Looking to the Past for a Stable Climate Future

Even as the world celebrates International Ozone Day every year on September 16, to generate awareness about ozone protection, the rigorous depletion of ozone layer still continues to be a major concern among environmentalists.

The global theme for Ozone Day 2011 is ‘HCFC Phase-out: a Unique Opportunity’. With the Montreal Protocol, the entire globe agreed to accelerate the phase-out of production and consumption of hydro chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), but still countries like India has failed to take serious step towards its implementation, says noted environmentalist Yellapa Reddy.

NASA has discovered vast holes in the ozone layer over Antarctica and the Arctic and this will also have its effect in India. Reddy said, “During the rotation of the earth there occurs planetary change and this ozone hole, when faces the peninsula India will have a serious impact especially on Southern India, compared to other parts of the country.

The ultra violet radiation thus released can cause skin cancer and will also affect the biodiversity and agricultural production.”

“The ban of obsolete technology emitting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) should strongly be implemented in India. The CFCs when released into the atmosphere goes to the stratosphere and remains there for decades. Especially items like air conditioners and refrigerators which uses chlorine should be used wisely,” he added.

The problem gets worse when these refrigerators are discarded. He said, “The Pollution Control Board and the Environment Department should put a check and take strict action against the violators.” Meanwhile, Harish Bhatt, Biodiversity Expert also voices similar opinion. He said, “Depletion of the ozone layer will be a major problem in the long run. Burning of carbon, pollutants, especially CFCs emitted from air conditioners, refrigerators, burning of fossil fuel are major contributors.”

“Putting a complete ban on the usage of refrigerators and air conditioners and burning of carbon is however not possible. But at least attempt can be made to regulate its usage,” he added.
"A treaty was signed that was unique in the annals of international diplomacy. Knowledgeable observers had long believed that this particular agreement would be impossible to achieve because the issues were so complex and arcane and the initial positions of the negotiating parties so widely divergent. Those present at the signing shared a sense that this was not just the conclusion of another important negotiation, but rather a historic occasion. By their actions, the signatory countries sounded the death knell for an important part of ...international...industry, with implications for billions of dollars in investment and hundreds of thousands of jobs in related sectors. The protocol did not simply prescribe limits... based on 'best available technology,' which had been a traditional way of reconciling environmental goals with economic interests. Rather, the negotiators established target dates for replacing products that had become synonymous with modern standards of living, even though the requisite technologies did not yet exist." -- Richard Elliot Benedick, US Ambassador.

What if things had been different? What if the Kyoto Protocol had included hard target emission limits on developing countries? What if it had capped global emissions? What if the U.S. Senate had been willing to ratify it? What if George W. Bush's administration had not backed away from the treaty? What if the US had taken the lead and pushed countries like China, India, and the EU to set aggressive targets? If these things had happened, the passage above might be written today about the Kyoto Protocol.

Instead, as we stand a little over three months away from the end of the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period, the world finds itself with no internationally binding agreement to combat what is arguably the biggest problem facing today's global inhabitants and future generations.

Looking back on the Montreal Protocol, the treaty for which the passage above was actually written, it seems like a global agreement to limit production and consumption of dangerous chemicals used in refrigerators, air conditioners, and making insulated foam was inevitable. But reading Ambassador Benedick's book, Ozone Diplomacy, a must read for today's generation of environmental leaders, it is clear that it was not.

Big industry, like Dow Chemical, resisted. Other nations, primarily a handful of nations in the EU, tried to scuttle the international negotiations. Factions within the president's inner circle (the president was Ronald Reagan at the time), tried to sabotage the process. And even months before the set of negotiations that finalized the Montreal Protocol, hopes of success looked dim.

Despite these hurdles, the Montreal Protocol was signed and ratified. And now, nearly 25 years later, the treaty is hailed by international environmental leaders like Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, and head of the International Network for Environmental Compliance & Enforcement, as not only the most effective international environmental agreement ever, but also the "best climate treaty to date."

According to Zaelke, the MP has "already delayed climate change by the equivalent of 12 years of CO2 emissions and produced net mitigation equivalent to 135 billion tonnes of CO2 by phasing out nearly 100 other gases that harm the ozone layer and warm the climate by 97%." He added, "In fact, if you included our earlier voluntary efforts, and those at the national level before Montreal was negotiated, we've solved an amount of the climate problem that otherwise would be equal to the contribution from CO2 -- 1.6 watts per square meter. This is astounding, and should give us hope that we can learn how to solve other parts of the climate problem."