The Montreal Protocol: Can it Lead The Way?


I’ve been losing faith recently in our ability to alter our dangerous environmental path. However, a look at the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (or Montreal Protocol as it’s commonly known) offers hope for global governance, even if it did take place 30 years ago…

The Montreal Protocol, signed in 1987, is commonly regarded as one of the most successful international environmental agreements. It centres around the use of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs), most significantly, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs; Figure 1 shows a breakdown of CFC containing products). CFCs were developed in the 1920s as a safe alternative to ammonia, yet they proved to be not so safe for the ozone layer. For those interested in chemistry, take a look at Figure 2 to see how CFCs destroy ozone molecules.  

Figure 1: Products responsible for CFC production before the Montreal Protocol.


Figure 2: The chemical equation that takes place once CFC molecules reach the stratosphere.

Why is the destruction of the ozone layer so bad? Ozone is the only gas which filters solar UV radiation. If too much UV radiation reaches the earth, skin cancer cases would rise, the human immune system compromised and crop yields decline. Evidently, the impacts of allowing the continued emission of CFCs into the atmosphere would be catastrophic.

Some academics suggest that the problems posed by CFCs and GHGs are similar. Both have global ramifications, both affect the population indirectly, and both have long-term effects. Thus looking at the success of the Montreal Protocol may provide a useful framework for future international climate governance. 

There are four aspects fundamental to the success of the Protocol: 
  1. The following of the precautionary principle, defined as: “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”. Uncertainty over the extent, causes and impacts of ozone degradation did not stop nations supporting fast and aggressive change.
  2. There was also a strong commitment to “common but differentiated responsibility”; which rests on a universal common duty to protect our environment whilst recognising global inequalities. The involvement of developing nations was therefore seen as fundamental and proved essential to combating CFC production. India, for example, would have experienced a tenfold increase in CFC production by 2015 if not part of the agreement. However, due to contrasting economic situations developing countries were given a 10-15% target leniency and an additional 10 years for implementation.
  3. Additionally, financial support for developing nations in the form of The Multilateral Fund (MLF) has been important in the adoption of ozone-friendly production methods. The Fund, having thus far provided $3.6 billion, enabled the implementation of progressive regulation and aided the transition to new technologies. This culture of support ultimately resulted in a faster than expected phaseout of CFCs within developing nations.
  4. Finally, the adaptivity of the Protocol, with follow-up meetings scheduled at least every 4 years, has been crucial in ensuring it keeps pace with scientific advances. This can be seen even at the first meeting at Helsinki in 1989, where the initial target of 50% CFC reduction by 1998 was increased to 100% by 2000. The latest amendment, the 2016 Kigali Amendment, focused on hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HFCs), a substitute for CFCs. Although not nearly as bad for the ozone layer, like CFCs they have a global warming potential (GWP) far higher than carbon dioxide. The Kigali Amendment therefore committed to cutting HFC production by 80% by 2046, preventing nearly half a degree of warming.
As a result of improvements to the agreement, over 98% of controlled ODS production has been halted and the Protocol gained universal ratification in 2009 (see Figure 3). Without the Protocol, not only would the ozone hole have grown substantially, but the GWP of CFCs could have been catastrophic (see Figure 4). It is predicted that due to the Protocol, atmospheric ozone will return to its natural levels by the end of this century. 



Figure 3: Chart showing the number of countries ratifying the Protocol, the size of the
ozone hole and the production of CFCs.


Figure 4: The climate benefits of the Montreal Protocol in terms of global warming and
likely scenarios of what could have happened without the early warning of Molina and
Rowland's 1974 paper.

The reasons behind the success of the Protocol mirror the reasons for the failure of the COPs that I discussed last month. Until recently, the COPs lacked ambition, thus shunning the precautionary principle, excluded developing nations which dissuaded universal action and refused to offer financial support. The 2015 Paris COP, however, hints that the successful aspects of the Montreal Protocol may have found their way into other global climate change agreements. 

At this point, I would love to be optimistic, but I have concerns about comparing the Montreal Protocol and COPs, which focus on GHGs. Whilst CFCs and GHGs both present challenges to the global climate, the causes and effects of their production are vastly different. Firstly, the scale of emissions are a world apart, with CFC production in 1986 reaching 1.1 million tonnes, compared to over 35 billion tonnes of GHGs from fossil fuels and cement production in 2015. On top of this, CFCs were produced primarily by large corporations in developed nations. Contrastingly, GHGs require no technology and are emitted universally. Together, this makes the management of GHG emissions decidedly more complex. Furthermore, the cost of implementing the Montreal Protocol is just a fraction of the cost of tackling GHG emissions. In part, this is aided by the development of substitutes for CFCs, allowing for the almost seamless continuation of production of previously CFC containing products. However, perhaps the greatest difference is that CFCs are not essential for daily life. GHGs, however, are a byproduct of almost every human activity. 

The Montreal Protocol is a shining example of global environmental governance. However, it may be the case that the conditions of the Montreal Protocol will not be replicated and I worry that its success may not be replicated either. After reading some blogs from my cohort at university, I’m starting to think that alongside global commitments, we need substantial lifestyle changes; as the GHG problem might not be so amenable to the techno-fixes that saved us from CFCs. 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Governing The Arctic

Image
The melting of Arctic sea ice is a phenomenon many of you will be familiar with. However, you may not be aware of the impact of these changes on international politics. The Arctic has long been a site of political contestation , being of key strategic importance during the Cold War. Its location between the (then) Soviet Union and the USA   led to an initial ‘battle’   over its control. However, as ice cover has receded in recent decades, the race for Arctic resources has taken off. Satellite images from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in Figure 1 highlight how dramatic Arctic sea retreat has been since 1979, with an average 12% reduction per decade . Anthropogenically linked climate change is causing profound changes in Arctic ecosystems, a region more sensitive than most due to complex feedback mechanisms known as ‘polar amplification’ . Temperatures have risen 1.1°C within the last 50 years , twice the rate of the rest of the globe, and with up ...
Read more

Can The COPs Win?

Image
I watched ‘ Guardians of the Earth ’ at a film screening this week and I have to say, I was slightly overwhelmed. The film focused on the Paris Conference, or COP21, as the ‘last attempt’ to salvage the Earth after 20 years of failed UN climate negotiations. Whilst the film was almost distressing in its highlighting of the complexity and urgency of the situation, the reaching of an agreement left viewers with a glimmer of hope. However, this is not fiction and the Paris Agreement might just be a big hint of the proactive international governance I was discussing in relation to the Arctic. As I said last week , I’ll therefore be having a look at what exactly COPs are, the problems they’ve faced, and why Paris might just be different Figure 1 : The leaders of COP21 celebrate after the passing of the Paris Agreement.  The COP journey to Paris has not been a smooth one. The Kyoto Protocol, for example, which emerged from the 1977 Kyoto COP, was  heralded as a s...
Read more

Introduction: Politics Cannot Avoid Climate Change

It was the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) that initially directed my attention to the politics of our environment. The notion that 195 countries, so often at odds or even at war with each other, could possibly sit down and come to an agreement that benefits perhaps not themselves but the planet as a whole, seemed, well…absurd. Add to this the complex histories of development that have unfairly advantaged certain countries over others and the divides deepen. However, central to all the discussions, debates and politics was the overriding necessity of an agreement that could help knock the Earth from its current trajectory. It was this necessity, one which transcended political borders, that centred my attention on the global politics of environmental change.   In recent years it has been suggested that humankind has become a major geophysical force, influencing the global climate and pushing our environment towards a point from which it may not recover; l...
Read more