Introduction Historical Background Roles Resources Teaching Notes

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Introduction Historical Background Roles Resources Teaching Notes"

Beryl Mills
5 years ago
Views:

1 Introduction Historical Background Roles Resources Teaching Notes

2 Douglas A. 4/28 The Ozone Hole, 1987 Negotiating CFC Regulations In 1987, a group of nations signed an international agreement to limit the production and use of a group of chemicals suspected of harming the earth's ozone layer known as the Montreal Protocol. The Montreal Protocol was remarkable in many ways. It was the first international agreement (outside formal international institutions) focused primarily on environmental issues. The decision-making process itself became significant as it became a precedent and model for later such agreements, such as those concerning global warming and greenhouse gases. Notably, by comparison with later episodes, the agreement involved a relatively small number of relevant stakeholders. The episode was also exceptional because the science behind the agreement was relatively certain (in general terms) by the time the participants finally assembled. Another distinctive feature was the recent development of alternative technologies by private industry. This simulation activity is designed to place students in the historical context to confront the issues and experience the moment for themselves and to understand how science, ethics, economics and politics intersect in issues of the environment. A post-simulation analysis and/or class discussion amplifies the lessons by highlighting the actual history and subsequent events.

3 The Ozone Hole, 1987 page 2 Issues / Questions to Address / Meeting Agenda < Why does ozone present a problem? What is the nature of the problem? (a) science What is the nature of CFCs and their connection to the ozone hole? (b) [ethics] What problem(s) does this pose? for whom? for health? for planetary conditions for human life? for non-human species? (c)? technological Do alternatives need to be developed? How? When? By whom? (d)? economic Comments: On this occasion (by the early 1980s), scientists widely agreed that chloroflourocarbons (CFCs) and other gases could degrade ozone. (The conditions for this consensus and the parallel public concern about the findings may be addressed optinally in post-simulation discussion.) There was also wide consensus on the role of the ozone layer in filtering ultraviolet radiation (uv), and on the health risks, such as skin cancer, associated with reducing the ozone layer. There was still uncertainty, however, about any direct link between the release of the gases and the ozone layer. For example, the historical and seasonal variation of the size of the ozone hole over the south polar region was not yet fully understood, although greatly dramatized by research published in The challenge here, then, is to articulate how the scientific information intersects with various ethical principles, such as protecting humans from harm, responsibilities to future generations, the rights of non-human species, interpreting risk as a value and who bears its burden, and fairness in balancing and distributing benefits and costs. < Who should be negotiating a solution? Who will be "at the table"? governments only, or also others? (businesses involved in CFCs?) CFC producing/cfc using nations only, or also others? other stakeholders? (environmental representatives? non-governmental agencies) How are the interests of each to be addressed or accommodated? Comments: These questions were addressed historically in the Vienna Convention of The original focus of the meetings, largely initiated by the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), were aimed at generating agreement among CFC-producers as the proximal source of the problem. Did that mean that businesses that produced CFCs should also be part of the proceedings? How were economic and governmental systems to be integrated? Also, should CFC-users, potential future CFC-producers, and other potential stakeholders have been integrated into the proceedings at the outset? At what point, to what degree or with what voice? For example, as researchers began documenting substantial increase in the ozone hole about Antarctica, southern circumpolar nations became more sharply concerned about how they might be effected by actions elsewhere on the globe. For other reasons, non-industrialized (or "developing") nations wre concerned about the status of their own economic future under such limitations. They could easily upset any agreement by beginning CFC production themselves. Another dimension of participation -- whose signicance became much more vivid starting in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro -- was the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Could organizations that were not governments, or politically mandated representatives of a nation, enter legally into a treaty? If not, what role could they/should they possibly have? (Did businesses and NGOs share similar status?) For those who are formally excluded from the proceedings, the challenge may be how to have their voice heard -- through behind-the-scenes consulting or lobbying, or vocal pubic demonstration.

4 The Ozone Hole, 1987 page 3 < How should we forestall or minimize future problems? > [Ethically,] What is the nature of our responsibility to future generations? > [Scientifically,] Which chemicals most affect ozone layer depletion? > [Politically,] Should such chemicals be banned or regulated? > [Technologically,] What alternatives are available or under development? > [Ethically,] What level of precaution, if any, is appropriate? Comments: The primary concern in 1987 seemed to be averting future problems in depleting the ozone layer further. But the interpretation of the risk or the sense of immediacy varied among different nations. For example, by 1987 the U.S. and Scandavian countries had already begun phasing out CFCs and were ready for more aggressive policies -- in sharp contrast to European nations. What would be an appropriate schedule for phase-out? What level of precaution or risk was appropriate, based on what principle or method for measuring risk? Also, different ozone-depleting gases may warrant different treatment. Similarly, different users (or uses of CFCs) may earn special ethical status. Were any targeted exemptions or delays warranted? Here, again, detailed scientific information about amounts of gases, their persistence (chemical stability) and their reactivity with ozone seem relevant to realizing ethical or political aims. Also, were economic consequences relevant? If so, how would they be integrated with ethical values? The question of limiting a technology (or adopting any solution) may be closely linked to the availability of alternatives. Here, DuPont had recently developed and patented a family of chemicals to use as refrigerants and propellents in lieu of CFCs. Their earlier opposition to limiting freon diminished markedly, perhaps as they saw an opportunity to shape the international market to favor their exclusive product. Also, was more research warranted to develop other alternatives? If so, who would receive sponsorship? < Does the current situation need remedy? > [Scientifically,] Who generated the problem (in the past)? > [Ethically,] In what ways, if any, do they bear responsibility? Comments: In 1987, concern for the future of ozone seemed to eclipse the history of the problem. That seems partly based on scientific uncertainty about establishing the cause or roots of the problem unequivocally. How might such a focus on the past have affected the decision-making, especially if a different set of stakeholders had been "at the table"? The ozone layer was ostensibly a global probelm. Yet did some nations or groups shoulder the burden of the existing problem more heavily? Southern circumpolar nations certainly felt the threat more deeply, although they were not the primary CFC-users. Were CFC-users responsible for remedying past actions which may affect others? < How will costs, risks or other burdens be distributed fairly? What is an appropriate standard of justice, or fairness? Comments: Solutions are not always free of costs. Here, the most important costs were indirect. Here, non-industrialized nations faced the prospect of more costly (slower) economic development due to the lack of inexpensive CFCs. Having benefitted from CFC use, did former CFC-users owe compensation to them to allow equal opportunity? In particular, if CFCs were banned, should one respect the rights of patents to alternatives (owned in 1987 by DuPont)? Alternatively, did rich nations have more responsibility simply by having a greater "ability to pay"? Historically, these issuew weres not addressed until 1992, at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

5 The Ozone Hole, 1987 page 4 Roles Core Group (CFC-producing nations): * U.S. Canada * Scandanavian Union * European Economic Community (EEC) Russia Japan? Australia Other Nations * Alliance of Circumpolar Nations (add New Zealand, Chile, Argentina, South Africa to Australia) * China India * Congress of Developing Nations (Africa, S.&C. America, SE Asia) NGOs/Others * DuPont / Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy * World Wildlife Fund * Greenpeace * World Bank New York Times? Scientists:? UNEP (or International Council of Scientific Unions [ICSU] )? EPA Committee on Stratospheric Ozone? Farman, Gardiner and Shanklin (ozone hole measurement, 1985)? Rowland & Molina (CFCs) 1995 Nobel Prize? Paul J. Crutzen (ozone depletion w/ NO) winners * = DA's crude assessment of minimal roles needed to cover the basic spectrum of alternative positions.

6 The Ozone Hole, 1987 page 5 Background prospective items to include in a background historical sketch: discovery of CFCs and their applications as refrigerants and propellants summary of early work by Rowland & Molina (on CFCs and ozone) and Paul J. Crutzen (on ozone depletion w/ NO) (brief) controversy on early scientific uncertainty 1970s -- banning of aerosol cans and CFCs in U.S. in 1970s. Role of threats by SST. Dread of skin cancer. Role of popular media? (Scientific American, Nat. Geo.?, New York Times?) dramatization of problem/metaphor builders [See Canan (2002, p. 40)] (brief) research on other ozone-depleting chemicals (NO, halons, carbon terachloride, methyl chloroform), and their various applications? Natural Resources Defense Council lawsuit to force EPA into action on stratospheric ozone under the U.S. Clean Air Act.?resolved by new policy in 1986?? 1985 findings by Farman, Gardiner and Shanklin on ozone hole measurement. profile of UNEP and its role in bringing CFC-producing nations together

7 The Ozone Hole, 1987 page 6 Resources Overviews/histories: Benedick, Richard Ozone Diplomacy Issues in Science and Technology (Fall 1990), pp Benedick, Richard Ozone Diplomacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. Canan, Penelope & Nancy Reichman. Ozone Connections: Expert Networks in Global Environmental Governance. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing, CIESIN Thematic Guides. "Environmental Effects of Ozone Depletion." New York, NY: Columbia University. Haas, P. M "Policy Responses to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion." Global Environmental Change 1: Haas, Peter M. Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. International Organization 46.1 (Winter 1992), 1-35 Haas, Peter M. Banning Chlorofluorocarbons: Epistemic Community Efforts to Protect the Stratospheric Ozone. International Organization 46.1 (1992), pp Morrisette, P. M "The Evolution of Policy Responses to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion." Natural Resources Journal 29: Rowlands, I. H "The Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol: Report and Reflection." Environment 35 (6): =================================================================== Atmospheric Ozone 1985 (World Meteorological Organization Pub. No. 16, 1986). R. Watson, M. Gelle, R. Stolarski & R. Hampson Present State of Knowledge of the Upper Atmosphere: An Assessment Report (NASA Reference Pub. No. 1162). NASA Ozone Trends Panel, Executive Summary of the Ozone Trends Panel (1988).

8 The Ozone Hole, 1987 page 7 Epilog prospective items to include in a background historical sketch:! Reading for discussion: Richard Benedick, Ozone Diplomacy Issues in Science and Technology (Fall 1990), pp as a model in global warming negotiations.! discussion of simulation ground rules v. actual history. clarification of 1985 Vienna Convention, 1987 Montreal Protocol & 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development. voices that were omitted! later role of CFCs and HCFCs as greenhouse gases.

Technology was the key factor in saving the ozone layer

书评 Books Technology was the key factor in saving the ozone layer Roger Pielke Jr 06.11.2012 Technological advances on CFC alternatives helped to grease the skids for policy action, creating a virtuous