16 



tions to help us understand the impact of humans on the environ- 

 ment. 



Do you have something to add to the ozone hole? 



Ms. Claussen. Well actually I think this year was the largest 

 one that we've had, and we would think that the science would 

 suggest quite clearly that it's the continuous buildup of 

 chlorofluorocarbons and other chemicals that destroy the ozone 

 layer. 



Even though we in the developed world have already stopped 

 producing those chemicals, there's a long lead time, and so we ex- 

 pect actually to see continued destruction of the ozone layer and of 

 the hole until the cycle turns all the way around and we start to 

 see some healing, probably not for another 20 or 30 years. 



Mr. GUTKNECHT. But you do expect it to turn around? 



Ms. Claussen. I'm not a scientist. 



Mr. GuTKNECHT. What causes that expectation? Are you just an 

 incurable optimist, or? 



Ms. Claussen. No. I mean, if you subscribe to the theory which 

 the world scientists have, and as you know, the scientist who really 

 made the initial connection between CFCs and the ozone layer re- 

 cently received the Nobel Prize, if you accept that, we can chart ex- 

 actly what's going to happen to those chemicals over the next 20 

 or 30 years, and the amount produced is going to be less and less, 

 the amount in the atmosphere is going to be less and less, and we 

 would expect to see a healing. 



Dr. Lane. Mr. Gutknecht, I have a colleague with me. Dr. Neal 

 Sullivan, who directs our whole polar program, and could share 

 with you now, or in writing, or at another time, some more details 

 about the implications of the research. 



Mr. Gutknecht. I don't want to take too much of the Commit- 

 tee's time, but it is something that we read an awful lot about, and 

 constituents ask about, so if one of you could just send me a letter 

 or maybe to the entire Committee, I think it would be very helpful. 



Dr. Lane. We'll certainly do that. 



Mr. Gutknecht. Because I think, I do support the research 

 that's going on, the more we learn the more we know, I think the 

 better we can deal with it. But, you know, this Committee espe- 

 cially, it's very helpful. 



Dr. Lane. We will certainly respond for the record. 



Mr. Gutknecht. Thank you. 



[The following information was received for the record:] 



The Antarctic Ozone Hole 



The Antarctic ozone hole was first reported in 1985 by Joe Farman and his col- 

 leagues from British Antarctic Survey (BAS), about 10 years after recent Nobel 

 Laureats Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina had predicted that chlorine from 

 manmade chlorofluorocarbons could destroy stratospheric ozone through a catalytic 

 process. This prediction was of great importance because the existence of life on the 

 surface of the earth depends on the ultraviolet filtering properties of ozone. The 

 ozone hole discovery was a great surprise for two reasons, first because it was much 

 more severe than even the most pessimistic predictions of the models and because 

 it occurred only in the austral spring above Antarctica. The fact that BAS was mak- 

 ing observations from Antarctica probably advanced by many years the discovery of 

 the hole, thus pointing out the importance of maintaining Antarctic research. 



The U. S. Antarctic Program (USAP) was able to respond very quickly to the BAS 

 report, delivering to South Pole equipment and helium necessary for NOAA to fly 



