This flow diagram illustrates the interplay between science, business and politics in action taken over the destruction of the ozone layer through the use of CFCs (Source: Baylis&Smith, The Globalization of World Politics 2001) Blue: business Red: politics Green: science/environment

Early 1970s Rowland and Molina two US based scientists published an analysis arguing that CFC’s & Halons emitted into the atmosphere could lead to the destruction of the stratospheric ozone. At the same time global consumption and production of the main ozone depleting substances was increasing rapidly eg aerosol sprays, coolants for refrigerators etc Environmental movements and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) argued that at least non- essential uses of CFCs as in aerosols should be banned as a precautionary measure. Major Chemical companies ike Du Pont argued that strong scientific evidence that the problem was real and serious would be required before any restrictions were introduced. US National Academy of Science report in 1976 judged that the risks were sufficiently large that precautionary measures would be justified Law passed that restricted use of CFCs in the USA in As the USA produced 50% of the world’s CFCs in 1970s this was significant Pressure in 1980s from UN Environment Programme (UNEP) for other countries to reduce CFC emissions EU countries and Japan reluctant to comply…economic implications

UNEP continued to exert pressure under leadership of Mostapha Tolba. March 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer signed – only a framework to establish principle May 1985: Discovery by scientists of the British Antartic Survey of a deep ‘ozone hole’ over the Antartic Fears of exposure to high levels of UV radiation led to public pressure on government’s to take action NASA satellite images reinforce fears. Experiments in 1987 also show that ozone depletion is linked to the presence of chlorine Du Pont, ICI and other major CFC producers realise that restrictions are becoming inevitable Chemical companies in the west begin to search for substitutes, as they see there will be keen market for these if restrictions are imposed Rapid growth of environmental pressure groups in most Western European Countries Mid 1980s Mrs Thatcher becomes leading figure in promoting efforts to ban CFCs in an environment of political hostility at home (eg miner’s strike 1984 – 5) 1987 Montreal Protocol signed with committed parties agreeing to cut consumption of CFCs by 50% by 1999

Moves to extend Protocol to developing countries and Soviet Bloc – increasingly producing more CFCs with growing industry Developing countries reluctant to limit use of CFCs unless developed countries willing to pay the costs to them of these changes to substitutes etc 1990 setting up of Multi-Lateral Fund (MLF) to assist developing countries in phasing out of CFCs by The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel established to advise on the availability and use of substitutes for CFCs The International Scientific Assessment Panel emphasised need for more controls on Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) Problems with illicit trading in CFCs in mid 1990s. This was especially marked in Soviet Bloc and developing countries Conditional offers of international aid to ‘offending’ countries given to put a stop to this. By 1999 over $900 million given out from the MLF By 1994 – 1995 almost complete phase out the worst CFCs contributing to ozone depletion BUT

Two groundbreaking international treaties, the Montreal and Kyoto protocols, have failed to adequately curb use of the chemicals causing ozone depletion and global warming. The ‘ozone hole’ is reportedly getting bigger. Although the Montreal Protocol does phase out the worst ozone depleting substances (CFCs, HCFCs, halons, methyl bromide), unfortunately it allows ozone depleting chemicals to be replaced with two greenhouse gases, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Both of these chemicals are among the six global warming gases to be controlled under the Kyoto Protocol. ( And what has been the response to the Kyoto Protocol? Why? Perhaps you can consider this as the interplay between business, science and politics…what do you think has most influence?

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), along with other chlorine- and bromine-containing compounds, have been implicated in the accelerated depletion of ozone in the Earth's stratosphere. CFCs were developed in the early 1930s and are used in a variety of industrial, commercial, and household applications. These substances are non-toxic, non-flammable, and non-reactive with other chemical compounds. These desirable safety characteristics, along with their stable thermodynamic properties, make them ideal for many applications--as coolants for commercial and home refrigeration units, aerosol propellants, electronic cleaning solvents, and blowing agents. Not until 1973 was chlorine found to be a catalytic agent in ozone destruction. Catalytic destruction of ozone removes the odd oxygen species [atomic oxygen (O) and ozone (O3)] while leaving chlorine unaffected. This process was known to be potentially damaging to the ozone layer, but conclusive evidence of stratospheric ozone loss was not discovered until Announcement of polar ozone depletion over Antarctica in March 1985 prompted scientific initiatives to discover more about ozone depletion processes, along with calls to freeze or diminish production of chlorinated fluorocarbons. A complex scenario of atmospheric dynamics, solar radiation, and chemical reactions was found to explain the anomalously low levels of ozone during the polar springtime. Recent expeditions to the Arctic regions show that similar processes can occur in the northern hemisphere, but to a somewhat lesser degree due to warmer temperatures and erratic dynamic patterns.