Science and global environmental politics Acid Rain Stratospheric Ozone Depletion

Science, Uncertainty & Risk The authority of science Modern notion of progress “Knowledge is power” Perceived neutrality (fact/value) Uncertainty: incomplete information Risk: probability of an undesirable event Risk assessment Cost-benefit analysis Probabilistic; money is the measure Risk perception and risk cultures Policy Qs How much certainty do we need? Which risks to mitigate? How? Who decides? POL S 384 Lec 9

Why science does not generate rational policy Scientific consensus is rare “Facts” must be interpreted Scientists are rarely advocates Much policy is not based on science Risk of information overload Scientific agenda is political decision What counts as knowledge? “Other” knowledges POL S 384 Lec 9

Acid Rain Backdrop: Cold War, urban pollution policies Lead states: Nordic countries Laggard states: Germany, U.K., Poland Conv. on Long-Range Transport of Air Pollution (1979) German forest death  30% Club (SO2) “Forecaring principle” Subsequent protocols Nitrogen oxides Persistent Organic Pollutants Heavy Metals US & Canada on acid rain China? POL S 384 Lec 9

Precautionary Principle Under threat to human health or envt, precautions should be taken even without full scientific proof of causality. “Ounce of prevention is worth pound of cure” Embryonic principle of international law Shifts burden of proof Promotes foresight, humility, recognition of interdependence POL S 384 Lec 9

Ozone Depletion: Agenda Setting CFCs: the “miracle compound” Non-toxic, chemically inert, many uses Few makers (DuPont is #1) Stratospheric ozone O3 absorbs UV, which causes skin cancer, cataracts, phytoplankton death… 1974 discovery: CFCs destroy ozone 1978: U.S., Canada, Nordic aerosol ban 1977-85: fact-finding, little action POL S 384 Lec 9

Science in the Ozone Negotiations Vienna Convention (1985) Antarctic ozone hole (1986) Cause unknown; CFCs suspected Negotiators advised to ignore it Models predicted 7% ozone loss by 2050 Montreal Protocol (1987) U.S. vs. E.U.; virtually no DC participation IC’s to cut CFCs in half by 2000 DC’s can increase CFC use for 10 years POL S 384 Lec 8

How did the ozone hole have an effect? Opened door to new way of framing the knowledge “Chlorine-loading” Emerged when chlorine concentrations reached 2 ppb Stabilizing Cl required 85% reduction U.S. position: 95% cutback Montreal Protocol was not enough POL S 384 Lec 9

Beyond Montreal Amendments: 2/3 vote, majority of IC’s & DC’s Binding on dissenters: sovereignty? 1988: New Science Arctic “hole” Antarctic hole linked to CFCs Global ozone losses 1990s: CFC substitutes & Multilateral Fund Necessity for DC participation India & China to consume 1/3 CFCs by 2008 Grand bargain: participation for development aid POL S 384 Lec 8

Amending Montreal Copenhagen, 1992: phaseout by 1996 London, 1990: CFC phaseout by 2000 Plus carbon tetrachloride & methyl chloroform Multilateral ozone fund Copenhagen, 1992: phaseout by 1996 Phase out HCFCs by 2030 Bangkok, 1993: phase out methyl bromide Beijing, 1999: HCFC freeze @ 1989 levels IC’s ban by 2004; DC’s by 2016 2010 ~ Total phase-out of CFCs, halons and carbon tetrachloride in developing countries Compliance, black market POL S 384 Lec 8

Coming Attractions 2015 ~ Total phase-out of methyl chloroform and methyl bromide in developing countries. 2030 ~ Total phase-out of HCFCs in developed countries. 2040 ~ Total phase-out of HCFCs in developing countries POL S 384 Lec 8

Kigali Agreement (2016) POL S 384 Lec 9 Source: https://www.nrdc.org/experts/david-doniger/countries-adopt-kigali-amendment-phase-down-hfcs POL S 384 Lec 9

Montreal Protocol Effectiveness The shining example of green diplomacy Ozone hole 1986: 14 million km2 2006: 28 million km2 Chlorine loading near its peak 2014: smaller for the first time 2017: smallest since 1988 Predicted to be normal mid-century Multilateral ozone fund Roughly $4 billion, 1991-2017 Very effective POL S 384 Lec 8

Relationship & contrast to climate change Science-led protocol amendment process Norms of universal participation and “common but differentiated responsibility” U.S. demands “universal participation” on climate change Scientists increasingly outspoken Small industry vs. glue of global economy Availability of profitable substitutes POL S 384 Lec 8