Transcript No Slide Title

Global Policy to Protect Stratospheric Ozone
Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer
20th Anniversary in 2007
Take away concepts
Montreal Protocol in a nutshell:
1.
Science shaped the debate
2.
Public perception matters
3.
Viable solutions from industry
More detail:
1. Ozone Policy at the National Level
2.
Ozone Policy at the International Level
3.
Timeline of events, why was policy implemented so rapidly?
4.
What were the relative roles of science and policy ?
5.
National vs. international efforts and pre-emptive measures
6. What did it actually accomplish? What does the future look like?
7.
Is this a viable model for global warming?
Global Ozone Policy
1.
Very Important Issue - Ozone in stratosphere helps
shield earth from UV radiation.
2.
Very Difficult Problem to Solve - ozone-depleting
substances (ODS) were considered essential to
modern life and “impossible” to replace.
–
ODS include: CFCs, Halons, Methyl Bromide, HCFCs,
MC, CTC, Bromochloromethane (BCM)
Global Ozone Policy
3. A Successful and Influential Example
• Global membership.
• Strong set of binding rules (international
law).
– 1985 Vienna Convention
– 1987 Montreal Protocol
– Amendments and Adjustments to the Protocol
(1990 London Amendment, 1992 Copenhagen,
1995, 1997, 1999, 2007).
The Road to Montreal in a nutshell
1. Central importance of science
2. Public Opinion: “The Dread Factor”
3. Industry involvement and viable alternatives
Also - Existing Institutions / Regime / Policy Structure –
accepted international fora for discussion and debate
matters.
1. Advancing Scientific and Technical
Knowledge/Information
• “Framed” the Debate - “Constrained” Actors
• Influenced Epistemic Community Development
(Mindset)
• Formal/Acknowledged Role in Treaty - Basis
for Treaty Expansion.
• The importance of “scientific consensus”
• The importance of timely discoveries
• Influences public opinion, but more importantly
shapes the policy.
2. Public Opinion
• US public increasingly active with environmental
issues (DDT, nuclear weapons, nuclear energy,
pollution, acid rain…)
• “Dread factor” - some issues have the ability to grip
public imagination, mobilize to action (cancer)
• Public willing to sacrifice convenience for public good
• US action led the way to Montreal, both in public
activism and diplomatic leadership. Much of Europe
was reluctant until mid-1980s.
3. Economic Factors
• Industry initially slowed progress. “Traditional”
Retarding Impact
• Once the path became evident, industry shaped the
timeline and the terms of the protocol.
• Regulation Produced Innovation, new substitutes found
to replace old CFCs.
• International regulation ‘re-cartelized’ ODS Production
– allowed for rapid policy expansion
• Multilateral Fund ($2 billion over 15 years) helped
developing countries comply with phase out of ozonedepleting substances (ODS) at an agreed schedule.
• Developed nations paid to help developing nations
comply. Worked – economically and politically.
Policy Development: US to Global perspective
1. Ozone depletion as a domestic issue (1970s)
1971 - Supersonic Transport study
1974 - Molina and Rowland study
1976 - Aerosol CFC ban
2. Ozone depletion as an international issue (1977-1987)
1977 - UNEP World Plan of Action for the Ozone Layer
1985 - Discovery of the ozone hole (Farman et al. 1985)
1986 - Vienna Convention for the protection of the Ozone Layer
1987 - Montreal Protocol for the protection of the Ozone Layer
1990 onwards - Amendments and Adjustments to the Protocol (1990
London Amendment, 1992 Copenhagen, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2007).
1. Domestic Policy (1970s)
The Stage
Economics: 1960s Federal subsidy
of Supersonic transport to
compete with French, UK, and
Soviet efforts
Science: Supersonic transport,
vapor contrails, NOx, and
ozone loss.
Rising US public awareness of
environmental issues
Europeans not convinced SST was
a problem, competition issues.
Domestic Policy (SSTs)
• 1971-1974 - Congress authorized study to investigate effects of
a commercial SST fleet on stratospheric ozone. (Climate Impact
Assessment Program).
• Study backed the SST-Ozone-UV link. Tone of final document
was weak due to political meddling.
• SST program killed in 1971 for many reasons (economic
viability, sonic boom), ozone protection wasn’t one of them!
• “The SST conflict was both a catalyst and harbinger of a new
era” (Horwitch)
• Marked the beginning of a period in which technological
development would increasingly be balanced against other
societal goals.
Domestic Policy (emerging science)
• Molina and Rowland (1974) study. Beautiful science.
• An amazing achievement - laboratory study recreating chemical
reactions in the stratosphere.
• Global implications
• Pointed attacks from industry
Domestic Policy (Spray can ban)
• 1978 CFC-propellant ban for
aerosol spray cans.
• Issue emerged on the heels
of the SST conflict, also
rising environmental
awareness of US public.
• Initiated as a consequence
of CFC - UV - skin cancer
research in mid-1970s.
• US led the way, Canada,
Scandinavian also adopted.
(But France and UK did not)
1970s VO5 Hairspray ad
1987 Montreal Protocol
1978 Spray can ban
1977 UNEP meeting
1974 Molina & Rowland study
1971 SST
Domestic
2. Public Concern
Late 1970s: UV radiation and cancer
Public Concern:
Discovery of the Ozone Hole (1985)
•
•
•
•
Farman et al (1985) study
provided critical proof that
ozone inventories were
decreasing.
Most surprising was the rate of
decrease: 40% decreases then
(up to 80% now)
This, coupled with the UVcancer studies alarmed the
public.
Pressure to act.
3. International policy
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1970s - studies linking increased UV to cancer
1977 UNEP World Plan of Action for the Ozone Layer meeting
1979 Margaret Thatcher Elected
1980 Ronald Reagan Elected
1985 - Discovery of the Ozone Hole
1985 Vienna Convention, not binding and no protocol for reducing CFC
emissions. "Umbrella Treaty".
– US, Canada, Sweden, Norway, and Finland on one side (proposing
80% reduction, complete production ban); EEC countries on the
other (30% cut, production cap).
1986. Negotiations on a protocol to the Vienna Convention for
controlling CFCs resumed.
1987. Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer
achieved in a 9-month period. Production ban, phase-out, Multilateral
fund.
Subsequent amendments: 1990 and onward
Ozone Regime
1987
–
–
–
–
–
–
Montreal Protocol.
Centerpiece of the regime.
50% cuts on 5 CFCs and 3 Halons by 2000.
10-year grace party for developing countries (Article 5).
Assessment panels.
Amendment and adjustment procedures.
All countries have signed onto this as of 2009.
Ozone Regime
1990
London Amendment and
Adjustments.
• 100% cut on 15 CFCs, Halons, CT, MC by 2000 from 1986
levels.
1992
Copenhagen Amendment and
Adjustments.
• 100% cut on 15 CFCs, Halons, CT, MC by 1996 from 1986
levels.
• HCFCs and Methyl Bromide added.
Ozone Regime
1995 Vienna Amendment and Adjustments.
•
•
HCFCs consumption controls increased.
Grace period – informally adjusted/expanded for developing countries.
1997 Montreal Amendment and Adjustments.
•
Methyl Bromide to be phased out by 2005 – with loophole retained.
1999 Beijing Amendment and Adjustments.
•
HCFC production controls; restrictions on HCFC trade with non-Parties;
•
production and consumption controls for new group of substances,
Bromochloromethane (BCM)
Only 155/254 countries have signed on
Multilateral Fund
• Helped developing countries phase out ODS
• Follows UN principle that “countries have a common
but differentiated responsibility to protect and
manage the global commons”
• Pledges from developed nations were $2.1 billion
(1991-2005).
International Institutions and Extant
Regime / Policy Structure
• Financial Mechanism - Multilateral Fund
(hugely imp political deal; membership
carrot; economic interests; adjustment
costs).
• Trade Sanctions (membership stick)
• Non-Compliance Procedures
• UNEP as designated regime organization
International Institutions and Extant
Regime / Policy Structure
• Int. Institutions provided foundation, basis & opportunity to
initiate, sustain and build policy.
• Control Measures - Clear, Strong, Simple, Binding,
Total Phase-Out Goal, Differentiated Responsibilities
• Ability to grow in response to new information
–
–
–
–
Requirement to consider action;
Information to base decision (Assessment Panels);
Ability to make decisions;
Rapid implementation of decisions possible (Amendment
and Adjustments, Decisions of Parties, MF)
1987 Montreal Protocol
1985 Vienna Convention
1985 Ozone Hole discovered
1978 Spray can ban
1977 UNEP meeting
1974 Molina & Rowland study
1971 SST
Domestic
Int’l
Ozone Hole in Dobson Units
Negotiation
Period
Successful Example – So Far
• Robust Set of Component Institutions
– Regime Principles, Norms, Rules, & Procedures
– Multilateral Fund
– Assessment Panels (Science; Environmental Effects;
Technology and Economic Assessment)
– Non-compliance procedures (Implementation Committee)
– Implementing Agencies (UNEP, World Bank, UNDP,
UNIDO)
• Elements incorporated into future treaties (and
intentionally not-incorporated)
Successful Example – So Far
• Effective International Policy
– Production and consumption of almost all ODS (CFCs,
etc.) declining on global scale.
– Atmospheric concentrations of most ODS stabilized or
dropping.
– Stratospheric concentrations of Cl and Br dropping.
– Production and Consumption of CFCs and several other
ODS nearly eliminated in OECD countries, as required.
– Developing countries largely met CFC freeze in 2000 and
meeting or expected to reductions.
– Positive Impact on Climate Change (CFCs about 1000
times GWP as CO2; Ozone Regime responsible for
eliminating equivalent of about 10-20 years of CO2
emissions).
– Flexible language (no new treaty for each compound)
Since 1999
•
Efforts to increase controls MB (USA
opposition at times).
• Efforts to speed controls on HCFCs.
• Enhances focus on FTA in particular areas to
ensure full compliance by developing
countries.
Ozone Regime
2007 Montreal Adjustment: 191 Parties to the Montreal
Protocol reached a historic agreement, September 21,
2007 to strengthen the ozone treaty by speeding up by
ten years the phase-out of HCFCs.
The agreement will advance the recovery of the ozone layer
by several years and, because HCFCs are GHGs,
reduce GHG emissions by up to 25 billion tons of CO2
equivalent—five times more than the Kyoto Protocol
will do during its initial reduction period from 2008 to
2012.
As part of the agreement, developed country Parties
promised to continue paying into Multilateral Fund.
Multilateral fund (~$2.2 billion contributed) to assist
developing world with phase-out.
2007 Montreal Adjustment:
Developed Country Parties:
Baseline: 1989 levels (plus 2.8% of 1989 CFC levels).
75% reduction on 1 Jan 2010 (up from 65%)
90% on 1 Jan 2015
Continuing use of 0.5% from 2020 to 2030
Developing Country Parties: (old schedule – 2016 freeze at
2015 level and 100% cut in 2040)
Base level 2009-2010 average (incentive?)
Freeze on 1 Jan 2013
10% reduction on 1 Jan 2015
35% on 1 Jan 2020
67.5% on 1 Jan 2025
Continuing use of 2.5% from 2030 to 2040
Future Success?
New Scientific Challenges
– New ODS?
– Relation to climate change.
– CFCs and HCFCs in developing countries – will complete
phase-outs really occur.
– Methyl bromide – exemptions.
– Ozone levels will slowly recover over next few decades.
We are
here
Full recovery takes a long time (50 years)
Montreal Protocol as a model for GHG
•
•
•
•
•
•
Similarities
Science frames the debate
Global problem
Public concern
Existing regime framework
Multiple hazards
Industry resistance to
change
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Differences
Disconnect between science and
policy.
Uncertain future projections.
Climate responses to GHG have
longer timescales.
No equivalent “Dread Factor”
No viable energy substitute
Incomplete international
participation
Kyoto vs. Montreal regime
frameworks
No accepted plan for developing
world
No equivalent to Farman et al. 1985
paper - observation of catastrophic
change.
CO2 problem is much bigger in
every way: Impacts, mitigation.
Lessons Learned
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Scientists have a critical role in shaping negotiations.
Policy can advance even with scientific ambiguities.
Well-informed public is a key ally for progress.
Progress: Industry + government + science.
Strong leadership by a few countries.
From Richard Benedick (2007), Science, Diplomacy, and the Montreal Protocol.
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Science,_diplomacy,_and_the_Montreal_Protocol
Timeline of important events leading up to Montreal Protocol
1. 1960s
–
2. 1970 –
reasons
US subsidy of Supersonic transport
SST program put on hold for economic, political, and environmental
3. 1971-1974 – SST Climate Impact Assessment Program.
4. 1974
Spray can CFC issue surfaces
5. 1 9 7 4 M o lina and Rowland study published linking CFCs to potential ozone
depletion.
6. 1 9 7 5
U V - Skin cancer link study published
7. 1977-1985
Ozone depletion enters international political arena
8. 1 9 7 7
U N EP World Plan of Action for the Ozone Layer meeting
9. 1978
Spray can CFC ban (US mainly, many Euro countries not)
10. 1983 EPA was facing a lawsuit from the Natural Resources Defense Council
designed to force EPA to take action to protect stratospheric ozone under the Clean
Air Act.
11. 1985 Vienna Convention, not binding and no protocol for reducing CFC
emissions. "Umbrella Treaty". US, Canada, Sweden, Norway, and Finland on one
side (proposing 80% reduction, complete production ban); EEC countries on the other
(30% cut, production cap). Vienna Convention was important because it represented
a common ground on which international consensus had been reached
12. 1985
late. Farman et al study on sharp decreases in Antarctic ozone inventories.
13. 1986 EPA announced its new Stratospheric Ozone Protection Plan. 150 million
additional skin cancer cases under BAU, no reductions, 3 million deaths before 2075.
14. 1986 late. negotiations on a protocol to the Vienna Convention for controlling
CFCs resumed. The new U.S. position, as outlined by EPA and the State Department,
called for a near-term freeze on the production of CFCs and halons and a long-term
phaseout. The U.S. position was based on new research that pointed to a strong and
growing consensus in the international scientific community concerning the serious
threat that CFCs posed to the ozone layer, and EPA risk assessment that
demonstrated that unacceptable risks were associated with ozone depletion
15. 1987 the Montreal Protocol was achieved in the astonishingly short period of
nine months
Tactics of the Ozone Hole Skeptics (1970s - 90s)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Launch a public relations campaign.
Predict dire economic consequences.
Find and pay a respected scientist to argue your point.
Elevate discredited scientific studies.
Emphasize scientific uncertainty.
“Cherry-pick” data to support your view.
Disparage and impugn specific scientists.
Compliance puts the nation at an economic disadvantage.
More research is needed before action should be taken.
Argue that it is less expensive to live with the effects.
A great link to Jeffrey Masters’ article on this