1

Saving the Ozone Layer

Science and the Evolution of Precautionary Action

POL S 384 Lec 12 2

Agenda Setting

CFCs: the “miracle compound” Non-toxic, chemically inert, many uses Few makers (DuPont is #1)

Stratospheric ozone O3 absorbs UV-radiation, which causes

skin cancer, cataracts, phytoplankton death… 1974 discovery: CFCs destroy ozone

1978: U.S., Canada, Nordic aerosol ban 1977-85: fact-finding, little action

POL S 384 Lec 12 3

Science in the Ozone Negotiations

Vienna Convention (1985) Antarctic ozone hole (1986)

Not predicted by models Cause unknown; CFCs suspected Negotiators advised to ignore it

Models predicted 7% ozone loss by 2050 Montreal Protocol (1987)

U.S. vs. E.U.; virtually no DC participation IC’s to cut CFCs in half by 2000 DC’s can increase CFC use for 10 years

POL S 384 Lec 12 4

How did the ozone hole have an effect?

Not predicted by models, opened door to knew way of framing the knowledge “Chlorine-loading” scheme

Emerged when chlorine concentrations reached 2 ppb Stabilizing Cl required 85% reduction

U.S. position: 95% cutback Montreal Protocol was not enough

POL S 384 Lec 12 5

Beyond Montreal

Amendments: 2/3 vote, majority of IC’s & DC’s Binding on dissenters: sovereignty?

1988: New Science Arctic “hole” Antarctic hole linked to CFCs Global ozone losses

1990s: CFC substitutes & Multilateral Fund Necessity for DC participation

India & China to consume 1/3 CFCs by 2008 Grand bargain: participation for development aid

POL S 384 Lec 12 6

Amending Montreal London, 1990: CFC phaseout by 2000

Plus carbon tetrachloride & methyl chloroform Multilateral ozone fund ($1 B since)

Copenhagen, 1992: phaseout by 1996 Phase out HCFCs by 2030

Bangkok, 1993: phase out methyl bromide Montreal, 1997: ban MB by 2005 (IC’s) Beijing, 1999: HCFC freeze @ 1989 levels

IC’s ban by 2004; DC’s by 2016

Compliance, black market

POL S 384 Lec 12 7

Relationship & contrast to climate change

Scientists increasingly outspoken Small, concentrated industry vs. the glue of

the global economy Availability of profitable substitutes

Science-led protocol amendment process Norms of universal participation and

“common but differentiated responsibility” U.S. demands “universal participation” on

climate change