revisiting the ``ozone hole'' metaphor - archive ouverte hal

HAL Id: hal-01616832https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01616832

Submitted on 14 Oct 2017

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open accessarchive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents, whether they are pub-lished or not. The documents may come fromteaching and research institutions in France orabroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, estdestinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documentsscientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,émanant des établissements d’enseignement et derecherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoirespublics ou privés.

Revisiting the “Ozone Hole” Metaphor: FromObservational Window to Global Environmental Threat

Sebastian Grevsmühl

To cite this version:Sebastian Grevsmühl. Revisiting the “Ozone Hole” Metaphor: From Observational Windowto Global Environmental Threat. Environmental Communication, 2018, 12 (1), pp.71-83.�10.1080/17524032.2017.1371052�. �hal-01616832�

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01616832

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr

PublishedinEnvironmentalCommunication,doi:10.1080/17524032.2017.1371052

doi:10.1080/17524032.2017.1371052 1

Revisiting the “Ozone Hole” Metaphor: From Observational Window to GlobalEnvironmentalThreat

SebastianVincentGrevsmühlCentredeRecherchesHistoriques(CNRS-EHESS)Postaladdress:CRH(CNRS-EHESS)54boulevardRaspail75006ParisFrance

E-mail:sebastian.grevsmuhl@ehess.

AbstractIn1985,justover30yearsago,the“ozonehole”madeitsappearanceinthepressasatrulyglobal environmental threat.Asoneof themost importantglobal environmentalissues of the late twentieth century, the “ozone hole” is also and maybe mostimportantly a remarkablemetaphorical, visual and imaginary construction.This essayexamines the historical trajectory of one of the most influential environmentalmetaphorsofthetwentiethcentury,thefamous“ozonehole,”fromitsbirthwithintheastronomicalcommunityatthebeginningofthetwentiethcenturytoitscontemporaryframingasaglobalenvironmentalthreat.Thearticleprovidesevidencewhymetaphorsconstitute a valuable object of historically informed studies of scientific practice, andshowsinparticularhowmetaphoricallandscapesshiftovertime,mappingatthesametimelargersocialandpoliticaldevelopments.Theessayendsbyshowinghowscientificimagesandmetaphorical framings interactandhow theyshapescientificandpopulardiscourseonnature,aswellasourunderstandingoftheglobalenvironment.

Keywords

metaphor;ozonehole;globalenvironmentalchange;scientific images;geoengineering;environmentalhistory

Towardsaframeworkforahistoryofthe“ozone-hole”metaphorOn January 17, 1934, eminent geophysicist Sydney Chapman delivered a somewhatfameless but nonetheless remarkable presidential address before the RoyalMeteorologicalSocietyinLondon.Inasectionpragmaticallyentitled“Canaholebemadeintheozonelayer?,”Chapmanspeculatedonthepossibilitiesofartificially interveningin the chemical compositionof theEarth's atmosphere in order to allowastronomersbetterultra-violetobservationsof thesunandothercelestialobjects(Chapman,1934;cf.Fleming,2010;Wells,1997).

Rather optimistic in regard to proposed geoengineering solutions, Chapmanmadeseveralpractical suggestionsonhowto introduceahypothetical chemicalagentinto the atmosphere in order to create what he called an “ozone hole.” Aircraft, he


doi:10.1080/17524032.2017.1371052 2

argued,coulddisperselargequantitiesofacatalyticagentinthelowerstratosphere,andballoons and rockets deployed in higher altitudes to ascertain full-scale atmosphericdistributionoftheozone-destroyingagent.Althoughpartlyconsciousofpossiblehealthdangers that such an experiment with a yet untested “deozoniser” might invoke,Chapman nevertheless believed that “small isolated islands with few inhabitants”represented a suitable test ground and that “proper clothes and headgear” would besufficientprotectionduringtheartificialopeningofthesky(Chapman,1934,quotationsonp.133&134).

Yetwhenweusethemetaphorofthe“ozonehole”today,weobviouslyrefertoaverydifferentscientificandenvironmentalphenomenon,withverydifferentpoliticalorethical ramifications. Quite evidently, the famous “ozone hole” metaphor has a richhistory,ahistorythathasremainedlargelyneglectedbywhatonemaycallthe“classic”philosophical,politicalorsocio-historicalozoneliterature(cf.Benedick,1991;Christie,2001; Grundmann, 2001; Litfin, 1994; Parson, 2003; Roan, 1989). In the following, Iproposearatherunorthodoxaccountofthehistoryofozonedepletionbyfollowingthehistorical trajectory of the “ozone hole” metaphor throughout the twentieth century.Closeanalysisofthedifferentscientificcontextsinwhichthe“hole”metaphoremergedallows to gain new insights into how to engage in historical analysis of metaphors,revealinghowscientifictheoriesandconceptualframeworksshiftovertime,andtracingat thesametime largersocial,economicandpoliticaldynamics.As Iwillarguebelow,atmospheric “hole-making” or “hole-provoking” techniques dramatically shifted from“welcomed,” “hypothetical,” and “impartial” overtones to “threatening,” “geopolitical,”and finally “environmental” connotations. As an alternative account of the history ofozone depletion mainly based on close analysis of public speeches, scientificpublications, reports, newspaper articles and interviewswith scientists, the followingnarrative will also draw on findings in theoretical metaphor literature as well as onmetaphoricalcasestudiesexploredinhistoryofscience,scienceandtechnologystudiesandcommunicationstudies.

A profusely growing field of literature in environmental communication andscience studies claims that metaphors (often together with visual renditions) shapescientific and environmental knowledge in many important ways (on environmentalmetaphors,see:Cozen,2013;Milstein,2016;Nerlich&Jaspal,2012;Nerlich&Koteyko,2010;Nerlich,Koteyko&Brown,2010;Wiman,1995;onmetaphortheory,see:Maasen&Weingart,2000;Ortony,1993).AusefulstartingpointforatheoreticaldiscussionoftheusesofmetaphorsandtheirmeaningisMaxBlack’sso-called“interactionist”theory(Black,1955).Itsmainclaimisthattherearenostablemetaphoricalmeaningsbutonlycontext related meanings that are created within specifically constructed systems ofideas. Each specific metaphorical framing produces an expansion or shift of themetaphors literal meaning. Yet, the new context and meaning influence also thecommon-sense associations invoked in the first place when mobilizing a specificmetaphor. Metaphorsmay therefore be seen as “filters” of reality: they show certainaspects of our world while blocking out others, allowing one field of thought (thesubject)toorganizeanotherbyselectionandfiltering.AccordingtoBlack, it isnottheliteralmeaningbutthecommon-senseassociationsthatplaythemostimportantroleinthe creation of metaphorical meaning. Moreover, these common-sense associations –andhencethemeaningofametaphor–cannotbeparaphrasedwithoutdestroying itscognitivecontent(Black,1955,p.293).


doi:10.1080/17524032.2017.1371052 3

Tobesure, somescholarshavechallengedBlack’s interactionist theory.DonaldDavidson, for instance, argues that metaphors may only be read in a literal way. Hebelieves that the conventional denotation of a word which is employed in ametaphorical way is the only meaning that counts, arguing that its meaning is not aquestion of semantics, but of pragmatics.Hismain claim reads:”[…]metaphorsmeanwhatthewords,intheirmostliteralinterpretation,mean,andnothingmore”(Davidson,1978,p.32).

Asthe“ozonehole”caseshowsbelow,bothpositionsholdsomeimportanttruthsaboutmetaphors and theirmeanings.MaxBlack is right to insist on the fact that twowords coming from two different semantic fields produce new meanings. However,Davidson also has a pointwhen he insists on the literal interpretation ofmetaphors:metaphorsoftenworkwellwhenwecaninterpretandunderstandtheminaliteralway.In what follows, I will argue that it is necessary to adopt a historical perspective onmetaphors,andtoanalyzemetaphorsandtheirframingswithintheirspecifichistoricalcontext. Indeed, as already mentioned in the introduction, the same metaphor canproduceverydifferentmeaningswithindifferenthistoricalandsocialcontexts.

Inhistoryofscienceandscienceandtechnologystudies,manycasestudieshaveshown that analyzingmetaphors in their historical context can be highly productive.Stepan, for instance,hasdescribed theveryconcretepolitical effects racialmetaphorshad on scientific research programs in biology, medicine and anthropology. She hasarguedthatthecontextdecidesif,forexample,theanalogybetweenwomenandNegrosas “inferior race” is perceived as a metaphor – or rather as a robust scientificrelationship based on statistics (Stepan, 1986). Other scholars have shown theimportant effects the “information” metaphor had, from the 1950s onwards, on verydifferentfieldsofresearchsuchascybernetics,psychology,ecologyormolecularbiology(Edwards,1996;Kay,2000;FoxKeller,1995&2002;Kwa,1987;Galison,1994).Finally,historian Philipp Sarasin has shown how in the Nineteenth century war metaphorssuccessfully “invaded” the field of bacteriology, and how “external” factors such asmigration movements closely linked to certain diseases influenced the researchframeworks(Sarasin,2007).Allofthesestudiesshowthatmetaphors,oftentransferredfromverydifferentcontexts,canactivelyshapescientificpracticeandthatthechoiceofvocabulary rarely is innocent, implying that one needs to pay close attention to thespecifichistoricalcontextinwhichmetaphorsevolve.

Adoptingahistoricalperspectivethereforeallowsalsotomovebeyondthemerescientificcontextandtoquestiontacitassumptionsandconnotationsthatarebuiltintometaphors,revealinglargersocio-politicalsettingsandagendas.The“ozonehole”casepresented here provides new critical insights into scientific practice and scientificcommunication strategies, in particular into how the environmental sciences createtheir objects of knowledge, especially when phenomena of an important scale areinvolved.Italsoillustrateshowscientificmaterialcultureinformsdiscursiveandvisualframings in various manners and how environmental communication is shaped byscientificpractice.

Earlytheorieson“ozoneholes”withintheastronomicalcommunityAny standard account in the history of ozone depletion begins in the 1970swith theSupersonic Transportation (SST) debate and follows with the first serious concernsaboutanthropogenicpollutionofthestratospherewithCFC'suntiltheirgradualglobal


doi:10.1080/17524032.2017.1371052 4

phase-outundertheMontrealProtocolanditssuccessiveamendments(seeforexampleLitfin, 1994; Parson, 2003). However, Sydney Chapman’s 1934 presidential addressserves as an ideal entry point into a rather unusual history of atmospheric “hole-making” which focuses on neglected episodes of ozone research, namely the yearspreceding the well studied ozone controversy or, as science writer Lydia Dotto andchemistHaroldSchiffbluntlyhavecalledit,the“ozonewar”(DottoandSchiff,1978).

ThefirstimportantstrandthatChapmanevokesinhispresidentialaddressistheapparent usefulness of so-called “ozone holes” to astronomers for observations. InChapman’sopinion,thiscould“extend[research]somehundredAngstromsfurtherintotheultra-violet.”(Chapman1934,p.133).ErichRegener,contemporaryofChapmanandimportantpioneerofballoon-borneandrocket-borneozonemeasurements,mobilizedin his articles the same metaphor, stating in 1946 that an “ozone hole” might bewelcomed by astronomers to conduct observations in the range of normally blockedultra-violetwavelengths(Regener,1946,p.165).

Theastronomicalcommunitycloselydefinedinotherwordsthediscursiveuseofthese early “ozone hole” theories. In addition, they also centered on the pioneeringhistoryofozoneresearch influencedbytheworkof theFrenchphysicistAlfredCornuand eminent chemist Walter Hartley. Cornu argued in 1879 that the rather sharplimitation of the ultra-violet end of the solar spectrum was due to some kind ofabsorption in the atmosphere (Cornu, 1879). One year later, in 1880,Walter Hartleysuggested that this couldonlybedue to thepresenceofozone. In tribute toHartley’spioneering work, scientists named the absorption band in the ultra-violet region the“Hartleyband”(Hartley,1880).

Earlyozoneresearchwithintheastronomicalcommunitywasmoreovergreatlyinfluenced throughout the 1880s, by the introduction of photographical spectroscopicmethodsasstandardinstrumentationofscientificinquiry.Spectroscopyshapednotonlyscientificunderstandingoftheupperatmosphere–suchastheUV-absorbingeffectsofozone – but it also played a fundamental role in early metaphorical framings of theatmosphereandtheglobalenvironment.Indeed,themetaphorofthe“ozonehole”wasalreadyinthisearlyhistoricalstagecloselylinkedtotheconceptionofthestratospherecontainingan“ozoneshield,”anotherinfluentialenvironmentalmetaphorwhichstandsfor thescientific ideathatatmosphericozone formsaprotective layeragainstharmfulUV-radiation. Ozone research pioneers such as Gordon Dobson and Paul Götz helpeddevelopedthisideaespeciallyinthe1920’sand1930’sthroughtheircontinuouseffortsto effectively quantify atmospheric ozone, by establishing spectrophotometerobservationnetworksfirstinEuropeandlittlelateronaglobalscale(Dobson,1968).

The“ozonehole”Chapmanisreferringtohastobeanalyzedwithinthisspecifichistoricalcontextanditcanbereadinaveryliteralsense,justasDavidsonsuggested:asthe ozone shield is interfering in astronomical observations, one may purposefullymodify its chemical composition in order to create an “observational window” forastronomers,a“hole”throughwhichtheycouldlookoutatthesky.Thisearlyframingofthe“ozonehole”asan“observationalwindow”closelyrelatestoobservationalpracticeswellestablishedwithinastronomyatthetime,especiallytheideathattheatmosphereisa strong filter with very limited transparency. Moreover, the use of the ocular andtherefore rather neutral “window” metaphor shows that scientists placed theobservational, scientific benefits clearly above possible negative side-effects suchexperimentsmightprovoke.


doi:10.1080/17524032.2017.1371052 5

WhileChapmanandRegenerreflectedoncreatingan“ozonehole,”theyreferredat the same time to a highly speculative phenomenon thatmight prove to have someusefuleffectsonscientificobservationsbut,inthisearlyperiod,the“hole”or“window”intheskyremainedneverthelessafullyhypotheticalsuggestion.Forinstance,Chapmandidnotknowwhichsubstancetousetodestroyatmosphericozoneandhebelievedthatthe “ozone hole,” if created, could only be very short-lived, stating that “[a]ny longpersistenceofsuchahole,evenifoncecreated,couldscarcelybehopedfor”(Chapman,1934,p.133).Moreover,possibleenvironmentalandhealthdangersplayedinthisearlystage of hole theories (if at all) only an inferior role. In consequence, Chapmanattributed very little importance to the potential environmental or health risks,especiallywhenconsidered in contrast to thepossiblegainof scientificknowledgehehopedtoobtainfromthesuggestedexperiments.

This early framingof the “ozonehole” ties inwellwithmanyhistorical studiesidentifyingageneraloptimisminscienceandtechnologywhichcanbeobservedintheWesternworldthroughoutthefirsthalfofthetwentiethcentury,aswellaspartsoftheCold War, and which was rarely met by public criticism (cf. Hughes, 1989). Indeed,during this period scientific optimism clearly outplayed any environmental or healthconcerns which, as we will see below, only started to gain ground from the 1970sonwards.

GeoengineeringandgeophysicalwarfareChapman’shypothetical“deozonizer”(Chapman,1934,p.134)andtheproposaltocuta“hole”intheozonelayergainedduringtheColdWarincreasinglyinsubstance,yetforcompletely different reasons. The 1934 speech points to a rapidly growing field ofinterestinthelatetwentiethcentury,namelythesuggestionofpurposefullyinterferinginthecompositionoftheatmosphere(Fleming,2006&2010).Sciencehistorianshaveshown that a direct link exists between geoengineering, meaning purposefulenvironmental modification, and warfare, and that even during the 1930s, scientistswould have found nothing profoundly new about this idea (Fleming, 1998; Hamblin,2013).

German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk suggested that environmentalwarfare, asweunderstandittoday,tracesbacktotheFirstWorldWarwhensocietywitnessedtheriseofwhathecalls“atmoterrorism”(Sloterdijk,2009)withtheintroductionofhighlypoisonous chlorine gas, released for the first time in 1915 by German troops in thetrenchesofYpres.Thisnewformof“atmosphericterrorism”allowsonesidetoturntheenemy’senvironment intoaweaponagainstthem.While,duringthe1930s,cuttinganobservational“hole”intheozonelayerfortheconvenienceofastronomersdidnotseemcompletely out of reach, during the Cold War this very same question became apotentially relevant research topic of important geostrategic and military interest.During the era of geophysical warfare and purposeful interference in the chemicalcompositionof theatmosphere,Chapman’shypothetical “deozonizer”couldbecome inotherwordsaweaponofsignificantpotentialthreat.

Oneofthefirstseriousinquiriesintothisissuewasconductedinthelate1950s,atimewhenpublicconcernaboutglobalradioactivefalloutandunintendedconsequencesofU.S.andSovietnuclearweapontestingprogramsgrewconsiderably.Atameetingin1958 in Washington D.C., members of the RAND Corporation, Los Alamos ScientificLaboratory, the Naval Research Laboratory and other institutions discussed the


doi:10.1080/17524032.2017.1371052 6

possibilityofatmosphericnuclearbombexplosionsbeingableto“burnahole”intotheozone layer (Hoerlin,1976,p.43, fn98).Someof the important scientific studies thatfollowed focused on the crucial role that nitric oxidesmight play in ozone chemistry.Scientists assessed many new aspects of complex chemical reactions at extremetemperatures and different atmospheric pressures throughout the testing period.During the 1950s and 1960s, nuclear bomb testing provided unique opportunities tostudythecreationoflargeamountsofozoneduringsea-levelexplosions(DeWitt,1955)aswell aspositive andnegative feed-back cyclesdue to transport of ozone andothertrace substances between the troposphere and the stratosphere (Danielsen 1968a,1968b).Althoughcriticslaterminimizedozonedepletioneffectsofatmosphericnuclearbomb explosions (claimed for instance by Johnston,Whitten, & Birks, 1973) as lyingwithinthemarginoferrorofthemeasuringtechniques(Bauer&Gilmore,1975;OfficeofTechnologyAssessment,1979),researchersdiscoverednewimportantcharacteristicsof the atmosphere as a direct spin-off of atmospheric nuclear bomb testing. Theydevelopednewknowledgeonglobalcirculationpatternsandlarge-scaletransportationeffects which could be easily followed due to the impulse-like injection of largequantities of unique transient radioactive tracers into the troposphere and thestratosphere(Machta,List,&Hubert1956;Goldsmith&Brown,1961).

The theme of purposefully cutting a “hole” in the ozone layer was alsoinvestigated in other scientific fields throughout the 1960s. Historian ofmeteorologyJames Fleming (2011) has shown that Harry Wexler of the U.S. Weather Bureaudiscussed the “ozonehole” issueasearlyas1962 inaworkingpaperentitled “On thepossibilitiesofClimateControl.”FollowingChapman’spracticalsuggestiontoseek“theadvice of chemists” (Chapman, 1934, 134) in order to find possible candidates forcatalytic ozone destruction, Wexler turned to Caltech chemist Oliver Wulf whosuggestedchlorineandbromineaspossible “ozonehole” creators.Wexlerassumed inhis paper that a relatively small amount of bromine could severely interfere in theradiationbudgetofthestratosphere(cf.Fleming,2010,p.221).

This type of concrete scientific propositionwould certainly have been of greatinteresttotheDepartmentofDefensewhosedirectinvolvementintheozonecasestaysuntil todayunexplored.However, themost citedwar-related suggestionwasmadebyone of the advisors of President Lyndon Johnson’s Scientific Advisory Committee,Harvard-trained geophysicist Gordon MacDonald of the University of California.MacDonaldwarnedin1968thatthecreationofan“ozonehole”mightindeedbeusedinthenearfutureasageophysicalweaponandconcluded:“Theozoneisreplenisheddaily,butatemporary‘hole’intheozonelayeroveratargetareamightbecreatedbyphysicalorchemicalaction”(MacDonald,1968).ContrarytoSydneyChapman,MacDonaldhadaclearideaaboutthe“disastrouseffects”suchgeophysicalweaponscouldproduce,verymuch in the way Sloterdijk characterizes “atmoterrorism,” by pointing out thatremovingtheozoneshieldcouldevenbefataltoalllife.

During the Cold War environmental issues stood in other words at the verycenterofAmericannationalsecurityconsiderations(cf.Hamblin,2013),anobservationwhich can also be extended to most European countries for this period (Roberts &Turchetti, 2014). Themetaphor of the “ozone hole” refers here again in a very literalsensetoa“hole”inthesky.YetitsmilitaryframingduringtheearlyColdWarchangeditsmeaningradically:the“hole”couldnolongerbereadasanobservational“window”potentiallybeneficial to theastronomicalcommunitybutstoodnow for thedeliberateexploitationofthevulnerabilityoftheozoneshieldformilitarypurposes.Knowingthe


doi:10.1080/17524032.2017.1371052 7

global environment was from now on closely entangled with potentially disastrousconsequences of a new kind of alliance between the geophysical sciences and themilitary(cf.Doel,2003).

Fromthe“brominebomb”totheriseofenvironmentalismThose different voices emanating from quite disparate fields in the sciences and thescience policy community claiming that one could purposefully interfere in theatmosphere inorder to cut a “hole” in theozone layer continuedduring the so-calledclassic era of the ozone controversy in the 1970s. For example, Harvard-basedatmospheric physicistMichaelMcElroy picked upMacDonald’s suggestion in order topoint to the potential threat some chemical compounds may represent to nationalsecurity if used as atmospheric weapons – a warning which provoked somecatastrophism-infused articles in the national press, with for instance a NationalEnquirer headline reading “HarvardProfessor…Warnsof… theDoomsdayWeapon…It’sWorseThantheMostDevastatingNuclearExplosion–andAvailabletoAll”(cf.Dotto&Schiff,1978,p.188).Accordingtothepresscoverage,McElroysuggestedin1975atameeting of the recently established Federal Interagency Task Force on InadvertentModification of the Stratosphere (IMOS), that bromine “appears so effective at ozonedepletionthatitcouldbeusedasaweapon.Ifinjectedintothestratosphereoverenemyterritory in sufficient quantity […] it would purge the ozone, permitting ultravioletradiation from the sun to reach the groundwith such intensity to destroy crops andincapacitatetheinhabitants”(Sullivan,1975,p.20;cf.Dixon,1975).

McElroy claimed thathe feared thehostileuseofbromineandcalled thereforeforanimmediateworldwidebanoftheuseofchemicalsasatmosphericweapons.Morebycoincidencethanasadirectconsequence,thebancameonlytwoyearslater,in1977,in formof theUnitedNations “Conventionon theProhibitionofMilitaryor anyotherHostileUseofEnvironmentalModificationTechniques”(ENMOD),afruitofseriousU.S.andU.N.investigationsintotheVietnamConflict(cf.Westing,1984).

However, colleagues lacked McElroy’s fear of geophysical warfare. Theyconsidered his comments as extremely counterproductive given the fact that scienceframed ozone research since the early 1970s within serious inquiries intoenvironmentalconsequencesofanthropogenicpollutants(cf.Gribbin,1988,p.80).Withthe identification of unintended anthropogenic effects on the ozone layer and theenvironment ingeneral, intentionalozonedestructionasawarscenariowassincethe1970sclearlynoviableresearchtopicanymoreandthequestionwasdroppedwiththeintroduction of ENMOD. Other themes took over research priorities, including theplannedSupersonicTransportationfleetandthereafter,thefundamentalroleofCFCsinozonedepletionchemistryas first revealedbychemistsSherryRowlandandhisPhD-studentMarioMolina in 1974 (Molina&Rowland, 1974). Theunintended causes andcertainly not thepurposeful ozonemodification plans proved to be significantlymoreimportant in the end,with anthropogenic pollutants (such as nitric oxides and CFCs)posingarealthreattotheglobalozonelayer.

What followed iswhat I call above the “classic” ozone story, a period that hasalready received wide attention by scholars coming from various domains, includingsociology,history,sciencestudies, thepoliticalsciencesand lawstudies.Mostof thesestudies reconstructed in detail how this shift towards an environmental framing took


doi:10.1080/17524032.2017.1371052 8

place, a large body of work that can only be referenced here (cf. Benedick, 1991;Christie,2001;Grundmann,2001;Litfin,1994;Parson,2003;Roan,1989).

Thehistoricalanalysisofthe“ozonehole”metaphorasproposedhereallowsalsomappingamoregeneral shift identifiedby a growingbodyof literature as the riseofenvironmentalismfromthe late-1960sonwards(see foran introductionRome,2003).Aswehaveseen,betweenChapman’spresidentialaddressinthe1930sandMcElroy’s“brominebomb”(termadaptedfromGribbin,1988,p.79)inthe1970s,the“ozonehole”metaphor evolved from a hypothetical observationalwindowwithin the astronomicalcontext to a potentially threatening weapon of considerable geopolitical reach. Thegeophysicalwarscenariolosthoweversubstantiallyincredibilitywiththenewframingofozoneresearchwithinfearsofenvironmentaldegradationandhealthhazardsinthe1970s. Even though new important knowledge on ozone chemistry and globalcirculationpatternsemanatedfromthosedifferentresearchcontexts, the“hole” intheskystayedneverthelessalargelyhypotheticalentity.

In 1985, however, this changed dramaticallywith the announcement of JosephFarman,JonathanShanklin,andBrianGardiner(1985)fromtheBritishAntarcticSurveythatstratosphericozonewasseverelydepletedeveryyearaboveHalleystationduringaustral spring. Less than one year later, NASA scientists officially confirmed thisobservationonasignificantlylargerscaleStolarski,1986).

The use of the actual “ozone hole” metaphor by NASA officials was certainlynothingnewinthe1980s, itsmeaninghoweverhadgraduallychangedthroughoutthetwentieth century. The atmospheric sciences adopted the metaphor only within thecontextofpowerfulvisualizationsthatNASAscientistspresentedtoboth,thescientificcommunityandthelargerpublicin1986,oneyearafterthegroundbreakingpublicationof the British research team. In other words, in 1986, the “ozone hole” had finallybecomeaboth,aglobalandthreateningreality.Thisreality,however,hadtobevisuallyconstructedfirst.

The Antarctic “ozone hole” and the making of an icon of the precautionaryprinciple

Just over thirty years ago, in 1985, Joseph Farman, Jonathan Shanklin, and BrianGardineroftheBritishAntarcticSurvey(BAS)publishedthealarmingarticleinNature,showingthatstratosphericozonewasrapidlydecliningoverHalleystationinAntarctica.Interestingly, their groundbreaking paper nevermentioned a “hole” in the sky and acloser lookat thepublishedversionof theoriginal “ozonedepletion”graph (figure1)helpsexplainwhythiswasthecase.Indeed,evidencefrommaterialandvisualhistorydocumentsanexplanationastowhyBritishscientistsreferredintheirearlypaperstothe phenomenon of “ozone depletion” while American scientists spoke of a veritable“hole”inthesky.

The British graph shows mean total ozone values measured at Halley stationbetween 1957 and 1984, with a deliberately short ordinate in order to reinforce thevisual impression of rapid ozone decline.1To put it in other words, the visualizationtechnologyemployed,asimplegraph,wasveryefficientindepictingatendency(inthis

1 Jonathan Shanklin has in his personal archive the original ozone plot which he submitted to Nature. The ordinate he initially chose is considerably longer than in the published version.


doi:10.1080/17524032.2017.1371052 9

caserapidozonedecline),butitclearlycouldnotmakethecasefora“hole”intheozonelayer.

Figure 1: Ozone depletion graph showing mean total ozone values. The short ordinatereinforcestheimpressionofrapiddecline(Farmanetal.,1985).

The “ozone hole”metaphor aswe know it todaywas only introducedwith thehelpofacomplementarysetofenvironmentalobservations.NASAwasatthetimetheonlyspaceagencywithaglobalviewonthestratosphereanditsozonecontent,anditwasthereforetheAmericanspaceagency’sglobal imagery,basedonmeasurementsofthe Total OzoneMapping Spectrometer (TOMS) flown on the Nimbus-7 satellite, thatinspiredtheintroductionofthepowerfulenvironmentalmetaphorofthe“ozonehole.”According to NASA scientist Pawan Bhartia (personal communication September 10,2010),NewYorkTimessciencewriterWalterSullivan(1985)publishedthefirststoryon the “hole” in the ozone layer on November 7, 1985, adopting the metaphoricalsuggestion of atmospheric chemist SherwoodRowlandwhowas familiarwithNASA’searlyozoneimages.Toillustratethe“hole”inthesky,Sullivanusedasimplifiedblack-and-white total ozone contour visualization, following the iconographical tradition ofNASA’searlyozonecontourmaps(seefig.2&3).Itisthereforefairtosaythatonlythesynoptic view on the Antarctic continent, combinedwith a powerful visual tool – thecontour line–,helped introduce thishighly influentialglobalenvironmentalmetaphor(see Grevsmühl, 2014 for more detail on the visual strategies employed). Indeed,mobilizingthecontourlineallowedforboth,creatingan“inside”andan“outside”ofthe“hole” in theozone layer, aswell as effectivelyhomogenizing a substantial numberofsatellitemeasurementsbycorrelatingacertaindataintervalwithaspecificcolor.


doi:10.1080/17524032.2017.1371052 10

Figure2:FirstpublishedtotalozonemapusingcontourlinestomapTOMSdatafortheSouthernhemisphereonOctober1,1983(NASA).

Figure3:TypicalearlyAntarctic“ozonehole”map,showingthe“hole”inthecenteroftheimageasseenbyTOMSonNimbus-7,October10,1986(NASA).


doi:10.1080/17524032.2017.1371052 11

The scientific community adopted the powerful metaphor rather quickly.ScientistsofNASA’simageprocessingteamreferredtothe“hole”intheskyinapaperpublishedasearlyas1986,andPaulCrutzenandhiscolleagueFrankArnoldwereabletointroducethe“ozonehole”metaphorinthetitleofapaper(thatwaspublishedinthesame journal) justa fewmonths later(Stolarskietal.,1986;Crutzen&Arnold,1986).Withinthreeyearsofitsfirstapparitioninpress,the“ozonehole”hadbecomeanalmostentirely“naturalized”phenomenonwithitswidespreaduseallowingforanapplicationinscientificandpublicdiscoursewithoutimplyingreflectionsonitsmetaphoricalstatusanymore.

Most importantly however, the metaphor and its associated imagery showedimportant ramifications in environmental policy making. To be sure, the ViennaConventionfortheProtectionoftheOzoneLayerwasin1985alreadywellunderway(itwas agreed upon in 1985 and entered into force in 1988) but it did not include anylegally binding restrictions for ozone depleting substances (cf. Litfin, 1994, p. 73-77).Withinthiscontext,thehighlypersuasivevisualandmetaphoricalframingofthe“hole”in the ozone layer helped raise awareness for an otherwise invisible globalenvironmentalthreat,wellbeforeageneralscientificagreementonthespecificcausesof Antarctic ozone depletion could be achieved. It is true that the negotiators of theMontreal Protocol chose to deliberately “ignore” the “ozone hole” findings preciselybecause there was no scientific theory at hand explaining its mechanisms, as chiefUnited States negotiator to the Montreal Protocol Richard Benedick (1991) hasexplained. However, the “ozone hole” had nonetheless an overriding impact, alsobecauseitwaspresentedinaverypersuasiveway,bothvisuallyandmetaphorically.

AsKarenLitfinhasarguedinadetaileddiscourseanalysisoftheozonecase,theozonehole“provideddramaticevidenceinfavorofprecautionaryaction,evidencethatparticipantscouldnotignore,despitetheirconsciousdecisiontoignoreit”(Litfin,1994,p.80).Indeed,iteventuallyhelpedpavethewaytothesigningoftheMontrealProtocolin 1987, introducing a worldwide ban on ozone depleting substances. The successfulenvironmental reframingof the“hole” in theskyasabrokenshield, lettinghazardousultravioletrayspassthroughEarth’sbrokenprotectivelayer,provedthereforeahighlyinfluentialandefficientimageforboth,thelegislatorsandtheenvironmentalmovement.NASA’ssatelliteimageswhichwerewidelysharedinthemediaaswellastheagencies’“ozone hole” animation movies, that showed the temporal evolution of the hole thatcould become as large as the entire Antarctic continent, rapidly became icons of theprecautionaryprincipleastheywereshownonnationaltelevisionandatcongressionalhearings (cf. Litfin, 1994, p. 101). Indeed, the powerful metaphor and the associatedimagerygavesupporttothosegroupswhobelievedthattheconsequencesoftakingnoactionswouldbefarworsethantheconsequencesofover-restrictiveregulations.

Considered in retrospect, the “ozonehole”alsomade the case for thenecessityand usefulness of fundamental science and its long-term environmental monitoringprograms(aprogramthatwouldhardlyfindanyfundingtoday)aswellasbigscienceand global Earth observation programs (Grevsmühl, 2014). Together, theseenvironmental observation programs were able to demonstrate the unforeseen, yetdisastrouslong-lastingenvironmentaleffectsofCFCsonatrulyglobalscale.

From 1988 onwards, a large scientific consensus formed on the physical andchemical causes of the annual destruction of stratospheric ozone above the Antarcticcontinent.Andthe“ozonehole”metaphorwouldbe finally findacceptanceasaglobalenvironmental risk inboth spheres, scientificdiscourse aswell aspublic andpolitical


doi:10.1080/17524032.2017.1371052 12

discourse.Themetaphorandtheassociatedimagerycouldhencecommunicateastrongmessage of environmental urgency, a message that was picked up by many mediaoutletsworldwide,oftenmobilizingacatastrophicframing(seeforinstancethevariouscatastrophicframingsintheGermannewsweeklyDerSpiegelthroughout1986,withthe“ozonehole”makingitonthefrontcoverinAugust1987).

The historical canvas described up to here explains however only partially theoutcomeofthenegotiationsandthepoliticalresponsesthatledtothesignatureoftheMontrealProtocolanditssuccessiveamendments.Itwouldinotherwordsbewrongtooverestimate thepowerof environmentalmetaphors and imagesbecause theydonotautomaticallyleadtowidespreadpoliticalorsocialaction.Otherelementswereclearlyalsoimportantforthissuccessfulpoliticaloutcome.Litfin(1994,p.81)forinstancehasshown that the specific institutional setting played a very important role. Only aninternational organization with no formal national ties – in this case UNEP – couldprovideasufficientlyneutralgroundforthefruitfulpoliticaldiscussions.Otherelementsincluded the rise of strong pressure groups such as NGOs and the implication ofknowledgebrokersandindividualscientists,suchasNobellaureateSherwoodRowland,whopubliclyspokeoutfromtheverybeginning,advocatingstrongregulatorymeasuresandtherebyactivelyreshapingtheboardersbetweenscienceandpolicy(Litfin,1994,p.99).

ConclusionThe various frameworks for the creation of a “hole” in the sky evolved considerablythroughout the 20th century. Early “ozone hole” theories were tightly bound to themetaphorical shaping of holes in the sky aswindows to theuniverse, a tribute to theastronomical community that made important contributions to early ozone research.The new geopolitical context after World War II shifted “ozone hole” debates toinquiries into their geostrategic military potential. The rather innocent astronomicalquestionofartificiallyopeningtheskycouldbecomethereforeinthefiftiesandsixtiesaresearchtopicofsignificantgeopoliticalpotential.Fromtheearlyseventiesonwards,thegeophysical war scenarios of holes in the sky lost however their credibility andenvironmentalquestionsmoved rapidly to the forefrontof scientific investigation.Yetonlyduringthemiddleeightiesonecouldobservehowahypothetical“hole”intheskybecame a threatening geophysical reality. NASA researchers succeeded efficiently increatingapowerfulglobalenvironmentalimaginary,theAntarctic“ozonehole,”withthehelpoftheTOMSsatelliteinstrumentthatprovidedatrulysynopticviewonAntarctica.Asarguedabove,materialandvisualculturelargelyshapednotonlytheactualcreationofthisimportantenvironmentalphenomenon,butalsoitsveryperceptionasa“hole”inthesky.

Thefieldofenvironmentalcommunicationhasalottolearnfromtheozoneholecase.Itshowsthatmetaphorsarevaluablehistoricalobjectsofstudyintheirownright,allowing to study howmetaphorical landscapes shift over time, how scientific imagesand metaphorical framings interact, and how they shape scientific and populardiscourse on nature, as well as our understanding of the global environment. Ahistorically informedmetaphorical analysis can therefore also contribute to mappinglargersocialandpoliticaldevelopments–eventhoughthiswasnotthemainobjectiveofthisarticle.


doi:10.1080/17524032.2017.1371052 13

Acknowledgements

Iwouldliketothanktheanonymousreviewersfortheirhelpfulcritics,commentsandsuggestions,aswellastheEditorsofthisspecialissuefortheirsupportandguidance.

ReferencesBauer, E., & Gilmore, F. (1975). Effect of Atmospheric Nuclear Explosions on TotalOzone.ReviewsofGeophysicsandSpacePhysics,13,451-458.

Benedick, R. (1991). Ozone Diplomacy. New Directions in Safeguarding the Planet.Cambridge,Massachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress.

Black,M.(1955).Metaphor.ProceedingsoftheAristotelianSociety,55,273-294.Chapman, S. (1934). The Gases of the Atmosphere. Quarterly Journal of the RoyalMeteorologicalSociety,60,127-142.

Christie, M. (2001). The Ozone Layer. A Philosophy of Science Perspective. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Cornu,A.(1879).Sur la limiteultravioletteduspectresolaire.ProceedingsoftheRoyalSocietyofLondon,29,47-55.

Cozen, B. (2013). Mobilizing Artists: Green Patriot Posters, Visual Metaphors, andClimateChangeActivism.EnvironmentalCommunication,7(2),297-314.Crutzen, P., & Arnold, F; (1986). Nitric acid cloud formation in the cold Antarcticstratosphere:amajorcauseforthespringtime‘ozonehole.’Nature,324,651-655.

Danielsen, E.F. (1968). 1964: Report on project Springfield, Washington D.C.: DefenseAtomicSupportAgency.Danielsen, E.F. (1968). Stratospheric-tropospheric exchange based upon radioactivity,ozoneandpotentialvorticity.JournalofAtmosphericScientists,25,502-518.

Davidson,D.(1978).WhatMetaphorsMean.CriticalInquiry,5(1),31-47.DeWitt, H.E. (1955).ACompilation of SpectroscopicObservations of AirAroundAtomicBombExplosions.LosAlamos,NewMexico:LosAlamosScientificLaboratory.

Dixon,B.(1975,March27).Comment:WeatherWarfare.NewScientist,762.Dobson, G.M.B. (1968). Forty Years’ Research on Atmospheric Ozone at Oxford: AHistory.AppliedOptics,7(3),387-405.Doel,R.(2003).ConstitutingthePostwarEarthSciences:TheMilitary’sInfluenceontheEnvironmentalSciencesintheUSAAfter1945.SocialStudiesofScience,33(5),635-666.

Dotto,L.,&Schiff,H.(1978).TheOzoneWar.NewYork:Doubleday.Edwards, P. (1996). The ClosedWorld. Computers and the Politics of Discourse in ColdWarAmerica.Cambridge:MITPress.Farman, J.,Gardiner,B.,&Shanklin, J. (1985).Large lossesof totalozone inAntarcticarevealseasonalClOx/NOxinteractions.Nature,315,207-210.


doi:10.1080/17524032.2017.1371052 14

Fleming,J.(2010).FixingtheSky:TheCheckeredHistoryofWeatherandClimateControl,NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.Fleming,J.(2006).ThePathologicalHistoryofWeatherandClimateModification:Threecyclesofpromiseandhype.HistoricalStudiesinthePhysicalSciences,37,3-25.

Fleming,J.(2011).Planetary-ScaleFieldwork:HarryWexleronthePossibilitiesofOzoneDepletion and Climate Control. In J. Vetter (Ed.), Knowing Global Environments: NewHistorical Perspectives on the Field Sciences (pp. 190-211). New Brunswick: RutgersUniversityPress.Fleming, J. (1998). Weather modification. In G. Good (Ed.), Sciences of the Earth: AnEncyclopediaofEvents,People,andPhenomena,2(pp.843-844).NewYork:Garland.FoxKeller,E.(1995).RefiguringLife:MetaphorsofTwentieth-CenturyBiology.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.

Fox Keller, E. (2002). Making Sense of Life: Explaining Biological Development withModels,MetaphorsandMachines,Cambridge,Massachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress.

Galison, P. (1994). The Ontology of the Enemy: Norbert Wiener and the CyberneticVision.CriticalEnquiry,21(1),228-266.

Goldsmith, P., & Brown, F. (1961). World-wide Circulation of Air within theStratosphere.Nature,191,1033-1037.Grevsmühl,S.(2014).TheCreationofGlobalImaginaries:TheAntarcticOzoneHoleandthe Isoline Tradition in the Atmospheric Sciences. In B. Schneider & T. Nocke (Eds.)ImagePoliticsofClimateChange(pp.29-53).Berlin:Transcript.Gribbin, J. (1988). The Hole in the Sky. Man's Threat to the Ozone Layer, New York:BantamBooks.Grundmann, R. (2001). Transnational Environmental Policy: Reconstructing Ozone.London:Routledge.

Hamblin, J. (2013).ArmingMotherNature:TheBirthofCatastrophicEnvironmentalism.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Hartley,W.N.(1880).Ontheprobableabsorptionofthesolarraybyatmosphericozone.ChemicalNews,42,268.Hoerlin, H. (1976).UnitedStatesHigh-AltitudeTestExperiences.AReviewEmphasizingthe Impact on the Environment. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos ScientificLaboratory.

Hughes, T.P. (1989). American Genesis. A Century of Invention and TechnologicalEnthusiasm,1870-1970.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Johnston, H., Whitten, G., & Birks, J. (1973). The Effect of Nuclear Explosion onStratosphericNitricOxideandOzone.JournalofGeophysicalResearch,78,6107-6135.Kay, L.E. (2000).WhoWrote theBookofLife?AHistoryof theGeneticCode. Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.

Kwa, C. (1987). Representations of Nature Mediating Between Ecology and SciencePolicy: The Case of the International Biological Programme. Social Studies of Science,17(3),413-442.


doi:10.1080/17524032.2017.1371052 15

Litfin, K. (1994). Ozone Discourse: Science and Politics in Global EnvironmentalCooperation.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.Maasen, S., & Weingart, P. (Eds.). (2000).Metaphors and the dynamics of knowledge.London:Routledge.

Machta,L.,List,R.J.,&Hubert,L.F.(1956).World-wideTravelofAtomicDebris.Science,124,474-477.

MacDonald,G.J.F.(1968).Howtowrecktheenvironment.InN.Calder(Ed.),UnlessPeaceComes, A Scientific Forecast of NewWeapons (pp. 165-183). London: Allen Lane ThePenguinPress.

Milstein,T.(2016).ThePerformerMetaphor: ‘MotherNatureNeverGivesUstheSameShowTwice’.EnvironmentalCommunication,10(2),227-248.

Molina, M.J., & Rowland, S. (1974). Stratospheric Sink for Chlorofluoromethanes:ChlorineAtom-CatalysedDestructionofOzone.Nature,249,810-812.Nerlich,B.,& Jaspal,R. (2012).Metaphorswedieby?Geoengineering,metaphors,andtheargumentfromcatastrophe.MetaphorandSymbol,27,131-147.Nerlich, B., & Koteyko, N. (2010). Carbon Gold Rush and Carbon Cowboys: A NewChapterinGreenMythology?.EnvironmentalCommunication,4(1),37-53.

Nerlich, B., Koteyko N., & Brown, B. (2010). Theory and language of climate changecommunication.WileyInterdisciplinaryReviews:ClimateChange,1,97-110.

Office of Technology Assessment. (1979).Theeffectsofnuclearwar.Washington D.C.:GovernmentPrintingOffice.Ortony,A.(Ed.).(1993).MetaphorandThought.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Parson,E.(2003).ProtectingtheOzoneLayer.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Regener, E. (1946, June). Über das ‘photochemische’ Klima der Erde. DieNaturwissenschaften,33,163-166.Roan,S.(1989).OzoneCrisis.The15-YearEvolutionofaSuddenGlobalEmergency.NewYork:Wiley.

Rome,A. (2003). ‘GiveEarthaChance’:TheEnvironmentalMovementand theSixties.JournalofAmericanHistory,90(2),525-554.

Sarasin, P., Berger, S., Hänseler, M., & Spörri, M. (Eds.). (2007). Bakteriologie undModerne. Studien zur Biopolitik des Unsichtbaren 1870–1920. Frankfurt am Main:Suhrkamp.

Sloterdijk,P.(2009).TerrorfromtheAir.LosAngeles:Semiotext(e).Stepan,N.L. (1986).RaceandGender:TheRoleofAnalogy inScience. Isis,77(2),261-277.Stolarski,R.,etal.(1986).Nimbus7satellitemeasurementsofthespringtimeAntarcticozonedecrease.Nature,322,808-811.

Sullivan,W.(1975,February1975).Ozonedepletionseenasawartool.NewYorkTimes,20.


doi:10.1080/17524032.2017.1371052 16

Sullivan,W. (1985,November7).LowOzoneLevelFoundAboveAntarctica,NewYorkTimes,B-21.Wells,B.(1997).Theholetruth.Nature,390,438.

Westing,A.(1984).EnvironmentalWarfare.EnvironmentalLaw,15,645-666.

Wiman, B.L.B. (1995). Metaphors, analogies, and models in communicating climatechange uncertainties and economics to policy: A note on a pre-UNCED U.S. case.EcologicalEconomics,15,21-28.

revisiting the ``ozone hole'' metaphor - archive ouverte hal

Documents