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 costs of limiting CFC production and consumption exceed private benefits reducing ozone depletion; • 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 IVBroaden 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 countrie in ODS phasing out • $240 million initial endowment fund to be spent over three years • By 2001, 1.2bn contributed to the fund; 3500 projects in 124 countries. • No ODS trade with countries, which are not parties to the treaty • Developing countries: 10 year grace period for compliance. • China, India and Brazil joined

11. 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

12. Act VTragedy of the Commons Averted?

13. 1988 ozone hole 2000 ozone hole Effect of Ozone Regime?

14. Tragedy of the Commons Reversed

15. 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.).

16. Discussion What explains the success of the Montreal Protocol?

17. 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

18. Implications • Institutions should allow adaptation of rules -Even weak treaties can ratchet up • Early targets important for innovation irrespective of stringency • Feedback b/w regulation, technology, innovation, and domestic politics • Repeated negotiations help ratcheting up • Authoritative, consensual science essential • Institutions can alter the cost and benefit structure of cooperation