THE Montreal protocol, the ground-breaking deal to save the ozone layer, is 20 years old this week, and there鈥檚 plenty to celebrate. Ozone-destroying chemicals have stopped increasing in the stratosphere, and ozone levels in most places could be back to pre-1980 levels by 2050, according to the . Even the infamous ozone hole over Antarctica may close by 2075.
It is a rare environmental good-news story, but there is no room for complacency. The ozone layer isn鈥檛 safe yet, partly because of glaring and avoidable mistakes that have been in the treaty since 1987. Countries are still allowed to use chemicals that destroy ozone 鈥� and contribute to global warming. When the signatory governments meet in Montreal again this week to review progress, let鈥檚 hope they don鈥檛 fall into the same trap.
First, though, give credit where it is due. The Montreal protocol is well worth celebrating simply for the political paradigm it established. This was where scientists learned to reach a consensus about a complex problem even before they understood it completely, and then to present that to policy-makers in ways that led to action. It was where scientists and politicians learned to revisit an action plan as the science improved, and ratchet up the remedies as required. And it was where the world learned that credible international treaties with funding can elicit new, clean technologies from companies that otherwise insist they are impossible. Crucially, the chemical industry and its client governments agreed to phase out ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) 鈥� used in refrigeration, aerosols and foam 鈥� because they had patented expensive replacements. For them, the Montreal protocol was profitable.
Advertisement
鈥淐redible international treaties, complete with funding, can elicit new, clean technologies鈥�
Unfortunately, this was where the mistakes crept in. Some of the replacements, hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), were also bad for the ozone layer 鈥� not as bad as CFCs but still a cause for concern. And subsequently, scientists discovered that both HCFCs and another CFC-alternative, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), contribute to global warming (快猫短视频, 13 May 1989, p 25). Safer, unpatented alternatives have been developed and . Yet the signatory countries have failed to insist on them, even though they knew about the shortcomings of HCFCs. That decision has come back to haunt them. Concentrations of HCFC-22 in the stratosphere have risen to worrying levels 鈥� its production has jumped five-fold since 1995 in countries such as China and India, where demand for air conditioning has soared.
The Montreal protocol now rules that countries have until 2040 to stop production and consumption of HCFC-22. This is not soon enough. Ban it earlier and the ozone layer will recover quicker. Such a move would also help fight climate change. Indeed, the Montreal protocol has already played a part here: CFCs are greenhouse gases, and phasing them out has delayed global warming by a dozen years. Likewise, banning HCFCs now will be equivalent to reducing the world鈥檚 greenhouse gas emissions by 3.5 per cent per year for a decade. So let鈥檚 do it soon.
Some agreement on a faster phase-out of HCFCs seems likely this week in Montreal. It is less clear whether the negotiators will avoid the previous pitfalls. Just as in 1987, chemical companies are enthusiastic about banning HCFCs because they have HFCs and other halfway solutions patented and ready to sell. Yet they are not needed: the European Union has already replaced HCFCs with ozone-friendly, climate-safe substitutes. For the same thing to happen worldwide, the Montreal protocol must insist that replacements be both ozone and climate-safe.
This will be a struggle: the US in particular has already opposed tackling ozone depletion and climate change together. Whether the US likes it or not, the two are closely related. For example, more than half the expenditure on greenhouse-safe technology under the Kyoto treaty goes towards paying companies to destroy a greenhouse gas produced in the manufacture of HCFCs. This subsidy enables companies to sell HCFCs cheaply, making it hard for cleaner technologies to compete.
The meeting in Montreal will barely start to unravel such complexities. But eventually governments will have to bite the bullet. We haven鈥檛 saved the planet yet.
