Pushkin, this is solvable. I'm Ronald Young Jr. Back in nineteen ninety two, I was in the second grade and would occasionally watch this show on television called Captain Planet and the Planeteers The Power. It was a superhero themed environmentalist cartoon considered to be edutainment for kids. It fitted well with Bill Nye, the Science Guy and Reading Rainbow. Each episode was built around an environmental problem, often perpetuated
by a super villain. Then the international coalition of Planeteers would fight alongside Captain Planet to literally save the world. The show was very on the nose. It covered topics like littering, pollution, and in one particular episode it talked about the whole in the ozone layer that chill Joy. Ozone layer blocks out the deadly rays. D fcs eat a hole in the ozone layer of Hurd's atmosphere, but without the ozone, the Sun's deadly ultraviolet radiation will pour
down on us exactly. Supervillain Duke Newcombe and its flunky assistant who moved factories to Antarctica in order to open the backs of refrigerators and microwaves just to release the damaging chemicals. Those chemicals called CFC's or chlorofluoral carbons actively create the whole in the ozone Again, this is a kid show. I first saw this episode when I was in second grade, and I remember being really concerned. As
an adult, I rarely hear about the ozone layer. I talked this up to lack of interest and the new cycle moving on, but then I realized it's because this problem was actually solved. We had this which you might call focusing event of this whole in the Antarctic ozone layer, which really in the nineties and certainly in the eighties, people were very, very interested in this problem. Kids really cared, and their parents really cared. Doctor Susan Solomon is a
real life planeteer. She's an atmospheric scientist whose research into CFC's in the nineteen eighties showed that they were responsible for the whole in the ozone layer and eventually led us all to solutions. Public engagement, you know, when people get interested in something and really think about what things they can do, is often a very very powerful way to solve environmental problems. Now you know here it's solvable. It's rare that we talk about problems that have already
been solved. So let's see what lessons we can learn from doctor Solomon and how they can be applied. I'm doctor Susan Solomon, and I never thought when I was young that we could solve the ozone depletion problem, but we did, and we can also solve climate change. I know that one of your earliest inspirations was the ocean explorer and filmmaker Jacques Cousteau. He was a big influence on you as a kid. Can you remember the first
time you saw him at work? You know, it was one of those little old nineteen sixties black and white TVs. I was probably about ten, so even though it was black and white, I just could not believe how beautiful the undersea world of Jacques Cousteau actually was, and what an incredible thing it was that he was going down there to study sharks and whales. And that's when I decided, Okay, I'm going to be a scientist. And I never wavered from that view, and I'm so glad that I didn't.
How did you make the leap from underwater science to atmospheric work. I thought at first that I would be a biologist, you know, I'd be a marine biologist like Jacque. Right. But when I got to college and was, you know, looking at biology, I didn't really like biology, but I really liked chemistry. What I liked about it was the exactitude of it. You measure out exactly how many milli leaders of one chemical you combine with another one, and voila, you know, you get some third thing and it always
happens the same way. And I found that to be really beautiful. So I kind of fell in love with chemistry. Then I found out that there was such a thing as chemistry on a planet, not just in a test tube. And wow, that's what I decided I would try and go for. And it was, I think a fabulous decision. Doctor Solomon. In the nineteen eighties, you led a group of researchers to Antarctica. Tell me a little bit about that trip. By that time, I was already a young scientist.
I was past my PhD. I was working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. And this incredible thing happened, which was that some scientists reported that the ozone over Antarctica had dropped like a rock. And I was lucky enough to have the chance to go down there and take some measurements not just of ozone itself, but also other chemicals that influence it, to try to understand why
that was happening. And as far as the experience, you know, it's often said Antarctica isn't a place, it's an obsession because everybody that goes there is so blown away by the other worldly nature of this remarkable, cold, remote crystalline palace that is Antarctica, and the constant reminders that you really are in the most unexplored place that exists still on this planet, and also just how small you are as a person, and how vast and wild nature is.
I mean, there's no a greater reminder of that than when you're in a blizzard down in the Antarctic. Could you describe what's that like? Oh? Yeah, I mean down there, you don't actually usually call them blizzards. You call them herbies because it's a combination of a hurricane a blizzards. It became a herbie. It sounds cuter than it is. It's very dangerous to go outside in those kind of conditions because you literally cannot see more than a few
feet in front of your face. So if you get disoriented at all, and you don't know which way is back to the hut that you came out of. You probably will die. And I know people who have Doctor Solomon, can you tell me a little bit about what ozone actually is and why you went to Antarctica to study there specifically. Yeah, so it was a real mystery when the ozone hole opened up. Ozone is O three, So three oxygen atoms stuck together is O three. Oxygen that
we breathe is O two and very very different. O three absorbs certain wavelengths of ultraviolet light that are not absorbed by anything else. So it's absolutely critical for the evolution of life on the planet. If we didn't have an no zone layer, there wouldn't be any life at all on this planet, at least not life as we know it. If we have less ozone, then we'll have more skin cancer, we'll have more cataracts. Those are some of the most severe human impacts. But you know, what
about plants, what about animals? You know, it clearly would have massive biological implications because ultra violet light. You know, anybody who's ever been sunburned or head cataracts knows that ultraviolet light is very damaging. So it was really a shock when the British Antarctic Survey reported that they'd seen a tremendous decline in the ozone layer over their station. It wasn't being seen anywhere else in the world. It
wasn't being seen over the Arctic, for example. Didn't take long for the Japanese at their station to confirm what the British had seen, and eventually the satellites came in and were able to actually document the full scale of the thing. It's twice the size of the continent on the United States, I mean, think of that. It's just massive, and it opens up every year at the end of
winter beginning of spring. So this was a huge mystery and we went down there to try to help figure out what it is by measuring other stuff, you know, and you could actually see that there was this huge bite taken out of the normal layer. So there's normally sort of a you know, if you turned it on its side and imagine it was a person, it would look like a big nose. Right, So there's this big layer of ozone and you know, somebody's eaten the nose
off of ozone's face. Right, It's just it's incredible, So we should clarify this is not something you can actually see with your eyes right right, So you can't see ultraviolet light with your eyes, but we have sensors that can measure ultraviolet light. And since ozone absorbs in the ultraviolet, if there's less ozone, there'll be more ultraviolet, and you can quantify that and say how much it is. We could also, and this was really important, measure chlorine monoxide.
And in my own group we measured chlorine dioxide, which is related to chlorine monoxide and that absorbs in the visible So all these different kinds of measurements by independent methods, they all showed that the chlorine was completely out of wack. And that was very suggestive certainly, and infect it really strongly pointed toward the idea that something about the chlorofluoricar in chemistry over Antarctica was different, and we knew that that was a potential cause, and it indeed it turned
out to be the cause. So chlorofluorcarbons we call those CFCs as well. Would you talk about CFCs and remind listeners what those are. Chlorofluora carbons are a man made chemical. There's no natural source of these molecules at all. We make them in the lab. They were first discovered in around the twenties for use in refrigerators, and they're actually great. They're what makes the compressor able to cool the refrigerator. They're a great insulator. So styrofoam, for example, was blown
that way back in the day. Home insulation panels were made that way. But the most important use at the time of the discovery of the ozone hole was still in spray cans, so the propellants that get the stuff to come out of the can. Now, the ozone hole wasn't discovered until nineteen eighty five, but in nineteen seventy four two scientists Malina and Rowland wrote a paper talking about the fact that these molecules might actually destroy a
little bit of ozone someday. And they were talking about a small effect, a few percent far in the future, you know, a hundred years from now, kind of like the way people used to talk about climate change until maybe the past year or two or three, when climate
change has become more obvious. But back in that day, you know, there was no observation that said it was already happening, but there was this theory and Americans were environmentally, I think it's fair to say very conscious and realize that they could do something really simple, which was go to their medicine cabinet and get rid of the spray on deodorant and buy the roll on next time instead,
and that's what they did. It created an enormous kickstart because with seventy five percent of the use being for spray cans in nineteen seventy four, the American chemical companies suddenly found themselves, you know, in a terrible position. There was no market, you know, I mean it's like, whoa, The bottom dropped out of everything that they were trying to do with these chemicals. So from the point of view of the US manufacturers, the old stuff wasn't wasn't
going to sell. So consumer action really was a fantastic kickstart when they had a huge effect on industry, had a few huge effect on the viability of that product. It's just, I think a wonderful testimony to the power of people. And I agree with that because I remember in the nineties, early nineties, I was in first or second grade, and I remember when that was all people talked about. They were like, hey, we got to save
the ozone layer. Don't use CFCs, don't use spray cans, and they mobilized us children to go home, mommy, daddy, you gotta get rid of all the spray cants stuff. You can't use this anymore, especially if it's a CFCs. And I've remember on cans stuff used to say no CFCs if they didn't have it. It It was very popular at that time. And I remember we used to talk about the ozonel or a lot. There was a lot of buzz in the nineties about ozone depletion, But the
climate conversation seems to have shifted. We're not necessarily talking about ozone depletion as much anymore. And I'm wondering how tightly linked are ozone depletion and climate change. It's not the major reason why the planet's getting hotter. The climate issue is mainly caused by our burning of fossil fuels, which produces carbon dioxide, and that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared light.
It's because we've increased the carbon dioxide by oh, you know, the natural level that was there, say around eighteen hundred, would have been around two hundred and seventy parts per millions. So when a millionaire molecules, you'd find two hundred and seventy carbon dioxide molecules. Now we have something close to foreign fifteen. So you know, we've we've made a big
change in the amount of carbon dioxide. And the one thing actually that the ozone depleting chemicals have in common with carbon dioxide is that they have long lifetimes of the order of fifty two hundred and fifty years. Carbon dioxide is even longer. Some of it goes away fairly quickly into things like plants and the surface layer of
the ocean. But in a thousand years, twenty percent of the carbon dioxide that you or I know put in the atmosphere today by driving, for example, will still be there. Twenty percent of it will still be there, continuing to warm the planet. You know, to me, what matters in solving environmental problems is first and foremost the action of people,
the interest of people. With enough public interest, politicians who care can get engaged with the problem because you know, they've got popular support, and in fact, they can force their opponents to get engaged. And that's that's happened already in both problems. I personally am very optimistic that the kind of public concern and power of the people movement that you're seeing is going to have a huge effect. And of course, you know, there's a role for science.
I always say that science alone is never enough to solve an environmental problem, but it's always always necessary. So it's a necessary but not sufficient condition. You've got to be able to understand the problem. And I think that we do our best job in solving environmental problems when they're personal, when when people really care about them. You know, we cared about skin cancer. It was personal, it was perceptible.
It was easy to see these beautiful images of you know how big the ozone hole is, you know, eating all of Antarctica. And we found practical solutions. We didn't have to give up having dealnorant You know, we could have roll ons and we didn't have to give up spreak cans. You know, we could we could actually put other stuff in the can. And we don't have to give up refrigerators. We'd have to give up any of it.
We just had to develop practical solutions. And I think when you look at climate change, it's becoming way more personal. It's why there is this level of public engagement, way more perceptible. You know, the summers are warmer, for sure, and definitely it's dryer, and of course the fires in the West are terrifying, the flooding that happened this year in so many different parts of the world, whether it's China or Europe. So personal, perceptible, and the solutions are
becoming practical. You know, I really think we are on the road to fixing this problem. I appreciate optimism. I do want to talk more specifically about the ways in which these movements happened. In the eighties, the same year you were doing research in Antarctica, the United Nations created the Montreal Protocol. Would you tell me about that time? Sure, the original Montreal Protocol was very clever. All that it required was that the growth of global use of chlorofloric
carbons stops. So, in other words, they weren't saying you had to phase these molecules out right away. They were saying, don't make more next year than you made this year. You know, it wasn't that threatening to you know, things
like refrigerator manufacturers or other users of these molecules. Yet, and it gave a mandate to the scientists really and the technologists report back to assess the state of the science, the state of understanding of what you could do instead, and when the diplomats met again in nineteen ninety, by that time it had become clear that the depletion over an Arctica wasn't unique, that we were actually seeing significant depletion over mid latitudes too, So you know, over Washington,
d C. Over London, over all the different places in the world. You know, we have dozens of stations where ozone has been measured, So that of course created a tremendous amount of impetus to do more. And the other thing that was happening, and I think this is really important, is that just the fact that the protocol existed really sent a strong message to industry. You know, it said, hey,
you know, yeah, you've we've frozen this stuff now. But it's clearly sending a message that this is not going to be a growth industry and it might actually be a shrinking industry. So maybe, you know, the smart money is on substitutes. So for example, the chloroflora currents. At one time, we're used as solvents, and it was found that you could actually substitute lemon juice in a lot of cases. So, you know, it was just amazing how quickly industry pivoted. You know, the chemical industry is can
be very nimble when they're forced to be. So it was the perfect problem. And that it affected humids, we could see how it affects humids, we immediately reacted to it, whereas climate change, we're really saying, at some point, this is going to happen to the planet, and that happening to the planet then affects us, which feels like it's harder to make that appeal to humans. So I'm asking, how are you still optimistic about this? Helped me be
more optimistic. Okay, let me also say, by the way, you're right, I think ozone was kind of a you know, it was the Goldilocks problem as far as having everything just line up perfectly for it to be very, very solvable. But it's not unique. Actually, when you look at lead in pain, leading gasoline acid rain, how good a job
we did on dealing with smog in this country. You know, it had a lot of the same elements, a social movement, politicians who really hugely supported it, options for practical solutions, namely the catalytic converter in your car. I mean I could name another half a dozen issues, all of which follow that same pattern of personal, perceptible, practical and people. Maybe that's the fourth pee is people. But when it
comes to climate change, I am optimistic. And the reason is because you know, say ten fifteen years ago, people would say to me, well, you know, climate change, it's just not that personal to me. And I think the
waiting is over, I really do. I don't see how anyone can look at the pictures of people drowning in subways that was in China this summer, and churches in Europe that have been there for hundreds of years getting swept away, and wildfires destroying the volume of the size of the state of Rhode Island in California, and the air pollution from that being horrendous. I just don't think you can realistically look around and say climate change isn't here.
Climate change is here. It is personal, and people are not heartless. I mean most people, actually, you will do something to help their fellow man as long as it's practical. Support for alternative energy has come a long way, particularly development around solar and wind has yielded tremendous benefits. And here's the amazing thing. If you're going to build a power plant in America today, the cheapest type of power to produce is solar and wind, So you won't build
a coal plant in America today. Every thing that President Trump tried to do to prop up coal, you know, it didn't work. There have been lots of retirements of coal plants in the years of the Trump presidency and maybe maybe nuts. Not even talk about presidents, let's talk about GM. GM has announced that they are going to only make electric vehicles by twenty twenty five. So what is that telling you? They're getting the message right, I mean,
industries got the signal, Doctor Solomon. How has the Paris Climate Agreement worked similarly to the Montreal Protocol in terms of influencing industry Because of the tremendous amount of money involved, No nation is going to comfortably sign up to a big cut in emission if it's a binding agreement. I mean, the Montreal Protocol could be binding because of the nature of those chemicals, but this had to be a voluntary agreement. China and the US are not going to sign up
to that, so it's voluntary. We make a promise, we say we're going to phase out this much by twenty thirty or twenty forty. That's huge. The message that sends to industry is enormous, and I think the Paris Agreement is a master stroke for that. So, um, I'm I'm a patient woman and I'm very optimistic. Is any of this optimism fueled by the fact that the ozone layer has started to heal and you can directly attribute that to the type of work that you were doing in
the eighties and nineties. I mean, what my feeling when I see that is behold the awesome power of we the people. That's what made this happen. And you know, my grandmother made it to one hundred and one. So if I do also, then I will actually get to see the ozone hole completely closed. And I've already seen it start to heal, doctors, all of it. That's exciting. That's that's exciting. There's a couple of things you've said. You said that you're you're patient, and I appreciate that.
I think sometimes a kid get lost in the climate fight, the urgency that is spoken versus the work that is being done and the moves that are being made. So it's really good to hear you say that, and you are awarded the National Medal of Science in nineteen ninety nine, the Blue Planet Prize in two thousand and four. You shared a Noble Peace Prize in two thousand and seven
with Al Gore as a member of the IPCC. You were inducted into the Women's Hall of Fame in two thousand and nine, all related to your work on CFC. So that's you have an incredible track record here. Is there anything about your work that people get wrong or miss? Because it's so exciting to congratulate you on the big public wins. We would not have gotten where we got to about the ozone hole if people hadn't stopped using spray cans. So I wish they would congratulate themselves, not
me more often. I know that sounds corny, but I really truly do feel that way. Can you talk about one to two things that listeners can do today to help slow down or reverse climate change? If they want to be involved in being a part of the people of the four piece that you said, Yeah, that is
such a great question. So the first thing that they should be doing is writing letters to their congressmen, and if they can going out there and holding a sign being part of peaceful you know, and non violence demonstrations to make their opinions heard in whatever opportunities they have to do that. They should also be talking to people in their churches or you know, their clubs or their schools or whatever. The more we talk about it, the
more people will will get engaged. As far as personal actions, you know, one of the things that I personally have done is to cut down on meat in my diet. I mean, as you know that the production of meat and particular is a significant source of greenhouse gases, so cut down a little bit. It's actually good for you too. And another thing that you can do is use any single use plastic that you get at least twice. So if you get a plastic bag, you know, use it again,
wash it out, use it three times. Better not to use it, but if you do have to use it, and you know, even like water bottles of course, are another great example where there's you know, we have good water in this country by and large, it's better to bring your own water. But if you forget and you're at the baseball game, you know, I get dehydrated. Okay, buy buy a bottle plastic water but then don't throw it away or even you know, recycle it right away,
wash it out well, but you know, use it. You can use them probably ten times, but at least double down and think about reducing the market for single use plastic by a factor too. Wow, that would be huge, Doctor Solomon, I shate you for being on the show today. Thank you so much for being with us. Thank you
so much for asking me. It was a thrill. Doctor Susan Solomon is a professor of environmental studies at in my T. She was awarded the National Medal of Science, the prestigious Blue Planet Prize, shared a Nobel Peace Prize in two thousand and seven with Al Gore, and was inducted into the Women's Hall of Fame in two thousand and nine and Solomon. Glacier and Antarctica is named after her. Solvable is produced by Joscelyn Frank, research by David Jack,
booking by Lisa Dunn. Our managing producer is Sasha Matthias, and our executive producer is mio Lebelle. I'm Ronald Young Junior. Thanks for listening.