhailov 4 (A.A. Mikhailov Yu.G. Shafer Institute of Cosmophysical Research and Aeronomy, 31 Lenin Ave., 677891 Yakutsk, Russia “Ozone Layer and the Formation of the Ozone Hole” http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0401/0401135.pdf //Donnie)

In my opinion, the rockets are the major reason that dangerous for ozone substances penetrate into the stratosphere, and a source of the ozone layer depletion . A shock wave starting from a rocket or falling finished off stage can form a peculiar corridor between the troposphere and stratosphere . For example, when the American rocket "Atlas " was launched , a "hole " (the electron flux was as small as one order of magnitude in a circle of diameter of several hundreds of kilometers) was registered in the region of ionosphere F-layer . Along that corridor the dangerous for ozone substances may directly penetrate into the

17

Georgetown Debate Seminar 2011Ozone Depletion DA RBDD Labstratosphere omitting a process of return back on the ground together with the precipitation on their way to equator. A perchlorate, which is a source of chlorine and a part of solid fuel, penetrates into the stratosphere directly from rockets. Water of great quantity and other hydrogen oxides are also ejected from the rockets . Unfortunately, I not know exactly what other dangerous for ozone substances are ejected from rockets. Note the rocket is usually of the oblique trajectory, which extending in the atmosphere several thousands of kilometers at altitudes of 100-200 km, ejects the gas sprays above the stratosphere.

And, this causes extinction by killing plankton Thomas 6 (William, is an award-winning Canadian journalist specializing in health and environment “Scientist Says Chemtrails, Shuttle Launches Endangering Earth” http://www.chemtrails911.com/docs/Space%20Shuttle%20Launch-Ozone%20Layer.htm //Donnie)

NO PLANKTON = NO PEOPLE Onboard a plant that is mostly seawater, the microscopic plants that underpin all life in the oceans are being starved as global warming halts the vital up welling of nutrients from the deep sea. Now, increased solar radiation streaming through the holes left rocket launches and airline flights are also frying the oceanic plankton that provide most of our spaceship’s oxygen , while scrubbing huge amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere. “Reducing the world's populations of phytoplankton would significantly impact the world's carbon cycle,” warns the Guardian, by leaving more carbon in the air. [Independent Jan 19/06; Guardian Apr 27/05] In November 2005, starvation from lack of plankton led, in turn, to catastrophic collapse in sea and bird life along America's Northwest Pacific seaboard and in the North Sea. [Independent Nov 13/05]

18

Georgetown Debate Seminar 2011Ozone Depletion DA RBDD Lab

THEY SAY: “DAMAGE IS MINIMAL” Their ev is a snapshot, even if they don’t now increasing use of rocket fuel threatens the ozoneRoss and Zittel 7 (Martin, is a Environmental Systems Directorate, leads research on the stratospheric impact of Air Force launch vehicles. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of California at Los Angeles in Earth and planetary sciences and has been with Aerospace since 1989. Paul, is in the Photonics Technology Department, supports DMSP in the areas of meteorological lidar and microwave remote sensing and has conducted research in molecular, atomic, semiconductor, and surface spectroscopies. He holds a Ph.D. in chemical physics from the University of Chicago and has been with Aerospace since 1974 “Rockets and the Ozone Layer” http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/summer2000/01.html //Donnie)

RISO represents but one component of ongoing Aerospace activities to provide the Air Force with cutting-edge research and technical guidance on a wide range of environmental issues—from solvent chemistry to toxic ground clouds and ozone depletion. For its part, the RISO team allows SMC to claim world-class scientific expertise with regard to the influence that rocket emissions have on Earth's ozone layer. The advances coming out of RISO are making the Air Force and the entire space-launch community confident that ozone loss from both individual and collective launches does not constitute a significant environmental hazard. RISO has proved that a low-cost program of ongoing plume-wake intercepts using appropriate instrumentation can help resolve the scientific problems surrounding the issue. RISO has also shown how joining forces with other agencies and industry increases the scientific return on investment for all interested parties. The data and conclusions from the RISO program reinforce a presumption that rocket emissions do not seriously threaten the ozone layer at the present time. However, as the space transportation industry grows, as new launch systems are introduced, and as the ozone layer recovers from past damage caused by now-banned substances, the effect of rocket emissions on stratospheric ozone is likely to become a more visible issue. The space transportation community should continue to support scientific research efforts to fully understand the impact of rocket-propulsion systems on the composition of Earth's natural umbrella, the ozone layer.

19

Georgetown Debate Seminar 2011Ozone Depletion DA RBDD Lab

THEY SAY: “CFCS OUTWEIGH THE LINK”That’s all about to change, the link outweighs Smith and Daniel 99 (Tyrrel W. Smith, Jr., Ph.D. TRW Space & Electronics Group and John R. Edwards Daniel Pilson Environmental Management Branch “Summary of the Impact of Launch Vehicle Exhaust and Deorbiting Space and Meteorite Debris on Stratospheric Ozone” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA414306 //Donnie)

In addition, while chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions are responsible for the largest fraction of global ODC, CFC usage will be curtailed sharply in the near future and the effect of PORS from launch vehicles is expected to increase. CFC release has been estimated to add 300 kilotons of active chlorine to the stratosphere annually (Prather et al., [1990]). Natural sources of stratospheric chlorine are ten to one hundred times smaller (Rowland [1993], Mankin et al., [1983], Martin [1994]).

Most recent studies prove Universe Today 9 (“Will Rocket Launches Deplete the Ozone?” http://www.universetoday.com/28412/will-rocket-launches-deplete-the-ozone/ //Donnie)

A new study predicts that Earth’s stratospheric ozone layer will suffer significant damage from future unregulated rocket launches. The study provides a market analysis for estimating future ozone layer depletion based on the expected growth of the space industry and known impacts of rocket launches. The increase in launches could cause ozone depletion that eventually could exceed ozone losses from CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) which were banned in the 1980′s. “As the rocket launch market grows, so will ozone-destroying rocket emissions,” said Professor Darin Toohey of CU-Boulder’s atmospheric and oceanic sciences department, a member of the study. “If left unregulated, rocket launches by the year 2050 could result in more ozone destruction than was ever realized by CFCs.” The study says more research should be done on how different rockets affect the ozone before imposing stricter regulations on chemicals used in rocket fuels. Current global rocket launches deplete the ozone layer by no more than a few hundredths of 1 percent annually, said Toohey. But as the space industry grows and other ozone-depleting chemicals decline in the Earth’s stratosphere, the issue of ozone depletion from rocket launches is expected to move to the forefront.

And, qualified consensus goes negative Ross et al 9 (Martin Ross The Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles , Darin Toohey University of Colorado , Manfred Peinemann The Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles & Patrick Ross Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University “Limits on the Space Launch Market Related to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion” http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14777620902768867 //Donnie)

The recovery of the ozone layer,13 while a favorable development, is motivation to be concerned about ozone depletion caused by rocket emissions over the next several decades. The eventual elimination of the major sources of ozone loss (that is, ODSs) raises the question: Will sources of ozone loss currently considered small, such as rocket emissions, eventually be scrutinized more closely by the stratospheric protection community?14 This would particularly apply to rocket emissions if demand for launch services increases in coming decades, just as other sources of ozone loss decrease due to the success of the Montreal Protocol. In addition, revisions in our understanding of emissions, stratospheric processes, or the introduction of new propellants on a large scale (hybrid rockets, for example) may cause changes in the estimated ozone loss for a given launch rate.

20

Georgetown Debate Seminar 2011Ozone Depletion DA RBDD Lab

THEY SAY: “EMISSIONS STAY IN THE STRATOSPHERE”That still triggers our impact Smith and Daniel 99 (Tyrrel W. Smith, Jr., Ph.D. TRW Space & Electronics Group and John R. Edwards Daniel Pilson Environmental Management Branch “Summary of the Impact of Launch Vehicle Exhaust and Deorbiting Space and Meteorite Debris on Stratospheric Ozone” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA414306 //Donnie)

The stratosphere exchanges mass with the troposphere beneath it at a relatively low rate. With no rainout or other removal mechanisms, the rocket combustion products can build up in the stratosphere over time if there is a sufficient launch rate. When deposited into the stratosphere, ideally sized particulate (0.15 to 0.4 microns in size) such as alumina aerosols can persist for months and circle the globe. Aerosols that exist in the stratosphere can assist in catalyzing the destruction of ozone.

21