Scientists, Environmentalists, and the Global Atmosphere - Behind the Curve - page 38

thereby significantly increase the risk of skin cancer. While most scien-
tists agreed that a reduction in ozone would lead to an increase in cases of
skin cancer, many, including Kellogg, were skeptical of McDonald's claims
about the SST and ozone depletion. 32
In 1970, Kellogg and his colleagues presented their SST research in an
MIT-sponsored Study of Critical Environmental Problems (SCEP). 33 Despite
the paucity of vertical mixing in the upper atmosphere, allowing the gases
of the SST's exhaust to stay airborne for between one and three years,
SCEP concluded that “no problems should arise from the introduction
of carbon dioxide and that the reduction of ozone due to interaction with
water vapor or other exhaust gases should be insignificant.”34 34 But SCEP's
authors also recognized that the study had relied on General Electric's
potentially problematic data for the company's own engine's emissions,
and the report contained many uncertainties. SCEP recommended “that
uncertainties about SST contamination and its effects be resolved before
large-scale operation of SSTs” began and it outlined a research plan for
obtaining better data on the subject. 35
In August of 1970, before the official publication of SCEP, the New
Yo r k T i m e s and Los Angeles Times — both outspoken critics of the SST—
ran articles on the report, playing up the recommendation that the project
be delayed. The story made the front page of both papers, with the LA
Times declaring “Scientists Fear Climate Change by SST Pollution” and
citing concerns about CO 2 and other gases trapped in the stratosphere.
The LA Times quoted Kellogg specifically: “When you change something
on a global basis,” Kellogg told the press, “you had better watch out.” 36
Kellogg's caution was only half the story. He and his SCEP coauthors
certainly had concerns about ozone depletion and climate change—
Kellogg would express deep concerns about anthropogenic climate
change and environmental degradation throughout his life— but based
on his research in 1970, he saw no direct evidence that the SST would
cause either of these phenomena. In early March of 1971, as the Senate
debated the SST's future, Kellogg testified before Congress alongside
SST supporter Fred Singer, noting that he had so far found no convinc-
ing evidence that the SST would cause significant ozone depletion or
climate change. 37 “In short,” wrote Kellogg in his prepared statement, “I
have found no environmental basis for delaying the Government's SST
program.” 38 Still, if his testimony gave the forthcoming SST prototype a