Protecting the Ozone Layer

1
Protecting the Ozone Layer
2
Stratospheric Ozone Depletion

• Ground-level (tropospheric) ozone harmful
  pollutant
• Stratospheric ozone shields the Earth surface
  from UV rays.

3
Stratospheric Ozone Depletion

• F. Sherwood Rowland and Mario J Molina (1974)
• CFCs break down in the upper atmosphere
• Release chlorine
• Chlorine reacts with ozone,
• Ozone layer depletion
• Paul Crutzen (1970)
• Nitrogen oxides may deplete the ozone layer
• More UV radiation
• skin cancer, cataracts, damage to other
  organisms, materials, crops

4
Global Commons Problem

• Non-excludable
• Free access
• Subtractable more CFCs less ozone layer
• Private benefits of averting depletion exceed
  cost
• No central governing authority
• Scientific uncertainty
• International cooperation required

5

• But No Tragedy of the Commons?
• Why?

6

• Drama of the Commons
• The Ozone Layer Regime

7
Act I Unilateral Action

• U.S. Regulations
• In 1978 US unilaterally banned the use of CFC
  propellants in spray cans
• Canada, Norway, Sweden
• Also restricted the use of CFC aerosols

8
Act IIDeadlock

• 1977-1985 complete deadlock , some symbolic
  actions
• Opponents to further regulation in US
• EC not interested to limit use in aerosols,
  suspects US of using science to advance
  commercial interests.

9
Act IIIThe Breakthrough

• The Vienna Convention on the Protection of the
  Ozone Layer (1985)
• -Encouraged research, cooperation among countries
  and exchange of information.
• -For the first time nations agreed in principle
  to tackle a global environmental problem before
  its effects were felt, or even scientifically
  proven.
• The Montreal Protocol (1987)
• Production and consumption of 5 CFCs to 50 of
  1986 levels by June 30 1998. Freeze 3 Halons.

10
Act IIIBroaden Participation

• The 1990 London amendments
• Complete ban on 15 CFCs, 3 halons, carbon
  tetrachloride by 2000, and methyl chloroform by
  2005
• Multilateral Fund
• funds the incremental costs incurred by
  developing countries in phasing out their
  consumption and production of ODS.
• 240 million fund over the following three years
  
• China, India and Brazil joined

11
Incentives for Developing Countries

• Later deadlines (10 years) for phasing substances
  out in LDCs (Article V countries)
• Trade restrictions
• Trade with non-parties restricted
• Multilateral Fund
• By 2001, 1.2 million contributed to the fund
  3500 projects in 124 countries.

12
Act IVTight International Regulations

• Amendments adopted at Copenhagen (1992), Vienna
  (1995), Montreal (1997) and Beijing (1999).
• Ninety-six (96) chemicals are presently
  controlled by the Montreal Protocol, including
• Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and Halons.
• Carbon tetrachloride
• Methyl chloroform
• Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
• Methyl bromide

13
Act VTragedy of the Commons Averted?
14
CFC Consumption
15
Ozone Hole

• 1988

• 2000

16
Caveats

• Imperfect compliance in Eastern Europe
• Illegal trade in CFCs
• Supply production still legal in some parts of
  the world imperfect compliance by some former
  communist countries
• Demand older equipment (car AC, etc.), high
  prices because of excise tax before total
  phase-out.

17
Discussion

• What explains the success of the
• Montreal Protocol?

18
US Hegemony/Leadership

• US participation critical
• But institutions necessary
• Establish and strengthen scientific consensus
• Issue linkage and incentives to broaden
  participation developing countries had
  considerable negotiation leverage
• Change negotiating proposal from aerosol ban to
  comprehensive limits on ODS use and production
• Address compliance problems Eastern Europe
  illegal trade, other request for exemptions
• Realist logic deceptively straightforward

19
Industrial Interests

• CFC substitutes found, but
• Alternatives known by 1980 in industry, but
  active research abandoned
• Research further advanced after 1986, by 1988
  major advance in finding CFC alternatives
• Concentrated benefits relatively small number
  of actors - facilitate collective action
• But regime still important
• Shift of industrial process/interests unlikely
  without threat of regulations.
• Even weak regime can motivate technological
  innovation
• Technology Assessment Process brought users and
  smaller producers on board provided information
  on the technical feasibility of reductions

20
The Role of Science

• Placed the issue on policy agenda
• Consensual science necessary for cooperation
• WMO/NASA Assessment (1986)-authoritative, peer
  reviewed assessment on stratospheric ozone large
  losses if CFCs grow by about 3
• Ozone Trends Panel (1988) ozone hole CFCs the
  main culprits
• Depends on participation, sponsorship,
  procedures, outputs

21
Implications

• Institutions should allow adaptation
• Early targets important for innovation
  irrespective of stringency
• Feedback b/w regulation, technology and
  innovation
• Repeated negotiations and ratcheting up effects
• Authoritative, consensual science