1 / 7

Saving the Ozone Layer

Saving the Ozone Layer. Science and the Evolution of Precautionary Action. Agenda Setting. CFCs: the “miracle compound” Non-toxic, chemically inert, many uses Few makers (DuPont is #1) Stratospheric ozone O 3 absorbs UV-radiation, which causes skin cancer, cataracts, phytoplankton death…

selia
Télécharger la présentation

Saving the Ozone Layer

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Saving the Ozone Layer Science and the Evolution of Precautionary Action

  2. Agenda Setting • CFCs: the “miracle compound” • Non-toxic, chemically inert, many uses • Few makers (DuPont is #1) • Stratospheric ozone • O3 absorbs UV-radiation, which causes skin cancer, cataracts, phytoplankton death… • 1974 discovery: CFCs destroy ozone • 1978: U.S., Canada, Nordic aerosol ban • 1977-85: fact-finding, little action

  3. Science in the Ozone Negotiations • Vienna Convention (1985) • Antarctic ozone hole (1986) • Not predicted by models • Cause unknown; CFCs suspected • Negotiators advised to ignore it • Models predicted 7% ozone loss by 2050 • Montreal Protocol (1987) • U.S. vs. E.U.; virtually no DC participation • IC’s to cut CFCs in half by 2000 • DC’s can increase CFC use for 10 years

  4. How did the ozone hole have an effect? • Not predicted by models, opened door to knew way of framing the knowledge • “Chlorine-loading” scheme • Emerged when chlorine concentrations reached 2 ppb • Stabilizing Cl required 85% reduction • U.S. position: 95% cutback • Montreal Protocol was not enough

  5. Beyond Montreal • Amendments: 2/3 vote, majority of IC’s & DC’s • Binding on dissenters: sovereignty? • 1988: New Science • Arctic “hole” • Antarctic hole linked to CFCs • Global ozone losses • 1990s: CFC substitutes & Multilateral Fund • Necessity for DC participation • India & China to consume 1/3 CFCs by 2008 • Grand bargain: participation for development aid

  6. Amending Montreal • London, 1990: CFC phaseout by 2000 • Plus carbon tetrachloride & methyl chloroform • Multilateral ozone fund ($1 B since) • Copenhagen, 1992: phaseout by 1996 • Phase out HCFCs by 2030 • Bangkok, 1993: phase out methyl bromide • Montreal, 1997: ban MB by 2005 (IC’s) • Beijing, 1999: HCFC freeze @ 1989 levels • IC’s ban by 2004; DC’s by 2016 • Compliance, black market

  7. Relationship & contrast to climate change • Scientists increasingly outspoken • Small, concentrated industry vs. the glue of the global economy • Availability of profitable substitutes • Science-led protocol amendment process • Norms of universal participation and “common but differentiated responsibility” • U.S. demands “universal participation” on climate change

More Related