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: - Britain’s 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].

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 UNEP’s 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 they’d 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 Pont’s 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.