There are several environmental laws, regulations, and policies that currently i

Question

There are several environmental laws, regulations, and policies that currently influence your life, and they include the following: 

NEPA
The Clean Air Act
The Clean Water Act
The Endangered Species Act
The Superfund
CITES
The Montreal Protocol
The Basel Convention

Choose one (1) of these environmental regulations, or another policy that interests you; then, research your chosen regulation or policy’s requirements and environmental and economic impacts.

Describe three (3) key elements of the regulation or policy you chose. Specifically, discuss who is affected and what actions they are required to undertake, including federal and state agencies and specific industries, and how these requirements are enforced.
Assess three (3) effects this regulation or policy had on our environment. Next, quantify its effects, if possible, to analyze whether or not the regulation had the desired effect on the environment.
Discuss three (3) economic effects of your chosen policy or regulation. Next, describe the direct costs of implementation, as well as the effect the regulation has had on economic growth. If possible, find a benefits/cost analysis that will provide you with objective analyses of this regulation’s economic impact.
Speculate whether or not you believe that this policy or regulation has been successful overall.
Next, debate whether or not your chosen policy or regulation has promoted environmental benefits or outweighed its economic costs.
Lastly, determine whether you would recommend renewing this policy or regulation when it comes to its expiration date, or whether you should let the policy or regulation expire. Justify your response.Use at least three (3) quality resources / references in this assignment, in addition to the course text.

Explanation / Answer

The 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

The 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer is a landmark agreement that has successfully reduced the global production, consumption, and emissions of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs). ODSs are also greenhouse gases that contribute to the radiative forcing of climate change. Using historical ODSs emissions and scenarios of potential emissions, we show that the ODS contribution to radiative forcing most likely would have been much larger if the ODS link to stratospheric ozone depletion had not been recognized in 1974 and followed by a series of regulations. The climate protection already achieved by the Montreal Protocol alone is far larger than the reduction target of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Additional climate benefits that are significant compared with the Kyoto Protocol reduction target could be achieved by actions under the Montreal Protocol, by managing the emissions of substitute fluorocarbon gases and/or implementing alternative gases with lower global warming potentials.        

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) are now globally recognized as the main cause of the observed depletion of the ozone layer . Molina and Rowland first recognized the potential for CFCs to deplete stratospheric ozone in 1974, thereby providing an “early warning.” This scientific warning led to ODS emission reductions by citizen action and national regulations. A decade later, the discovery of the ozone hole over Antarctica and the subsequent attribution to ODSs further heightened concern.

key elements

The 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer formally recognized the significant threat of the ODSs to the ozone layer and provided a mechanism to reduce and phase-out the global production and consumption of ODSs. Under the Montreal Protocol and national regulations, significant decreases have occurred in the production, use, emissions, and observed atmospheric concentrations of CFC-11, CFC-113, methyl chloroform, and several other ODSs and there is emerging evidence for recovery of stratospheric ozone. In a “world avoided” that lacks the early warning in 1974 and the Montreal Protocol of 1987, depletion of the ozone layer likely would be much greater than observed in our world today.

ODSs and their substitute fluorocarbon gases are also greenhouse gases , which contribute to the radiative forcing (RF) of climate . Thus, actions under the Montreal Protocol to phase out ODSs and/or increase the use of substitute gases have consequences for climate forcing. Earlier studies have recognized that continued growth in ODS emissions would lead to significant increases in direct RF or climate warming although ozone depletion from ODS would counteract some of the forcing . More specifically, reductions in atmospheric ODS concentrations, achieved to protect ozone, also serve to protect climate.

The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer are perhaps the most successful international treaties the world has seen. In fact, both of the agreements are the most widely ratified treaties in United Nations history. This fact alone has helped lead to much of the treaties’ success, especially since worldwide recognition of a problem and willingness to take specific action to address the problem is a process that is necessary for a significant impact to occur in resolving the issue.

The Vienna Convention provided the general framework for the tools to protect the ozone layer that surrounds the globe. Generally, “The objectives of the Convention were for Parties to promote cooperation by means of systematic observations, research and information exchange on the effects of human activities on the ozone layer and to adopt legislative or administrative measures against activities likely to have adverse effects on the ozone layer.” Scientists first published their hypothesis that man-made chemicals could harm the stratospheric ozone layer in 1974. The ozone layer is important in keeping out harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Losing this protective layer would cause serious problems to humans, plants, and animals alike. The damaging radiation could not only cause mutations in any of the human, plant, or animal cells, but it would also cause increases in skin cancer and other serious health issues. “The scientists found that the chlorofluorocarbon gases (CFCs), which were widely used and viewed as posing no harm, could migrate to the stratosphere, remain intact for decades to centuries, and by releasing chlorine, break down the ozone layer.”

Requirements and environmental and economic impacts.

The Montreal Protocol went into effect in 1989. The purpose of the Protocol was to provide a system of backing the framework that was established in the Vienna Convention, in order to further the environmental goals and address the concerns that were established. “The ozone agreements are remarkable, in that they are the first to address a long-term problem in which the cause of the damage occurs today, but the effects are not evident for decades hence… Since scientific understanding of the problem would change, the agreements needed to be flexible and capable of being adapted to accommodate new scientific assessments. No single country or group of countries could address the problem of ozone depletion alone, so maximum international cooperation was needed.” In doing so, the Montreal Protocol had to address the interests of a number of different groups, which usually has the effect of plaguing further progress in many treaties. The treaty controls the consumption and production of certain non-natural chemicals, and also sets out a timeframe for reduction targets for these chemicals for each of the ratifying states to abide by. Without the Montreal Protocol, it is estimated that the ozone depletion would have been 10 times worse than current depletion (in 2012) by 2050. The Protocol is estimated to have prevented 19 million more cases of non-melanoma cancer, 1.5 million more cases of melanoma cancer, and 130 million more cases of eye cataracts. Furthermore, 98 percent of the ozone depleting substances controlled by the Montreal Protocol have been phased out, and that because of the implementation of the treaty and its provisions, the ozone layer is estimated to return to pre-1980 levels by 2050 to 2075. Because these chemicals are also greenhouse gases, this treaty has had a mitigating effect on climate change.

It is clear that the treaties have been a success in several ways, from their implementation and enforcement to the clear positive and lasting effects they have had on the quality of the ozone layer as well as the health of living things on this planet.

Effects

The Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol challenge the commonly held notion that treaties are not effective in international law and that state driven mechanisms are outdated.

Science, of course, plays a large role in these treaties. The Montreal Protocol addresses specific chemicals. Money had driven the use of these chemicals, and it would not be easy to convince countries, whose economies were boosted by the consumption and trading of these products, to stop their production. Science needed to be a tool to convince the countries. Science is also ever-changing and the Protocol reflected the need to incorporate new scientific advances over time. “Anticipating changes in scientific knowledge about the ozone layer and emergence of new problems in implementing the Protocol, negotiators included several provisions to provide flexibility.”

Additionally, the Montreal Protocol addressed developing countries in unique ways and has special provisions relating to them. By creating different provisions, it eased the burdens on those countries and incentivized them to participate meaningfully in the treaty. This also helped attract countries that would not otherwise have participated in the treaty. For example, “Article V gives qualifying developing countries a ten year delay in complying with targets and timetables, a separate consumption limit of 0.3 kilogram per capita, and access to the Montreal Protocol Fund to assist with compliance costs.” Inevitably, some countries would gain tremendously with the treaty while others would not (mainly, the poor countries). So, funds were created by the more industrialized countries who were reaping many of the benefits of the treaty in order to support the poorer countries who were not able to bear the cost of participating in the treaty.

Just as it was necessary to create special provisions for developing countries in terms of leniency, it was equally important to create punishment provisions for free-riding states. This problem is exacerbated when dealing with public goods or common-pool resources because they are universally accessible. The problem with free riding occurs when there is a public good involved, like clean air or a healthy ozone layer. Inevitably, all countries will benefit from the public good, in this case the improvement to the ozone as a result of the states who have ratified the treaties, often times at an expense to industry and the economy of those ratifying parties. Therefore, each country also has a large incentive to let the other countries make the sacrifices, while still reaping the benefits.

A fundamental aspect of the Montreal Protocol’s success is that it has reversed the incentives to free ride. Just as poorer countries were rewarded with economic incentives for joining the treaty, there were significant punishments for those who did not join. “The threat of punishment came in the form of a ban on trade between signatories and non signatories in substances (such as CFCs) controlled by the treaty. It also bans imports of products (such as refrigerators and air-conditioning units) containing these substances. And it leaves open the possibility that signatories may ban the import of products made with these substances, such as computer circuits cleaned with CFCs.” This essentially cut out the source of the fear that stopped some countries from signing, so they no longer had that excuse not to sign. Their worry was that if they took (often expensive) action towards reducing their CFCs, and that other non-signers continued to use CFCs in their products rather than switching to the more expensive alternatives, then those countries would get the benefit of the better ozone health while also not incurring the expense of changing. In addition, the point was to get manufacturers in all countries thinking about solutions and alternatives to CFCs, and thereby create a new market for these alternatives. If every country was bound to not use CFCs, then there would be a greater incentive on each country to develop alternatives, and thereby create a new market for non-ozone depleting substances.

Monetary incentives also attached to fulfilment of the treaty’s environmental objectives. The United States was the world’s biggest consumer and producer of CFCs. For the US, the costs of implementing the Montreal Protocol were relatively low in comparison to the gains in terms of lives saved; this boiled down into an investment. “The EPA calculated that implementing the Montreal Protocol would prevent 245 million cancers, including more than 5 million cancer deaths, by 2165. Value a life at US$3 million and the benefits quickly add up.” So, for some of the biggest producers and consumer of CFCs, like the United States, there were the monetary incentives to help drive this consumption and production down (which ultimately cost money too). The benefit of saved money help to outweigh some of the cost. Additionally, these are some of the gains that allowed the big countries, like the US, to afford to set up the fund that allowed the developing nations to participate, which in turn helped everyone.

Finally, the self-enforcing nature of the Protocol has been essential to its success. “In other words, it must be in the interest of every signatory to stick to the rules. If a treaty does not give countries an incentive to do that, no world government will do the job instead. States are sovereign and will act principally in what they perceive to be the self-interest of their citizens.” Without it being self-enforcing, a treaty lacks any real ability to make progress.

the story of the Montreal Protocol highlights the benefits of pursuing an inclusive green economy. It shows that, in acting on one issue, many others can be addressed too.

Economic effects

With the global phase-out of 98 per cent of ozone-depleting gases in consumer, industrial and agricultural products, the ozone layer is now on track to recover over the next five decades. Millions of cases of skin cancer and eye cataracts, as well as the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation on the environment, have already been avoided. The Protocol has also catalysed considerable innovation in the chemical and equipment manufacturing industry, resulting in more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly refrigeration systems.

Action under the Protocol has also had significant climate benefits. Many of these substances have been phased out, such as chlorofluorocarbons once used in products such as hairsprays, which are significant greenhouse gases.

Nonetheless, the challenges are not over. Governments must maintain their commitment to finish the job and avert additional problems. The use of hydrofluorocarbons – ozone-friendly chemicals that are also powerful greenhouse gases – is growing rapidly to replace ozone-depleting substances.

The Montreal Protocol has demonstrated that fundamental principles – such as science-based policymaking, the precautionary approach, common but differentiated responsibilities, and equity within and between generations – can benefit all nations.  

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.