Ozone Preservation and the Montreal Protocol Russell Watson December 2, 1998 Abstract

A recently observed trend of drastically declining stratospheric ozone above the earth is primarily attributed to a family of chemicals known as chlorofluorocarbons, but also to several other substances that react with ozone. Concern over the accumulation of these chemicals in the atmosphere arose in the early 1970s, and the acceptance that CFCs especially are responsible for reducing the protective layer of ozone has led to a series of international dialogue and legislation to curb their production and use. This movement has also sparked research into benign replacements for CFCs. The forerunning effort to halt ozone depletion is the Montreal Protocol signed in 1987. Its purview includes all ozone-depleting substances, focusing heavily on the use of CFCs. This landmark international agreement has been challenged by those whose interests are largely threatened by its policies and by those who do not consider the issue as urgent as is commonly felt. However, the Protocol has proved not only to be justified in its stringency, but in some cases, not stringent enough. It still faces the challenges of production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances by developing nations and by CFC smugglers. These hurdles remaining, many in the international community are calling for a more heavy-handed revision of the Montreal Protocol to ensure the full recovery the earth's tenuous ozone layer.

INTRODUCTION The Nature of Ozone and How It ProtectsUs The ozone layer is a region in the upper atmosphere or stratosphere (15-20 km above the earth's surface) about as thick as a hardback book cover and composed of ozone (O3) and oxygen (O2) gases ("Phew, the ozone" 1997). Ozone itself is a "noxious pollutant," but in the stratosphere, a harmless distance from the planet's life, it filters ultraviolet radiation before these high energy rays can reach the ground (Warr 1990). It does this by absorbing the UV light and releasing it in the form of less damaging energy. As a result, the ozone itself is broken down to its composite oxygen atoms. The free oxygen atoms reform O3 and the cycle continues. (Close and Playford 1997). UV radiation is both necessary and detrimental to life on the surface. Whereas it is required for vitamin D production, inordinate exposures, particularly of what is called UVB radiation, have been shown to cause skin cancer, cataracts, and to reduce crop yields ("Phew, the ozone" 1997; Newton 1995). UVB rays can also kill the oceans' Phytoplankton which has consequent adverse effects on other ocean life that feeds off them (Close and Playford 1997; Newton 1995).

The family of organic (carbon-based) chemical compounds containing fluorine and chlorine atoms called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) is now almost unanimously accepted by the world as the leading culprit behind the trend of a diminishing ozone layer. CFCs are extremely stable. Once discarded they make their way to the stratosphere where there are they finally decomposed by ultraviolet light. The resulting free chlorine atoms are very reactive and readily bond with the oxygen in the ozone layer. Thus, the free oxygen atoms are prevented from reforming O3, and the amount of ozone is reduced (Close and Playford 1997). CFCs are not the only ozone-depleting substances, however, because chlorine atoms are not the only atoms that react with the oxygen in ozone. Oxides of nitrogen given the general formula NOx also readily bond with oxygen (Warr 1990). Other threats come from halons (variations of CFCs that contain atoms from the same family as chlorine and fluorine), and bromides such as methyl bromide that can reach the stratosphere and react with the oxygen there (Close and Playford 1997; Newton 1995). Of all these substances, though, CFCs have been the most heavily used.

A Brief History of CFCs The first CFCs were synthesized by Swarts in the late 1890s, but their applicability was not explored until 1928 when scientists for General Motors and Du Pont in a joint effort developed alternatives to the toxic and flammable refrigerants that were currently in use. The first CFCs under investigation were CFC-12 and CCl4 (carbon tetrachloride), but over the years through improved methods of synthesis, the list has expanded to include CFC-11, HCFC-22, CFC-113, CFC-114, CFC-115, and CH3CCl3 (methyl chloroform) and several other (Manzer 1990; Derwent et al. 1998).

CFCs became known as "miracle" compounds because they were extremely stable, by all indications harmless, and useful for so many and such critical applications. At the peak of their production and consumption, the world's reliance on these chemicals was substantial. The major uses of CFCs were as refrigerants (30%), foam-blowing agents for polyurethane and polystyrene (28%), and as industrial solvents and cleaning agents (19%) (Manzer, 1990; O'Sullivan 1998). CFCs were also used to cool hospital X-ray equipment, sterilize surgical instruments, and extinguish fires quickly (O'Sullivan 1989). By 1988, the world consumed over a billion kg of CFCs. The United States housed 375,000 locations belonging to 5,000 companies producing CFC-related products and services. This brought in twenty-eight billion dollars a year, and accounted for 700,000 jobs (Manzer, 1990). Because these chemicals are so critical to basic as well as more advanced industrial processes, the world community considers them a crucial tool for developing nation states and a until recently, essential to maintain the status of a global economic power. This philosophy in mind, the success of the movement to phase CFCs out of the world's affairs is remarkable. It is also an indication of the size of the void replacement compounds and equipment must strive to fill in the years to come.

An Overview of Research into Possible Alternatives to CFCs Unlike the initial development of CFCs seventy years ago, the search for new all-purpose compounds is burdened by an even larger range of safety, environmental, and energy considerations as well as a greater gamut of uses the new chemicals must fulfill (Manzer 1990). They must be environmentally safe, although some scientists are coming to believe that absolute environmental neutrality is an ideal objective that may never be achieved (Sekiya and Musaki, 1997). Among the intolerable environmental side-effects are, besides ozone depletion, acid rain and global warming (acid rain is caused by moisture dissolved chemicals that fall back to the earth as damaging acids; global warming or the greenhouse effect is caused by certain atmospheric gases trapping heat instead of letting it escape the from the earth). For safety reasons, replacement chemicals must be nonflammable and stable. Moreover, they must be cost effective, relatively inexpensive to produce and energy efficient when used (Manzer 1990).

Already existing substances including water, hydrocarbons, and other organic-based chemicals are being substituted for cleansers and foam-blowing agents (Manzer 1990). Related chemicals to CFCs called hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), which contain hydrogen atoms in addition to chlorine and fluorine atoms, and hydrofluoro-carbons (HFCs), containing only fluorine and hydrogen atoms bonded to carbon atoms, were at one time considered feasible replacements because the addition of hydrogen allowed them to decompose before reaching the stratosphere (Zuver 1992; Manzer 1990); but significant amounts of chlorine from HCFCs do reach the ozone layer where they can take part in ozone depletion (McKenna 1998). Consequently, HCFCs are being phased out as well, and all production on them will be prohibited by the year 2020 (Sekiya and Misaki, 1996).

Fluorine atoms do not contribute to ozone depletion, so the accumulation in the atmosphere of HFCs is not a concern in that respect. Unfortunately, due to the absence of chlorine atoms in the molecules, HFCs have higher vapor pressures and lower solubilities than CFCs and other CFC alternatives. These properties make them undesirable for certain applications that CFCs accomplish (Sekiya and Misaki, 1996).

THE OZONE-PROTECTION MOVEMENT Movements Leading Up to The Montreal Protocol

The first concerns over ozone destruction arose in 1971 and were due to supersonic aircraft that traveled in the stratosphere, releasing oxides of nitrogen as they spent their fuel. The problem subsided, though, as these types of aircraft failed to become as popular as originally predicted. Soon after came Loveluck's studies on the probability that CFC-11 was accumulating in large quantities in the atmosphere (Manzer 1990). These findings inspired work by F. Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina at the University of California at Irvine in 1974. They were the first to explicitly report and accuse chlorine-containing materials of depleting the ozone layer (Sidney Chapman in 1930 was actually the first to document the reactivity of chlorine atoms with the oxygen atoms in ozone gas) (Warr 1990). The short-lived debate on nitrogen oxides helped set up an attentive stage for the new issue by broaching the connection between skin cancer and UV radiation. The general public was naturally concerned with this consequence of ozone depletion. For the next two years, the controversy over this theory was to focus on the aerosol industry which at that time was responsible for three-fourths of total CFC emissions throughout the world. Alone, the United States consumed fifty percent of the world's CFCs (Warr 1990).

CFC dependent industries naturally resisted the implications. They and the general European community desired a "wait-and-see" approach to the issue. Manu-facturers argued that "a major industry should not be jeopardized, with the attendant risks of economic damage, on the strength of a theoretical prediction, unsupported by observations on the real atmosphere" (Warr 1990). Indeed, lack of concrete proof was the foremost flaw in the ozone-depletion theory and the basis for the leading argument by the opposition (Warr 1990; Sinclair 1998). It was also argued that CFCs were too vital to society and that not only did safe substitutes not exist for them, but any substitutes that did were too costly and ineffective to be feasible. For instance, the United States Department of Agriculture and some chemical industries opposed the eventual ban methyl bromide, claiming that the chemical was "essential for the safe storage of food and crops" and that an adequate substitute had yet to be found (Newton 1995). Nevertheless, the United States, fueled partially by media propaganda, paved the way for cutbacks on ozone-destroyers and set legislation to ban all nonessential aerosol products by the end of 1978 (Warr 1990). Sprays for asthma were examples of products classified as "essential" and exempt from this ban.

In hindsight, it could be argued that the United States acted with unwarranted haste. There was, after all, no solid proof of ozone damage by CFCs and would not be for more than ten years after the initial ozone stir (Warr 1990; Sinclair 1998; Kiernan 1995). There are primarily two reasons why evidence was so hard to come by. One, the stratosphere could not easily be measured with the current technology due to its great altitude. Ground-based observatories were often employed, but inherently, such bases could not give accurate accounts of what chemical processes were raging twenty kilometers above. Secondly, the ozone layer naturally fluctuates over a significant range of thickness from season to season, year to year, day to day, and from one area of the globe to another. Therefore, to pinpoint an area of reduced ozone caused by human interference requires a series of observations over an extended period of time. NASA satellites provided more reliable observation vantage points, but satellite records were too recent to determine any trends in ozone concentration (Warr 1990).

The European community in the early part of the controversy adopted a cautious approach due to these uncertainties. Similar findings to those presented to the United States government were reported in England, for instance, but were much more cautious in interpretation (Warr 1990). But the United States' policies had tremendous influence. World production of CFCs peaked in 1974 and fell off throughout the remainder of the decade. The coming end of the Carter administration seemed to signal the end of the environmental forum's clout, but the anti-CFC legislation would push further onto the world stage during the 1980s (Warr 1990). The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) adopted in 1977 a "world plan of action on the ozone layer." This plan detailed research needed for conclusive investigations on the problem. The UNEP also set the stage for the March 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer that had "no regulatory powers," but did signal the first time nations would propose to work together on a global environmental issue (Warr 1990). Twenty nations signed an agreement in Vienna that called for "an aggressive program of research on ozone depletion and chemicals that may be responsible for that phenomenon" (Newton 1995). The final follow-up session of the Vienna Convention in 1987 would materialize into the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Newton 1995).

Finally, in May 1985, the journal Nature published concrete findings by Joe Farman, Brian Gardiner, and Jonathan Shanklin from the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge of substantial losses in ozone over Halley Bay in Antarctica (Warr 1990; Sinclair 1998). This area came to be coined the "ozone hole." The word "hole", though, refers to an area where the ozone layer is particularly thin, not an absence of stratospheric ozone altogether. Others have since corroborated the results which showed that the damage was much worse than the commonly accepted computer simulations to date had predicted. By the end of 1986 negotiations to limit CFC emissions began, and the Montreal Protocol was finally agreed upon and signed on September 16, 1987 (Warr 1990). Twenty-four nations signed the original agreement, and though that was only a small portion of the world, those twenty-four nations were responsible for 99 percent of the total world consumption and 90 percent of the production of CFCs.

Specifics of the Original Montreal Protocol The Montreal Protocol became active on January 1, 1989 and controlled the production and consumption of five CFCs along with three organic compounds containing bromine. The goals of the original agreement were as follows:

       To freeze emission levels of halons (including bromine) at 1986 levels by
          1992
       To freeze emission of CFCs at 1986 levels by 1990
       To cut CFC emissions by 20 percent of 1986 levels by 1994
       To cut CFC emissions by 50 percent of 1986 levels by 1999
       To cut CFC production by 50 percent by 1999

The signers also laid plans to meet regularly to review incoming data and adjust the Protocol as needed (Newton 1995; Warr 1990). Developing nations had mixed feelings about the Montreal Protocol and other environmental pacts involving industrial cutbacks. They acknowledged the need for action but also pointed out that they could not afford to make cutbacks on the same scale as their fully developed and economically sound allies. The world powers had already achieved a high standard of living on these harmful chemicals, and it was unfair to deny the upcoming states the same opportunity, they argued. Mindful of this, industrialized nations created a $240 million fund in 1990 that was to be used by developing countries for the development of modern technologies. In June 1990, the first amendment to the pact of Montreal was drawn up in London, and it specifically addressed the just mentioned argument (Newton 1995). The revision also brought tougher monitoring of the original marked compounds, and it added carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform to the list (Warr 1990).

The Protocol underwent another review in Copenhagen during 1992. As mentioned earlier, contemporary scientists presented the actual damage to the ozone layer as being much worse than originally surmised. The Copenhagen revision moved closer the dates of eliminating CFC usage. The updated terms of the pact called for the complete phase-out of all CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, and HBrFCs (hydrobromofluorocarbons) by the end of 1995. Halons of CFCs were to be phased out by the end of 1993. All production of HCFCs was scheduled to be terminated between the 2003 and 2020 (Sekiya and Misaki 1996; Sinclair 1998). Developing countries were expected to freeze their production and consumption of the chemicals between July 1999 and July 2000 (Sinclair, 1998). However, the efforts of these countries, as will be discussed later, are still inadequate to combat the potential harm that still exists.

ANALYSIS OF THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL Environmental Impact Generally, the policies set down by the Montreal Protocol are considered to have been successful. Studies released in the past two years have shown that overall CFC concentrations in the stratosphere are on the decline (French 1997; Derwent et al. 1998; McKenna 1998). Derwent et al. report that the only CFC whose concentrations have not decreased as of yet is CFC-12. The rate of accumulation of this substance has slowed, but it is still not decreasing in concentration (1998). In fact the most optimistic predictions in circulation are that the layer may begin to heal itself by the end of this decade and may be completely recovered by the year 2050 ("Phew, the ozone" 1997; French 1997). Flaws in the Policies The impression left by the Montreal Protocol is not without criticism. There are still undeniable gaps in its administration. Among the leniencies written into the agreement for CFC phase-out are concessions for developing nations to continue to produce and consume the chemicals as needed, even if in excess of the international quota ("Phew, the ozone," 1997; Retallack 1997). In fact, chemical companies of developed nations can continue CFC production as long as they ultimately, and sometimes perhaps only ostensibly, export the chemicals to developing countries. The phase-out of CFCs will not take effect until 2010 for these areas, and even then, states the Montreal agreement, these areas can continue to produce fifteen percent of their average production of the ozone-destroyers for "basic domestic needs." Some critics of this policy say this allowance based on average production encourages greater CFC synthesis. They argue that the more that is produced now, the larger the average and so the greater the permitted production (Retallack 1997; "Ozone destroying," 1996). However, this argument does seem to overlook the fact that the levels produced by these nations cannot rise above the present allowance and still be adherent to the Protocol. The current levels of production and the slow rate of their reduction are the concern, not increasing levels of production.

Responsible for a third of the remaining world CFC production are the American companies Allied Signal and Du Pont and the French company Elf-Atochem. These corporations are granted freedom to continue CFC synthesis not only in the United States for export to developing nations, but also in the developing nations themselves and in countries who have either failed to live up to their promises in curtailing CFCs or who never joined in the agreement in the first place. In 1997, the Russia government, a co-signer of the Montreal Protocol, admitted that its companies are making 52,000 tons annually of CFCs (Gibbs 1995; Retallack 1997). India and China are creating enormous amounts, as well, with the latter producing over 50,000 tons in 1997. In Zaramillo, Spain, an Elf-Atochem factory put out nearly 9,000 tons that same year (Retallack 1997). While a great deal of CFC production and consumption is legitimately required for establish-ment by developing nations, there is the danger that an unacceptably large amount is attributable to industrial recalcitrance and desire to still profit from the dwindling legal CFC market.

CFC Smuggling A growing thorn in the side of CFC elimination comes from the illegal market for the widely banned chemicals. There have been numerous cases of smuggling contraband CFC products into developed nations to be used by major companies there. From June 1996, customs agents in Laredo, Eagle Pass and Del Rio Texas have thwarted an average of five CFC smuggling attempts per day. "These seizures range from a few cans to dozens of cases." (Retallack 1997). In San Diego, officials reported to halting 5,320 pounds of CFCs along the California-Mexico border in 1996 alone. These attempts are accredited to a chemical plant not far from the U.S. border called Quimbasicos. This plant allegedly produces thousands of tons each year and is co-owned by Allied Signal.

Other areas of the world suffering from smuggling are the United Kingdom, Denmark, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan. The European Chemical Council has estimated that 10,000 tons of CFCs are making their way through the European black market. CFCs apparently have a lower black market price overseas than in the United States. Some overseas companies are explicitly named as suspects in CFC smuggling, including a company known as Refrigeration USA, which is accused of trading 3,600 tons of CFCs with Belgium, the Netherlands and Portugal. A marketing firm in India reportedly boasts that it can meet the CFC needs of any requesting institution (Retallack 1997). The worst case scenarios to corporate CFC smuggling are generally mild, however. Many businesses that require and have licenses to use CFCs have stored enough of the substances to meet their needs in the immediate future and are too averse to confrontations with the law to encourage and support CFC smuggling (Gibbs 1995).

DISCUSSION Recapitulation The global discourse on ozone depletion was the first to pull an international community together on an environmental issue. Some see the Montreal Protocol as a model to be adopted by similar forums such as the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change and the Earth Summit at Rio. These two attempts at environmental awareness were less than successful when compared with the agreement in Montreal. It is a curious question as to why. The Montreal Protocol, as mentioned earlier, was supported with convincing but incomplete data. It operated on a "precautionary principle;" that is, decision to take action by its signers was made before an irrefutable link was made between CFC consumption and ozone loss (French 1997). Today, the world looks back and praises its foresight, but the pendulum might just as feasibly swung toward a wait-and-see policy. Some scientists estimate that if no legislation had appeared before today and still not until 2010, the Antarctic hole would exist chronically "well into the twenty-second century," and the seasonal ozone fluctuations would today record losses possibly up to thirty percent as opposed to eight percent noted instead ("Ozone destroying" 1996).

A gain from the world's resolve in fighting ozone loss has been the coaxing of industry to stop battling policy and to look into substitutes that no one doubted would be essential for the great void left by the “miracle” compounds (French 1997). Industries, especially the ones most profited by the CFC market are still rebelling against the movement in finding loopholes, mostly legal but some underhand, that allow them to continue selling CFCs; but even so, the greatest problem here lies outside the Montreal Protocol with those governments who stand outside the circle of international consensus. Here there is no government above them. Most businesses have adjusted and new techno-logies have put to rest certain concerns that no future alternatives will be as effective as the originals. In some cases aqueous cleaning has replaced chemical cleaning of precision bearings, medical devices, and sophisticated electronic components. New “no-clean” technology has eliminated the cleaning process for printed circuit boards, and dry chemicals and carbon dioxide have replaced the halons in fire extinguishers (Sinclair 1998). In fact, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute claims that new equipment not requiring CFCs is forty percent more efficient than the old (Sinclair 1998).

Lastly, there is a notable discrepancy among the international and scientific communities as to the progress made by developing countries in eliminating their future need for CFCs and ozone-destroyers in general. Some contend that developing nations are lagging behind, others that they are on schedule (French 1997; “Ozone destroying” 1996). Most likely both cases exist, and perhaps some countries show signs of both progress and sloth with respect to differing chemicals. The Montreal Protocol requires not only stricter standards for these nations, but also clearer expectations of phase-out deadlines.

The Need for Stronger Measures The most tenable arguments against the addition of further more stringent measures to the Montreal Protocol and world policy are the potential economic setbacks, and that the ozone is recovering sufficiently at the current pace. But the world may be lulling itself into a premature sense of security. Due to ongoing corporate violations of ozone legislation, CFC smuggling, and the unrestricted use of some potential ozone-destroyers, the ozone layer is still under threat. Also, recent studies have shown decreasing amounts of CFCs in the atmosphere, but no concrete evidence, only models, suggests ozone recovery in the near future. Conclusive evidence of ozone layer recovery, like that which was first presented toward ozone depletion, must by nature require an extensive amount of research time.

Economic difficulties have not only been proven surmountable by current success in phasing-out CFCs and developing alternatives, but are also secondary to the unavoidable health concerns of a diminishing ozone layer. The argument over ozone legislation is, at its most basic, that of careful foresight and care for the future versus short-term convenience, profit, and lassaiz-faire observation. For the latter case, intervention may come too late to avoid heavy sacrifices in the way of money for medical treatment and loss of life.

Inaction on the ozone-depletion issue is to allow the greed of a few, namely large corporations, or resistance to difficult change to overshadow the present and future health of a planet. It is irresponsible to allow excessive production and consumption of ozone-destroyers to go on without an adequately intense search for replacements and an equally intense effort to phase them out. Soon it may be too dangerous to produce or consume these substances at all. Whether the world is forced into this final condition or enters it in order to preserve its well-being is in the hands of its current policy makers.

Works Cited Close, James and Playford, Greg. “Ozone: the pollution paradox” New York State Conservationist 51.6 (1997):19-22.
Derwent, R.G., Simmonds, P.G., O'Doherty, S., and Ryall, D.B. “The impact of the Montreal Protocol on halocarbon
    concentrations in northern hemisphere baseline and European air masses at Mace Head, Ireland over a ten year period
    from 1987-1996” Atmospheric Environment 32.21 (1998):3689-3702.
French, Hilary F. “The Lessons of Montreal (Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer)” World
    Watcher 10.5 (1997):2.
Gibbs, W. Wayt. “The Treaty That Worked—Almost” Scientific American 273.3 (1995): 18+.
Kiernan, Vincent. “Leave ozone hole to nature, say Republicans” New Scientist 47.18 (1997):18.
Manzer, L.E. “The CFC-Ozone issue: Progress on the Development of Alternatives to CFCs” Science 249.4964
    (1990):31-35.
McKenna, Daniel. “Stratospheric trends of CFC-12 over the past two decades: Recent observational evidence of declining
    growth rates” Geophysical Research Letters 25.17 (1998):3319-3322.
Newton, David F. The Ozone Dilemma. New York:Industrial Horizons, Inc.,1995.
O'Sullivan, Dermott A. “International gathering plans ways to safeguard atmospheric ozone” Chemical Engineering and News
    67.26 (1989):33.
“Ozone destroying chlorine tops out (atmospheric chlorine levels beginning to decline)” Science 271.5245 (1996):32.
“Phew, the ozone layer may be saved” The Economist 344.8084 (1997):48.
Retallack, Simon. “God protect us from those who 'protect the skies'” The Ecologist 27.5 (1997):188-191.
Sekiya, Akira and Misaki, Susumu. “A continuing search for new refrigerants” Chemtech 26.12 (1996):44-48.
Sinclair, Lani. “Industry and the ozone hole: Time is running out” Safety and Health 158.2 (1998):50-53.
Warr, Kiki. “Ozone: the burden of proof” New Scientist 128.1740 (1990):36-40.
Zuver, Pamela. “CFC substitutes to face international controls” Chemical Engineering and News 70.42 (1992):17.