Ozone Layer Essay, Research Paper

Summary of

Learning of the Ozone Experience

On the 16th of September 1987, negotiators meeting in Montreal finalized a landmark in international environmental diplomacy: the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer. The Successful Conclusion of the negotiations in Montreal was widely hailed at the time as a historic even. As the protocol was the most ambitious attempt ever to combat environmental degradation on a global scale. In the 10 years since that meeting in Montreal, the accord has set in motion myriad actions by national governments, international organizations, scientists, private enterprises, and individual consumers.

The results are clear: by 1995, global production of the most significant ozone-depleting substance (ODS) the chlorine, containing chlorofluorocarbon (CFCs) was down 76 percent from its peak in 1988. But three is a substantial lag between the time when emissions begin to decline and the point at which the ozone layer begins to recover, as it takes years for CFCs and other ozone-depleting compounds to reach the stratosphere, and some last for centuries once there. Yet it is clear that the Montreal Protocol ushered in a new era of environmental diplomacy. Although in some ways the ozone story is an inspiration, in other respects it is a cautionary tale.

Since it’s beginning, the ozone experience has been characterized by a path breaking partnership between scientist and international policymakers. When CFCs were invented in the late twenties, they were viewed as wonder chemicals nontoxic, nonflammable, non-corrosive, and stable. The seeds of the Montreal Protocol were sown in 1974, when chemist Mario Molina and Sherwood Rowland at the University of California at Irvine published a landmark article in Nature. It hypothesized that the stability CFCs, while an asset for industrial applications, might prove deadly for the ozone layer.

Yet the scientific process was initially slow to yield clear answers. Indeed, models in the early eighties suggested that CFCs would cause less severe ozone depletion than Molina and Rowland had initially hypothesized. Fortunately, the scientific collaboration initiated years earlier began to bear fruit. Two months after the Vienna agreement was reached, a scientific bombshell provided a much-needed jolt to protocol negotiations just then getting under way. The findings took the world by surprise: no such precipitous decline had been predicted by any atmosphere models.

Ten years after the historic Montreal signing ceremony, the response to the protocol around the world has been substantial indeed. The protocol granted countries flexibility in designing programs to meet the Montreal targets, and many different approaches have been tried. Despite these successes, worrisome stumbling blocks in the protocol’s implementation have also emerged. For one thing, the economic and political chaos in the former Soviet union and in some parts of Eastern Europe has slowed progress in eliminating CFCs. Consumption of ODSs is reportedly already falling in a number of developing countries such as Brazil and Columbia.

At a time when global environmental trends appear so daunting, and progress toward reversing them seems so slow, it is reassuring to remember that in responding to the threat of ozone depletion, the international community has largely proved itself up to the task. In a coincidence of timing, 1997 is not only the tenth anniversary of the Montreal Protocol it is also the year in which diplomats hope to complete negotiations on a Kyoto Protocol to the climate change convention. For one, the Montreal Protocol pioneered a new relationship between scientists and policymakers.

Meanwhile, once at the negotiating table, industry has decided to stay. In the Climate change negotiations, a number of U.S. based industries such as coal and oil were concerned they would suffer from the changes. Fortunately, there are still other business groups that have staked out positions enthusiastically in favor of strong accord. On the biodiversity issue, some U.S. industries were initially wary of the Convention on the Biological Diversity. Another important lesson from the ozone experience is how important it is to design treaties so that they can be easily updated to take account of new scientific and technical findings. So as we move on in the 20th Century, we as humans have to look out for the other environmental problems that await us and look for a resolution.