One would think that the Montreal Protocol ensures that the production and use
of ozone depleting substances will stop. It doesn't. Chemical companies will,
for the most part, phase out sales of CFCs in the north this year, but they
will continue to be produced for export for another 10 years. CFCs will likely
not be phased out in the South until 2010, their use is increasing, and
production will not even be capped for several more years. HCFCs, which are
potent ozone destroyers in the short term, are increasing in usage globally,
are not set to be phased out in the North until 2030, and may never be phased
out in the South. Methyl bromide, a potent ozone destroyer used as a pesticide
and fumigant, is virtually unregulated by the Protocol (although various
national regulations cover it and there is a cap on developed nation
consumption). For all of these chemicals, safer alternatives exist, and yet
their continued production and use remains sanctioned by the Parties to the
Montreal Protocol.
As of January 1, 1996, it will be illegal for developed nations to produce or
import virgin CFCs, except for "essential" and "feedstock" uses and production
for export to the South. Additionally, for every 100 tonnes of CFCs destroyed
by US companies, they may in turn produce 85 tonnes of new CFCs in 1996. In
addition, large amounts of recycled and recovered CFCs will continue to be
available, although at inflated prices.
In 1996, 151,811 tonnes of new CFCs can be produced, legally in the north for
export to developing countries. This production loophole was inserted into the
Protocol mostly at the urging of developing nations, which were concerned about
the availability of CFCs after the North's phaseout. Provisions for continued
legal production were added to the Montreal Protocol five years ago, when
industry was still maintaining that CFC replacement was going to be a difficult
proposition. Experts now agree that the continued access to CFCs by developing
countries is hindering the switch to safer alternatives. Nevertheless,
developing countries will continue to consume CFCs, and that consumption is
expected to rise in the next several years.
Continued consumption of CFCs by the developing world is one of the most
important issues that will be discussed this year in the Montreal Protocol.
Early indications are that Parties will most likely agree to do nothing, and to
keep the phaseout date for the South at the year 2010. Other options on the
table at the moment would actually weaken current phaseout schedules. This is
despite the fact that a recent study of available options concluded that a 2001
phaseout would be cheaper overall to fund, and would speed the recovery of the
ozone layer by approximately 8%. (Study on the Financial Mechanism of the
Montreal Protocol, March 1995, COWIconsult)
Currently, controls exist on the production of HCFCs in developed
countries only. These chemicals are recognized as "transitional substances"
rather than permanent replacements, precisely because of their potential to
deplete the ozone layer. The current phaseout schedule (which some nations
have accelerated domestically) will freeze HCFC production at a specified "cap"
level in 1996, and allows for gradual reductions until 2020 when 99.5% of
production must stop, with a final phaseout in 2030.
Despite efforts by some European nations to accelerate the global phaseout of
HCFCs, the United States, Japan and France in particular, continue to resist
additional controls. This split is an industrial, not an environmental one.
In Europe, most manufacturers have switched almost entirely away from HCFCs in
favor of environmentally safer alternatives. The US, Japan, and France, in
contrast, continue to rely heavily on sales of these ozone depleters, and so
act to ensure their continued market availability and protect their investments.
Methyl bromide, a pesticide and fumigant, is the only ozone depleting chemical
that is virtually unregulated by the Montreal Protocol. Methyl bromide use has
been almost completely eliminated in the Netherlands, and other countries are
following suit, as it becomes clear that alternatives are available or in an
advanced state of development for about 90% of all uses. According to the
United Nations Environment Programme, a rapid phaseout of methyl bromide is the
most significant short term step that countries can take to protect the ozone
layer.
Formalization of a global ban is currently in jeopardy at the Protocol
negotiations because of unfounded economic concerns fostered by an industry
propaganda campaign initiated by methyl bromide producers in the US and Israel.
The United States, which had initially supported a progressive position, is now
backpedaling as the Clinton administration has realized that Florida and
California (two very important states in the upcoming election) are the two
states that will be affected the most by a methyl bromide phaseout. Developing
countries generally oppose controls on methyl bromide because of unfounded
concerns regarding the costs of alternatives.
