I remember a cover picture of National Geographic showing the earth with the Ozone hole and noticing that on the same photo, at the latitude of the recent Mount Pinatubo eruption there was a ring of missing Ozone that circled the earth and thought, Hummm. How much affect do the active volcanoes in Western Antarctica have. Never pursued the question but still wonder.
There are so many reasons CFC success is NOT a model for CO2 success. One was strongly foreshadowed in my 1988 global warming cover story here: ~ CFCs are a special case, however. Since they are entirely man-made, and since substitutes are available or under development, control is straightforward. "There are only thirty-eight companies worldwide that produce CFCs," says Pieter Winsemius, former minister of the environment of the Netherlands."You can put them all in one room; you can talk to them. But you can't do that with the producers of carbon dioxide — all the world's utilities and industries." ~ Download that story here: https://revkin.substack.com/i/133815497/the-warming-view-from
I was in the refrigeration industry at the time and our understanding was that the patent on freon was running out, so DuPont had put considerable resources into developing a substitute. Consequently, a credible national economic benefit (NEB) study persuaded the Reagan White House that supporting what became the Montreal Protocol would be in the best economic interests of the USA.
So, the Iron Rule came into effect. And subsequent events have shown that NEB to be quite correct. Not only DuPont, but the HEVAC industry worldwide reaped enormous benefits (at the expense of consumers). It was all a sort of practical rebuttal of Bastiat's 'broken window fallacy'.
A similar exercise is now under way in regard to the Kigali Amendment, and the Iron Rule will again determine the outcome.
Ozone? Has it sprung back as the result of the Montreal Protocol.? Well.. no, not yet. But perhaps it will some day!
"...the science of ozone depletion actually became more uncertain, as scientists began to understand the many complexities of the issue. "
"...the policy focus on implementing “no-regrets” policies ....kept attention away from the details of evolving science and on policy options that made sense despite uncertainties"
"...the justifications for action hinged less and less on scientific certainties and more and more on economic opportunities."
IOW, once there is an opportunity for some large company to make money, the focus of politicians is no longer on scientific uncertainties but on economic incentives for those who claim they have a solution. And no doubt the companies that stood to make money would not forget the politicians come election time.
"Once a technological fix is available, the politics become much easier."
But how serious was the threat to begin with? How urgent was it to find a solution before uncertainties could be resolved? And if there were such uncertainties, how can we know that the "fix" solved the problem?
When science takes a backseat to "economic opportunities", I wonder - is it accurate to describe this sequence of events as a "virtuous circle"?
I have never found "with and without" model runs to be persuasive. The first step is to build the model and keep tweaking it until it reflects your pre-conceived notions. Then, when you subtract a key component, the model will inevitably reflect those built-in notions.
Why is there no empirical evidence that the health of the ozone layer has markedly improved in the 35 years since the MP was passed?
If we disregard all nuances, looks like the key factor here was that Dupont sat on both the problem and solution, and most importantly replacing the problem with the solution presented itself as a gigantic opportunity for Dupont to make lots of money.
I have a hard time finding this parallel situation in todays discourse regarding climate change. One could argue that the oil companies betting on renwables are doing something similar, but no they are pushing renewables so that they can go on selling gas and oil as long as possible. And put loads of government subsidies in their pokets. So lots of money but no solition.Hard to blame them for opposing themselves to a large roll out of nuclear, as it would put them all out of business. With nuclear it would be no money but definitive solution, so nobody wants that
“But the policy focus on implementing “no-regrets” policies — which made sense regardless of how scientific uncertainties broke in the future — kept attention away from the details of evolving science and on policy options that made sense despite uncertainties.”
This jumped out at me as likely an important element of the approach to the ozone problem that is aggravatingly missing from the approach to the climate change issue.
Roger, you call the response a success but that assumes that reducing CFC's can claim credit for the reduction in size of the Ozone hole. Are we reasonably certain that is the case given the increasing scientific uncertainties you refer to? Admittedly the costs were almost unnoticed in 1st world countries but did the benefits outweigh the costs taking into account the how little we know about the actual benefits? It seems your definition of "success" in this case is that international action was mobilized by uncertain science without significant public objection.
One unnoticed cost was the use of "cold power" model rockets. These were invented by Vashon, who was later bought by Estes.
One filled a rocket body with freon from one of the pint sized dispenser cans available at hobby and art stores, then released the nozzle plug, and off the rocket went into the sky. A clever pressure actuated retainer kept the parachute compartment attached until the "fuel" was exhausted and it was time for the parachute to deploy.
It was a very cool concept and quite minor in economic terms, but nonetheless, a victim of freon regulations. http://brotoro.com/vashon/index.html
“Viable technological fixes.” DuPont in the wings. The Ozone Solution had means and motive. Politics just slipped in behind the draft.
Setting aside the confusing poli/sci narratives, the fix for climate change is full of faux fixes. Corn ethanol? Lithium batteries? Fickle windmill bird killers? Tempermental ‘Rhode Island-sized’ solar farms? Nukes mostly off limits (except in France). Wall Street and scientists gouging profit.
We know the claimed benefits. What are the real costs? Living in caves as the Climate Saviors pass overhead to their conferences and Caribbean homes? The science (to the extent it is not purchased) sounds reasonable, but the dance is vaguely primitive. We won’t accept the best means (nukes), so we fiddle with vested interests and social-justice contaminated solutions. The motives are suspect in so many places.
Climate consensus is clouded not by the limits of the actual science, but by the poli/scientists posing as priests who receive hoards of cash from partisan contributors and their political sponsors. The media dramatizes every story to raise views and profits. The public smells the truth when they can’t recharge their EV’s or use their A/C due to blackouts. The Law of Unintended Consequences eventually catches up. Save the booming polar bear population so the bears can eat cute baby seals!
I believe that the ozone policy successes you discuss are due, in significant part, to the “Baptists and bootleggers” phenomenon. This term refers to a situation where entities which, one might suppose, would be adversaries instead cooperate. The players here were the big multinational chemical companies which manufactured chlorofluorocarbons on one side, and various Green organizations on the other. It’s obvious why the Greens wanted strict regulation, but why did the chemical companies cooperate? Well, by the time this issue rose to prominence the patents on Freon and various related products had expired and the big multinational chemical companies faced intense cost pressure from smaller companies located in countries with lower cost structures. But if Freon was outlawed other, newer refrigerants would have to be substituted. Guess who already knew how to make those new refrigerants and already had patents.
Thus the Montreal Protocol served the purposes both of the Greens and of industry and was therefore a relatively easy win.
Here in canada we should be accelerating LNG development and export to displace coal, a win win scenario, which we'll get right onto as soon as we push the entire current radical federal government into the ocean.
I remember a cover picture of National Geographic showing the earth with the Ozone hole and noticing that on the same photo, at the latitude of the recent Mount Pinatubo eruption there was a ring of missing Ozone that circled the earth and thought, Hummm. How much affect do the active volcanoes in Western Antarctica have. Never pursued the question but still wonder.
There are so many reasons CFC success is NOT a model for CO2 success. One was strongly foreshadowed in my 1988 global warming cover story here: ~ CFCs are a special case, however. Since they are entirely man-made, and since substitutes are available or under development, control is straightforward. "There are only thirty-eight companies worldwide that produce CFCs," says Pieter Winsemius, former minister of the environment of the Netherlands."You can put them all in one room; you can talk to them. But you can't do that with the producers of carbon dioxide — all the world's utilities and industries." ~ Download that story here: https://revkin.substack.com/i/133815497/the-warming-view-from
I was in the refrigeration industry at the time and our understanding was that the patent on freon was running out, so DuPont had put considerable resources into developing a substitute. Consequently, a credible national economic benefit (NEB) study persuaded the Reagan White House that supporting what became the Montreal Protocol would be in the best economic interests of the USA.
So, the Iron Rule came into effect. And subsequent events have shown that NEB to be quite correct. Not only DuPont, but the HEVAC industry worldwide reaped enormous benefits (at the expense of consumers). It was all a sort of practical rebuttal of Bastiat's 'broken window fallacy'.
A similar exercise is now under way in regard to the Kigali Amendment, and the Iron Rule will again determine the outcome.
Ozone? Has it sprung back as the result of the Montreal Protocol.? Well.. no, not yet. But perhaps it will some day!
"...the science of ozone depletion actually became more uncertain, as scientists began to understand the many complexities of the issue. "
"...the policy focus on implementing “no-regrets” policies ....kept attention away from the details of evolving science and on policy options that made sense despite uncertainties"
"...the justifications for action hinged less and less on scientific certainties and more and more on economic opportunities."
IOW, once there is an opportunity for some large company to make money, the focus of politicians is no longer on scientific uncertainties but on economic incentives for those who claim they have a solution. And no doubt the companies that stood to make money would not forget the politicians come election time.
"Once a technological fix is available, the politics become much easier."
But how serious was the threat to begin with? How urgent was it to find a solution before uncertainties could be resolved? And if there were such uncertainties, how can we know that the "fix" solved the problem?
When science takes a backseat to "economic opportunities", I wonder - is it accurate to describe this sequence of events as a "virtuous circle"?
Yes, fair questions
And the answer is that there is good evidence of the impact of the Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol on the atmosphere. See e.g. https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/10/12161/2010/
and
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/15771/2021/
Of course some of the CFC substitutes have their own environmental problems.
I have never found "with and without" model runs to be persuasive. The first step is to build the model and keep tweaking it until it reflects your pre-conceived notions. Then, when you subtract a key component, the model will inevitably reflect those built-in notions.
Why is there no empirical evidence that the health of the ozone layer has markedly improved in the 35 years since the MP was passed?
Has the ozone hole problem been solved? Was there ever really a problem? I don't know, just asking.
If we disregard all nuances, looks like the key factor here was that Dupont sat on both the problem and solution, and most importantly replacing the problem with the solution presented itself as a gigantic opportunity for Dupont to make lots of money.
I have a hard time finding this parallel situation in todays discourse regarding climate change. One could argue that the oil companies betting on renwables are doing something similar, but no they are pushing renewables so that they can go on selling gas and oil as long as possible. And put loads of government subsidies in their pokets. So lots of money but no solition.Hard to blame them for opposing themselves to a large roll out of nuclear, as it would put them all out of business. With nuclear it would be no money but definitive solution, so nobody wants that
“But the policy focus on implementing “no-regrets” policies — which made sense regardless of how scientific uncertainties broke in the future — kept attention away from the details of evolving science and on policy options that made sense despite uncertainties.”
This jumped out at me as likely an important element of the approach to the ozone problem that is aggravatingly missing from the approach to the climate change issue.
Roger, you call the response a success but that assumes that reducing CFC's can claim credit for the reduction in size of the Ozone hole. Are we reasonably certain that is the case given the increasing scientific uncertainties you refer to? Admittedly the costs were almost unnoticed in 1st world countries but did the benefits outweigh the costs taking into account the how little we know about the actual benefits? It seems your definition of "success" in this case is that international action was mobilized by uncertain science without significant public objection.
One unnoticed cost was the use of "cold power" model rockets. These were invented by Vashon, who was later bought by Estes.
One filled a rocket body with freon from one of the pint sized dispenser cans available at hobby and art stores, then released the nozzle plug, and off the rocket went into the sky. A clever pressure actuated retainer kept the parachute compartment attached until the "fuel" was exhausted and it was time for the parachute to deploy.
It was a very cool concept and quite minor in economic terms, but nonetheless, a victim of freon regulations. http://brotoro.com/vashon/index.html
“Viable technological fixes.” DuPont in the wings. The Ozone Solution had means and motive. Politics just slipped in behind the draft.
Setting aside the confusing poli/sci narratives, the fix for climate change is full of faux fixes. Corn ethanol? Lithium batteries? Fickle windmill bird killers? Tempermental ‘Rhode Island-sized’ solar farms? Nukes mostly off limits (except in France). Wall Street and scientists gouging profit.
We know the claimed benefits. What are the real costs? Living in caves as the Climate Saviors pass overhead to their conferences and Caribbean homes? The science (to the extent it is not purchased) sounds reasonable, but the dance is vaguely primitive. We won’t accept the best means (nukes), so we fiddle with vested interests and social-justice contaminated solutions. The motives are suspect in so many places.
Climate consensus is clouded not by the limits of the actual science, but by the poli/scientists posing as priests who receive hoards of cash from partisan contributors and their political sponsors. The media dramatizes every story to raise views and profits. The public smells the truth when they can’t recharge their EV’s or use their A/C due to blackouts. The Law of Unintended Consequences eventually catches up. Save the booming polar bear population so the bears can eat cute baby seals!
I believe that the ozone policy successes you discuss are due, in significant part, to the “Baptists and bootleggers” phenomenon. This term refers to a situation where entities which, one might suppose, would be adversaries instead cooperate. The players here were the big multinational chemical companies which manufactured chlorofluorocarbons on one side, and various Green organizations on the other. It’s obvious why the Greens wanted strict regulation, but why did the chemical companies cooperate? Well, by the time this issue rose to prominence the patents on Freon and various related products had expired and the big multinational chemical companies faced intense cost pressure from smaller companies located in countries with lower cost structures. But if Freon was outlawed other, newer refrigerants would have to be substituted. Guess who already knew how to make those new refrigerants and already had patents.
Thus the Montreal Protocol served the purposes both of the Greens and of industry and was therefore a relatively easy win.
Nothing wrong with a win win scenario.
Here in canada we should be accelerating LNG development and export to displace coal, a win win scenario, which we'll get right onto as soon as we push the entire current radical federal government into the ocean.
Another win-win scenario.