Particularly since 1990, industry scientists, "wise use" organizers,
politicians and the media have begun to cast doubt on the science of ozone
depletion. These attacks range from denying that chlorine (from CFCS, HCFCs
and other chemicals) and bromine (from methyl bromide and halons) cause ozone
depletion, to asserting that ozone depletion has not resulted in increased
levels of UV-B striking the earth.
Most worrying is the ongoing attempt by methyl bromide producers to wreck
negotiations on a phase out of the chemical. Despite agreement by
international scientists that methyl bromide is one of the most dangerous ozone
destroying chemicals in use and that the ozone layer will never recover unless
it is banned, companies are staging drawn out debates over minor scientific
uncertainties in order to delay action. Meanwhile, methyl bromide emissions
are on the increase.
According to the sceptics' arguments, we just don't have enough science yet to
justify the policy steps outlined by the Montreal Protocol. Imagine, however,
if one applied this logic to the public health arena--governments would not
promote safe sex because it's only a theory that HIV causes AIDS.
These scientific sceptics pose a grave threat to continued developed country
contributions to the Multilateral Fund, particularly in the US. Recently, US
contributions to the Fund have been threatened by the 104th Congress. During
the House Appropriations process, several key Republican Members of Congress
threatened to attach a rider to the Environmental Protection's Agency budget
which would have stripped all funding to the Multilateral Fund. As well,
several Senators led by the Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee Jesse
Helms (R-NC) also attempted to end US funding for the Fund. If these efforts
succeed, developing countries will almost certainly walk out of the Protocol.
National legislation is under similar attacks. Despite near worldwide
agreement on the upcoming ban on CFCS in 1996, Congressman Doolittle
(Republican-California), aided by Representative Delay (Republican-Texas), has
proposed legislation to repeal the ban.
This action by the US Congress comes on the heels of legislation recently
signed into law in the state of Arizona which vows to defy the domestic and
global ban on CFCS in 1996. Although state law is superseded by both the Clean
Air Act and the Montreal Protocol, this legislative move offers evidence of
both the sway of the sceptics and the potential threat of Doolittle's
legislation in the current political climate. The fact that such backlash is
occurring in the US, which was the world's largest consumer of ozone depleting
chemicals and is the central country in the Protocol negotiations, gives these
domestic issues international importance.
