Blog

But the merits of the agreement, which is eventually ratified by each country, are more widespread than its impact on the ozone hole. Many of these chemicals are also potent greenhouse gases. Thus, as a major side benefit, reductions over the past three decades have already weakened warming and could lower global average temperatures by 1 ˚C by 2050.

Now, a new study in Nature highlights another important, albeit unintended bonus: reducing the stress the sun’s ultraviolet radiation puts on plants, inhibiting photosynthesis and stunting growth. The Montreal Protocol avoided “catastrophic collapse of forests and arable land” that would add hundreds of billions of tons of carbon to the atmosphere, said Anna Harper, senior lecturer in climatology at the University of Exeter and co-author of the paper. in an email.

In a Nature article published on August 18, it was found that if production of ozone-depleting substances continued to grow at 3% each year, additional UV radiation would limit the growth of trees, grasses, ferns, flowers and crops around the world.

The world’s plants will absorb less carbon dioxide, releasing a whopping 645 billion tons of carbon from the earth into the atmosphere this century. This could lead to an increase in global warming of 1 ˚C over the same period. It will also have a devastating impact on crop yields and food supplies around the world.

The impacts of rising CFCs on plants, as well as their direct effects on the atmosphere, could have led to a temperature rise of about 2.5 ˚C this century, the researchers found, in addition to the already dire warming projections for 2100. …

“Although it was originally conceived as an ozone treaty, the Montreal Protocol has proven to be a very successful climate treaty,” says Paul Young, a climatologist at Lancaster University and co-author of the paper.

All of this begs the question: why can’t the world accept an equally aggressive and effective international treaty specifically designed to tackle climate change? At least some scholars believe there are important but largely overlooked lessons in the success of the Montreal Protocol that are becoming increasingly relevant as global warming accelerates and the next UN climate conference approaches.

A fresh look

For now, the planet will continue to warm over the next several decades, no matter what, as warned last week in a dire UN climate report. But how much worse it will get depends largely on how aggressively climate pollution can be reduced in the coming decades.

To date, the countries have failed, both under the Kyoto Treaty and the Paris Climate Agreement, to conclude an agreement with sufficiently ambitious and binding commitments to phase out greenhouse gas emissions. The countries will convene at the next UN conference in Glasgow in early November with the explicit goal of strengthening these goals in line with the Paris Agreement.

Scientists have written voluminous articles and entire books that explore the lessons of the Montreal Protocol and the similarities and differences between related CFC and greenhouse gas efforts.

It is widely believed that the relevance is limited. CFCs were a much easier problem to solve because they were produced by a single sector – mostly by a few large companies like DuPont – and were used in a limited set of applications.

On the other hand, almost every component of every sector in every country emits greenhouse gases. Fossil fuels are the energy source that drives the global economy, and much of our machinery and physical infrastructure is designed around them.

But Edward Parson, professor of environmental law at the University of California, Los Angeles, says it’s time to take a fresh look at the lessons of the Montreal Protocol.

This is because as the dangers of climate change become more obvious and dire, more and more countries are pushing for stricter regulations, and companies are getting closer to the stage that the likes of DuPont have made: the transition from doggedly challenging scientific results to reluctant acceptance of these new rules were inevitable, so they better understand how to proceed and make a profit.

In other words, we are approaching the point where stricter rules may be possible, so it is imperative to seize the opportunity to create effective ones.

Strict rules strictly enforced

Parson is the author Protecting the Ozone Layer: Science and Strategy, an in-depth history of the Montreal Protocol, published in 2003. He stresses that the phase-out of ozone-depleting compounds was a more complex issue than is often assumed, since a large part of the global economy was dependent on them in one way or another.

He adds that one of the most persistent misunderstandings about the deal is the perception that the industry has already developed alternative products and therefore was ultimately more inclined to go along with the deal.

On the contrary, the development of alternatives occurred after the rules were adopted. Rapid innovation continued as regulations tightened, and industry, experts and technical bodies debated how much progress could be made and how quickly. This has led to an increasing number of better alternatives “as a result of repeated positive reviews,” Parson said.

The prospect of entering new profitable markets also helped. Many of these companies ended up making a lot of money by switching to new products.

This suggests that the world should not wait for innovations that will make tackling climate change cheaper and easier. Countries need to implement regulations that increasingly cut emissions, forcing industries to seek cleaner ways to produce energy, grow food, produce food, and move things and people around the world.