International Air Pollution

1
International Air Pollution
2
Outline

• Introduction
• concepts
• Acid Rain in Europe
• the Problem
• Convention LRTAP
• Implementing LRTAP
• Evaluating success
• Ozone Depletion
• Initiatives in responding to the ozone problem
• Negotiations
• Montreal Protocol, 1987.

3

• Introduction
• Scope
• Acid rain in Europe
• Ozone depletion
• Climate change
• The challenge
• Formation of an international environmental
• governance regime in the absence of an
• international government.

4

• - Hypothesize that a country will (not)
  participate depending on
• a) its calculation of factors such as
• 1. Metrics interaction of ecological
  vulnerability and abatement costs
• 2. Preferred emission reduction strategies
  question of design of proposed regime
• 3. Sense of honor?
• 4. National interests
• 5. Problem validity epistemic controversy
  regarding cause and mitigation sometimes invoked
  opportunistically
• and,
• b) the higher the density of interaction of these
  factors in the negative direction, the more
  difficult it will be for a country to get on
  board.

5

• Strategy by designers of a regime
• - Specify how signatories must act,
• -incentive structures
• Key concepts
• (Framework) Convention
• - Establishes general principles, norms and
  goals.
• Protocol
• agree on more specific targets than the general
• provisions of the parent convention.
• Signing and,
• ratification binding within national
  jurisdiction

6
Acid Rain in Europe

• Problem
• Transboundary transport of pollutants and their
  effects
• - How international?
• Europe
• - Britains impact on Scandinavian countries.
• 1977 OECD study showed that the problem was
  transboundary.
• North America Disproportionate flow of NOx from
  U.S. to Canada
• - ecosystem damage in Canada.
• -Resultant concern motivated international drive
  to forge a convention, hence LRTAP.

7
Convention LRTAP.

• Leaders
• a) Scandinavian
• - initiated debate thro ECE US and Canada
  members
• - Result 1972 OECD commissioned a study
  findings published in 1977
• b) France and Italy
• - no problem contracting because were in hydro
  and nuclear energy.
• Laggards Britain, Poland, and U.S.
• a) Britain-
• - international and costly abatement measures
  not favored.
• - 90 energy was fossil fuels, clear
  cost/benefit issue
• - action would benefit others

8

• - Britain argued
• - science on source inconclusive more
  research.
• - no binding commitments, just general
  statements.
• b) Germany- initially, but later changed
• discovery of black forest in the 1980s Green
  Party effects.
• Ambitious sulfur reduction target (50 in 10
  years)
• Emission limits for large industrial utilities
• Requirement to adopt Best Available Technology

9
LRTAP Convention, 1979.

• -Parties European states 32 E.U., now almost
  50, U.S. and Canada.
• -Aim -
• "endeavor to limit and, as far as possible,
  gradually reduce and prevent air pollution,
  including long-range transboundary air pollution
  . . . using the best available technology which
  is economically feasible ."
• Provisions include monitoring and research.
• e.g. Regulations
• Emission ceilings/caps country-specific
• Best Available Technology standards sources
• Ecosystem sensitivity assessments critical
  loads threshold beyond which there will be
  damage to ecosystem sensitive to ecosystem

10
Implementing LRTAP Protocols

• a) Protocol on general Issue.
• - 1984 Protocol to fund EMEP
• European Monitoring and Evaluation Program
• Role of Information
• - Model air emissions transfers and depositions
• - EMEP Blame Matrices sources and receptors of
  pollution in Europe
• - Helped reduce scientific uncertainty about
  transboundary factor in acid rain in 1980s.

11
B) Pollutant-specific Protocols

• Sulfur dioxides Helsinki, 1985 force 1987
• -reduce emissions or transboundary fluxes of
  sulfur at least 30 (from 1980 levels) by
  1993.
• -second sulfur protocol (Oslo 1994). reduce
  the gap between existing and critical loads 60
  percent by 2000.
• Nitrogen oxides Sofia, Bulgaria 1988 force,
  1991
• Volatile Organic Compounds VOCs Geneva 1991
• Gothenburg Protocol 1999 -Cuts in SO2, NOx,
  VOCs, and ammonia emissions by 2010 from 1990
  levels ceilings assigned individually table.

12
(No Transcript)
13
Acid Rain Regime a success?

• a) Sulfur dioxide
• Europe
• - upto over 80 in some countries others more
  than halved others reduced by more than
  one-third.
• E U average nearly 50 reductions of emissions.
  
• North America - Canada cut emissions by
  one-third
• - United States (power plants 40 total 28)
• b) Nitrogen oxide
• - Major reduction was in rage of 21-26 .
• - Other countries increased emissions by 15 to 40
  .
• - European average was just 2 problem growth
  of road traffic and nitrogen emissions from
  agriculture.

14
Accounting for success?

• a) Focus on Information EMEP
• - improved scientific understanding - reduce
  variance on sense of vulnerability
• b) Dramatic opportunities post-communism, E.U
  membership and geographical expansion of CLRTAP.
• Caution role of forces unrelated to regime for
  some countries.
• - changes in energy policies
• - Netherlands, Britain conversion to domestic
• natural gas.
• - fundamental economic and industrial changes
• - E.U. process.

15
OZONE DEPLETION Vienna convention (1985 )and
Montreal Protocol, 1987
16
Solving/Responding to the Ozone Problem

• Two major initiatives U.S and global
• U.S. initiatives
• a) Domestic front
• Ready to ban before international action
• Public concern and organized pressure?
• b) Internationally
• 1972 U.S. raised issue at UN Conference on Human
  Env. at Stockholm call for research on the
  ozone problem.
• U.S. tabled issue at NATO Conference in 1975 EPA
  initiative.
• 1977 UNEPs coordinating committee on Ozone
  layer.
• Negotiations on a binding agreement began in
  1981.
• -difficulties

17

• Difficult Negotiations
• - scientific uncertainty still high.
• E.g. 1984 international scientific program
  still lacked a consensus by 1985.
• - Large producers Britain, France, Italy, and
  Spain,
• therefore, resisted stringent Measures vs.
  countries that
• wanted strong controls Toronto Group Canada,
  Finland,
• Norway, Sweden
• - 1985 Vienna Convention signed. Provided for
• cooperation in research, monitoring and
  information exchange
• - 1985 discovery of ozone hole in Antarctica

18
Montreal Protocol, 1987.

• Aim regulate and phase out Ozone Depleting
  Substances ODS
• Negotiations
• a) impact of domestic actors U.S. industry
• b) Epistemic community- inconclusive
• opinion fed into tactics of industry
  lobbyists.
• - By 1987, near unanimity on adverse effects,
  gave credibility to proponents of ban.
• c) Issue played into N.-S. divide on Env.
  Development

19
How they managed to secure an agreement

• Financial mechanisms
• Support diffusion of technology on substitutes
  for
• ODS in developing countries.
• Role of hegemon U.S. took lead
• Carrot and stick strategy
• - cushioned developing countries 10 years
  delay
• - Control of trade in ODS with
  non-participants.
• Dramatic opportunity possibility of substitutes
  for CFCs, so industry softened, especially with
  financial mechanism promising a market in
  developing countries.

20

• Industrial countries cut production and
  consumption of CFCs to 50 of 1986 levels by 1999
  
• Significance
• First application of principle of common but
  differentiated responsibilities.
• Financial mechanism first of its type in IEA.

21
Montreal Protocol Success?

• Developing countries not prohibited but then it
  was the only way theyd participate
• Compliance problems illegal trade-Russia

22
Post-Montreal Protocol developemnts

• Shift towards complete phaseout of CFCs
• - Further development in scientific evidence
• - 1988 Ozone Trends Panel released study
  showing human-generated chlorine species
  responsible for decrease in ozone.
• - In U.S., Du Ponts announced a CFC
  manufacturing stop by century end so U.S.
  called for a complete phaseout by 2000.
• - Britain softening due to pressure by
  environmentalists and parliament. PM hosted a
  meeting where EU resolved to back U.S. in calling
  for phaseout.