A critical review of the successful CFC phase-out versus the delayed methyl bromide phase-out in the Montreal Protocol
- 551 Downloads
The Montreal Protocol is often described as an international environmental agreement par excellence. After all, it successfully led to the phase-out of almost 95% of all chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) use. A critical review of the Protocol’s history, however, suggests that its successes are deeply entrenched in the economic opportunities that were made available to phase out CFCs. The Montreal Protocol, in other words, was a “best-case scenario” for CFC producers. This may be problematic for policymakers, ecological modernization practitioners, and other scholars who look to the Montreal Protocol for guidance in phasing out other global environmentally harmful substances and practices that are not as “economically efficient.” The shift to delay the phasing out of methyl bromide (MeBr) in the Protocol, an ozone-depleting substance used to this day primarily in strawberry and tomato production, demonstrates how even this most successful of international environmental agreements can become subject to significant setbacks when economic gains and scientific evidence are not obvious to the global powers. Furthermore, changes in what constitutes a viable exemption to the phase-out of CFCs versus MeBr marks a shift away from concern for the general functioning/welfare of society, and toward concern for the market performance of specific individuals. This shift runs parallel to a lack in economic incentives to phase out MeBr in the United States. The article demonstrates how civil society representation in ozone politics is largely dominated by industry interests, especially when scientific uncertainty is high.
KeywordsMontreal Protocol CFCs Critical use exemptions Ecological modernization Global civil society Individualism Methyl bromide Neoliberalism
Critical use exemption
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Methyl bromide Technical Options Committee
Meeting of the parties to the Montreal Protocol
U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Technology and Economics Assessment Panel
United Nations Environmental Programme
Thanks are due to Wally Goldfrank, Ronnie Lipschutz, E. Melanie DuPuis, Ben Crow, John Borrego, Harro van Asselt, and two anonymous referees for their exceptional advice on the preparation of this manuscript. Funding for this research was provided by the University of California STEPS Institute for Innovation in Environmental Research, the University of California Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, the University of California Pacific Rim Research Program, and the Department of Sociology at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
- Andersen, S. O., Morehouse, E. T., Jr., & Miller, A. (1994). The military’s role in protection of the ozone layer. Environmental Science and Technology, 28(13), 586A–589A.Google Scholar
- Andersen, S. O., Sarma, K. M., & Sinclair, L. (2002). Protecting the ozone layer: The United Nations history. London: Earthscan Publications.Google Scholar
- Bankobeza, G. M. (2005). Ozone protection: The international legal regime. The Netherlands: Eleven Publishing.Google Scholar
- Banks, J. (1998). Methyl bromide technical options committee. In P. G. LePretre, J. D. Reid, & E. T. Morehouse Jr. (Eds.), Protecting the ozone layer: Lessons, models and prospects (pp. 167–172). Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Barrett, S. (2003). Environment & statecraft: The strategy of environmental treaty-making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Newbury Park, CA: SageGoogle Scholar
- Benedick, R. E. (1998). Ozone diplomacy: New directions in safeguarding the planet (Enl. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Bernstein, S. (2002). The compromise of liberal environmentalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Borrego, J. (2000). The restructuring of frozen food production in North America and its impacts on daily life in two communities: Watsonville, California and Irapuato, Guanajuato. In N. Klahn, A. Alvarez, F. Manchon, & P. Castillo (Eds.), New frontiers of the 21st century (pp. 491–543). Mexico City: DEMOS.Google Scholar
- Breitmeier, H., & Rittberger, V. (2000). Environmental NGOs in an emerging global civil society. In P. S. Chasek (Ed.), The global environment in the twenty-first century: Prospects for international cooperation (pp. 130–163). New York: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
- California Strawberry Commission. (2006). California frozen exports 2006. Retrieved February 08, 2008, from www.calstrawberry.com.
- California Strawberry Commission. (2008). California delivers on Olympic athlete’s request for strawberries. Retrieved May 15, 2009, from http://www.calstrawberry.com/commission/inthenews.asp.
- Canan, P., & Reichman, N. (2002). Ozone connections: Expert networks in global environmental governance. Sheffield: Greenleaf.Google Scholar
- Carter, C. A., Chalfant, J. A., & Goodhue, R. E. (2005a). China’s strawberry industry: An emerging competitor for California? ARE Update, 9(1), 7–15.Google Scholar
- Centre for Civil Society. (2004, March). What is civil society. Retrieved May 12, 2009, from The London School of Economics, Political Science Center for Civil Society website: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CCS/what_is_civil_society.htm.
- Chemical Week. (1988, April 16). Chemical Week, 142 (14), 7.Google Scholar
- Conca, K. (2006). Governing water: Contentious transnational politics and global institution building. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Dryzek, J. S., Downes, D., Hunold, C., Scholsberg, D., & Hernes, H.-K. (2009). Ecological modernization, risk society, and the green state. In A. P. J. Mol, D. A. Sonnenfeld & G. Spaargaren (Eds.), The ecological modernization reader: Environmental reform in theory and practice (pp. 226–253). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Environment News Service. (2005). Developing countries funded for ozone safe technology. Retrieved October 13, 2006 from http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2005/2005-12-16-01.asp.
- Environment News Service. (2006). South Pole ozone recovery 20 years later than expected. Retrieved October 12, 2006, from http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2006/2006-06-30-05.asp.
- FAO. (2005). Fresh strawberry production statistics. UN Food and Agriculture Organization. Retrieved October 10, 2006, from http://www.fao.org.
- Fisher, D., Fritsch, O., & Anersen, M. S. (2009). Transformations in environmental governance and participation. In A. P. J. Mol, D. A. Sonnenfeld, & G. Spaargaren (Eds.), The ecological modernisation reader: Environmental reform in theory and practice (pp. 141–155). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Flannery, T. F. (2005). The weather makers: How man is changing the climate and what it means for life on Earth. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.Google Scholar
- Gareau, B. J. (2008a). Dangerous holes in global environmental governance: The roles of neoliberal discourse, science, and California agriculture in the Montreal Protocol. Dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
- Goldman, M. (2005). Imperial nature: The World Bank and struggles for social justice in the age of globalization. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Hajer, M. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernisation and the policy process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Huber, J. (2009). Upstreaming environmental action. In A. P. J. Mol, D. A. Sonnenfeld, & G. Spaargaren (Eds.), The ecological modernisation reader: Environmental reform in theory and practice (pp. 334–355). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Hunter, D., Salzman, J. & Zaelke, D. (2002). International environmental law and policy (University Casebook Series). New York: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
- Hunter, D., Salzman, J. & Zaelke, D. (2007). International environmental law and policy (3rd Ed., University Casebook Series). New York: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
- Jänicke, M., & Jörgens, H. (2009). New approaches to environmental governance. In A. P. J. Mol, D. A. Sonnenfeld, & G. Spaargaren (Eds.), The ecological modernisation reader: Environmental reform in theory and practice (pp. 156–189). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Lipschutz, R., & Mayer, J. (1996). Global civil society and global environmental governance. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
- Litfin, K. (1994). Ozone discourses: Science and politics in global environmental cooperation. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Mol, A. P. J. (1996). Ecological modernization and industrial reflexivity: Environmental reform in the late modern age. Environmental Politics, 5, 302–323.Google Scholar
- Mol, A. P. J., Sonnenfeld, D., & Spaargaren, G. (Eds.). (2009). The ecological modernisation reader: Environmental reform in theory and practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Mol, A. P. J., & Spaargaren, G. (2000). Ecological modernization theory in debate: A review. Environmental Politics, 9, 17–49.Google Scholar
- Parson, E. A. (1993). Protecting the ozone layer. In P. M. Haas, R. O. Keohane, & M. A. Levy (Eds.), Institutions for the earth: Sources of effective international protection (pp. 27–74). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Rittberger, V. (2000). (I)NGOs and Global Environmental Governance: Introduction. In P. S. Chasek (Ed.), The global environment in the twenty-first century: Prospects for international cooperation (pp. 83–86). New York: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
- Rowland, F. S., & Molina, M. J. (1994). Ozone depletion: 20 Years after the alarm. Chemical and Engineering News, 72(August 15), 8–13.Google Scholar
- UNEP. (1991). Environmental effects panel report. Report of the Environmental Effects Panel of the Montreal Protocol. Nairobi: United Nations Environmental Programme.Google Scholar
- UNEP. (1994). Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 1994. In WMO/UNEP (Ed.), Report of the scientific assessment panel of the Montreal Protocol. WMO Global Research and Monitoring Project. Geneva: United Nations Environmental Programme.Google Scholar
- UNEP. (1995). Report of the methyl bromide technical options committee, 1995 assessment. Nairobi: United Nations Environmental Programme.Google Scholar
- UNEP. (2002). Protecting the ozone layer: The United Nations history. Nairobi: United Nations Environmental Programme.Google Scholar
- UNEP. (2007a). Brief primer on the Montreal Protocol. United Nations Environmental Programme. Retrieved on August 20, 2007, from http://ozone.unep.org/Publications/MP_Brief_Primer_on_MP-E.pdf.
- UNEP. (2007b). Report of the 19th meeting of the parties to the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. Nairobi: United Nations Environmental Programme.Google Scholar
- UNEP. (2009). Progress report of the UNEP technology and economic assessment panel. Nairobi: United Nations Environmental Programme. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/ozone/teap/Reports/TEAP_Reports/.
- U.S. Committee on Agriculture. (2000). The implications of banning methyl bromide for fruit and vegetable production. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture. Second Session, July 13.Google Scholar
- USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. (2005). GAIN report: China frozen exports. United States Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service.Google Scholar
- Wapner, P. (1996). Environmental activism and world civic politics. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
- Wapner, P. (2000). The transnational politics of environmental NGOs: Governmental, economic, and social activism. In P. S. Chasek (Ed.), The global environment in the twenty-first century: Prospects for international cooperation (pp. 87–108). New York: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
- Whitney, C. R. (1989). 20 Nations agree to join ozone pact. New York Times, March 8.Google Scholar
- Yearly, S. (1995). The environmental challenge to science studies. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 457–479). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Young, O. (1994). International governance: Protecting the environment in a stateless society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar