1

Global Policy to Protect Stratospheric Ozone

20th Anniversary in 2007

Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer

Remember: Project Proposal is due in class on Sept. 30

Take away conceptsMontreal Protocol in a nutshell:1. Science shaped the debate2. Public perception matters3. Viable solutions from industry

More detail:1. Ozone Policy at the National Level2. Ozone Policy at the International Level3. 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 measures6. What did it actually accomplish? What does the future look like?7. Is this a viable model for global warming?

What are CFCs ?

• Chlorofluorocarbons are agroup of inert, nontoxic, andnonflammable syntheticchemical compounds

• Pervasive: Used as aerosolpropellants, in refrigeration andair conditioning, in plastic foamsfor insulation and packaging,and as solvents for cleaningelectrical components.

• There are many varieties ofCFCs; CFC-11 and -12 are themost common compounds

Q1: Which of the following is true?

a) Ozone is naturally produced and destroyedb) Ozone is naturally produced but only destroyed by

CFCsc) Most ozone production occurs in the troposphered) Ozone is only produced and destroyed by CFCse) Ozone protects life from harmful IR radiation

Q2: If all the ozone in a column of air werecompressed onto the earth’s surface it wouldonly be 3mm thick. How and where does this thatmospheric compound protect us?

A. UV wavelength reflectance in the stratosphereB. IR wavelength absorption in the troposphereC. UV wavelength absorption in the troposphereD. IR wavelengths absorption In the stratosphereE. UV wavelength absorption in the stratosphere

UV radiation and CFCs

2

CFC and O3Chemical reactions for

ozone depletion

CFCl3 + hν → CFCl2 + Cl

Cl + O3 → ClO + O2

ClO + O3 → Cl + 2 O2

Ozone Hole in Dobson UnitsOzone Hole

Darkest blue areasrepresent regions ofmaximum ozone depletion

1979

19821984 1986

1988 1990

19921994

1997

1999

2004

Q3: The ozone hole is due to:

A. The polar vortex around AntarcticaB. Cold austral wintersC. Austral spring UV radiation and CFC photolysisD. Free Cl atoms in the stratosphereE. All of the above

Global Ozone Policy - Why Care?

1. Very Important Issue - Ozone in stratospherehelps shield earth from UV radiation.

2. Very Difficult Problem to Solve - ozone-depletingsubstances (ODS) were considered essential tomodern life and “impossible” to replace.

– ODS include: CFCs, Halons, Methyl Bromide, HCFCs,MC, CTC, Bromochloromethane (BCM)

3

Global Ozone Policy - Why Care?

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 science2. Public Opinion: “The Dread Factor”3. Industry involvement and viable alternatives

Also - Existing Institutions / Regime / Policy Structure –accepted international fora for discussion and debatematters.

1. Advancing Scientific and TechnicalKnowledge/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 environmentalissues (DDT, nuclear weapons, nuclear energy,pollution, acid rain…)

• “Dread factor” - some issues have the ability to grippublic 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 Europewas reluctant until mid-1980s.

3. Economic Factors

• Industry initially slowed progress. “Traditional”Retarding Impact

• Once the path became evident, industry shaped thetimeline and the terms of the protocol.

• Regulation Produced Innovation, new substitutes foundto replace old CFCs.

• International regulation ‘re-cartelized’ ODS Production –allowed for rapid policy expansion

• Multilateral Fund ($2 billion over 15 years) helpeddeveloping countries comply with phase out of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) at an agreed schedule.

• Developed nations paid to help developing nationscomply. Worked – economically and politically.

Policy Development: US to Global perspective

1. Ozone depletion as a domestic issue (1970s)

1971 - Supersonic Transport study1974 - Molina and Rowland study1976 - Aerosol CFC ban

2. Ozone depletion as an international issue (1977-1987)

1977 - UNEP World Plan of Action for the Ozone Layer1985 - Discovery of the ozone hole (Farman et al. 1985)1986 - Vienna Convention for the protection of the Ozone Layer1987 - Montreal Protocol for the protection of the Ozone Layer1990 onwards - Amendments and Adjustments to the Protocol (1990

London Amendment, 1992 Copenhagen, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2007).

4

1. Domestic Policy (1970s)

The Stage

Economics: 1960s Federal subsidyof Supersonic transport tocompete with French, UK, andSoviet efforts

Science: Supersonic transport,vapor contrails, NOx, andozone loss.

Rising US public awareness ofenvironmental issues

Europeans not convinced SST wasa problem, competition issues.

Domestic Policy (SSTs)

• 1971-1974 - Congress authorized study to investigate effects ofa commercial SST fleet on stratospheric ozone. (Climate ImpactAssessment Program).

• Study backed the SST-Ozone-UV link. Tone of final documentwas weak due to political meddling.

• SST program killed in 1971 for many reasons (economicviability, sonic boom), ozone protection wasn’t one of them!

• “The SST conflict was both a catalyst and harbinger of a newera” (Horwitch)

• Marked the beginning of a period in which technologicaldevelopment would increasingly be balanced against othersocietal 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 foraerosol spray cans.

• Issue emerged on the heelsof the SST conflict, alsorising environmentalawareness of US public.

• Initiated as a consequenceof CFC - UV - skin cancerresearch in mid-1970s.

• US led the way, Canada,Scandinavian also adopted.(But France and UK did not) 1970s VO5 Hairspray ad

1978 Spray can ban1977 UNEP meeting

1987 Montreal Protocol

1974 Molina & Rowland study

1971 SST

Domestic

2. Public ConcernLate 1970s: UV radiation and cancer

5

Public Concern:Discovery of the Ozone Hole (1985)

• Farman et al (1985) studyprovided critical proof thatozone inventories weredecreasing.

• Most surprising was the rate ofdecrease: 40% decreases then(up to 80% now)

• This, coupled with the UV-cancer studies alarmed thepublic.

• 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 theother (30% cut, production cap).

• 1986. Negotiations on a protocol to the Vienna Convention forcontrolling CFCs resumed.

• 1987. Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layerachieved in a 9-month period. Production ban, phase-out, Multilateralfund.

• 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 1986levels.

1992 Copenhagen Amendment and Adjustments.

• 100% cut on 15 CFCs, Halons, CT, MC by 1996 from 1986levels.

• 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 andmanage the global commons”

• Pledges from developed nations were $2.1 billion(1991-2005).

6

International Institutions and ExtantRegime / Policy Structure

• Financial Mechanism - Multilateral Fund(hugely imp political deal; membershipcarrot; economic interests; adjustmentcosts).

• Trade Sanctions (membership stick)• Non-Compliance Procedures• UNEP as designated regime organization

International Institutions and ExtantRegime / Policy Structure

• Int. Institutions provided foundation, basis & opportunity toinitiate, 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)

1978 Spray can ban1977 UNEP meeting

1987 Montreal Protocol

1974 Molina & Rowland study

1971 SST

1985 Ozone Hole discovered

1985 Vienna Convention

Domestic Int’l

Ozone Hole in Dobson Units

NegotiationPeriod

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 foreliminating equivalent of about 10-20 years of CO2emissions).

– Flexible language (no new treaty for each compound)

7

Since 1999

• Efforts to increase controls MB (USAopposition at times).

• Efforts to speed controls on HCFCs.

• Enhances focus on FTA in particular areas toensure full compliance by developingcountries.

Ozone Regime

2007 Montreal Adjustment: 191 Parties to the MontrealProtocol reached a historic agreement, September 21,2007 to strengthen the ozone treaty by speeding up byten years the phase-out of HCFCs.

The agreement will advance the recovery of the ozone layerby several years and, because HCFCs are GHGs,reduce GHG emissions by up to 25 billion tons of CO2equivalent—five times more than the Kyoto Protocolwill do during its initial reduction period from 2008 to2012.

As part of the agreement, developed country Partiespromised to continue paying into Multilateral Fund.

Multilateral fund (~$2.2 billion contributed) to assistdeveloping 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 2015Continuing use of 0.5% from 2020 to 2030

Developing Country Parties: (old schedule – 2016 freeze at2015 level and 100% cut in 2040)

Base level 2009-2010 average (incentive?)Freeze on 1 Jan 201310% reduction on 1 Jan 201535% on 1 Jan 202067.5% on 1 Jan 2025Continuing 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

8

Full recovery takes a long time (50 years)

Is the Montreal Protocol is a valid roadmap foraddressing global warming policy?

A) YesB) No

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 catastrophicchange.

• CO2 problem is much bigger inevery way: Impacts, mitigation.

1. 1960s – US subsidy of Supersonic transport

2. 1970 – SST program put on hold for economic, political, and environmental reasons

3. 1971-1974 – SST Climate Impact Assessment Program.

4. 1974 Spray can CFC issue surfaces

5. 1974 Molina and Rowland study published linking CFCs to potential ozone depletion.

6. 1975 UV- Skin cancer link study published

7. 1977-1985 Ozone depletion enters international political arena

8. 1977 UNEP 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

Timeline of important events leading up to Montreal Protocol

Tactics of the Ozone Hole Skeptics (1970s - 90s)

1. Launch a public relations campaign.2. Predict dire economic consequences.3. Find and pay a respected scientist to argue your point.4. Elevate discredited scientific studies.5. Emphasize scientific uncertainty.6. “Cherry-pick” data to support your view.7. Disparage and impugn specific scientists.8. Compliance puts the nation at an economic disadvantage.9. More research is needed before action should be taken.10. Argue that it is less expensive to live with the effects.

A great link to Jeffrey Masters’ article on this