Ozone depletion and the Montreal Protocol
If I had a billion dollars to save the ozone layer ...
The scene: A backyard barbecue on a
lazy Sunday
afternoon. After downing too many burgers too quickly, Pat, Riley,
Tory, Sasha,
and Vic are shooting the breeze. A house cat wanders through, settling
down on
Riley's lap, and immediately, Pat reaches for an asthma inhaler.
Riley: Pat, are you still using
one of those
evil ozone-destroying metered dose inhalers? If I had a billion dollars
to save
the ozone layer, I'd spend it all to get rid of those asthma inhalers.
With
every puff you take, you're
ejecting more Freons into the atmosphere, bringing the rest of us one
step
closer to succumbing to skin cancer.
Pat:
You're right. This is still the same old
prescription inhaler, and I do feel guilty. I'm stuck, because the FDA
has only
approved a couple CFC-free inhalers, and my allergist doesn't think
that either
of them would be right for me. But asthma inhalers are really only a
tiny
source of ozone destroying chemicals. If I had a billion dollars to
save the
ozone layer, I'd worry more about methyl bromide, which is not only an
ozone
destroyer but also toxic to humans.
Tory: Don't
dump on methyl bromide. It may destroy ozone,
but methyl bromide is also an important pesticide and fumigant. It's on
target
to be banned completely by 2005, and after that date, it will be
allowed
through "critical
use exemptions" only when no other technology exists. That means it
will
probably be used only for emergency fumigation to meet import/export
requirements and keep businesses in operation. I don't think methyl
bromide is
such a big problem.
If I had a
billion dollars to save the ozone layer, I'd worry more about forcing
individuals and U.S. corporations to really adhere to the rules laid
out by the
Montreal Protocol. In the U.S., air conditioners and refrigerators
built before
1996 use CFCs, but the CFCs aren't a problem as long as they don't leak
out
into the atmosphere. Current EPA rules prohibit venting refrigerant to
the atmosphere,
yet every year there are plenty of violations. In June 2001, a hotel in
Salt
Lake City was fined $216,000 for cutting a bunch of old refrigerant
lines. But
for everyone who is caught violating the laws, there must be dozens
more who
get away with destroying the ozone layer. I'd put my money into
enforcement.
Sasha: I agree that enforcement
matters, but
the problems in the U.S. are trivial compared with what developing
nations
face. If you remember, developing countries never wanted to adhere to
the
Montreal Protocol in the first place. They complained that developed
countries
in North America and Europe had the privilege of building their
powerful
economies in whatever ways they could, polluting as much as they wanted
as they
went. Not surprisingly, developing countries think they shouldn't have
to
suffer economic hardship to help the planet recover from problems that
they
didn't create.
Developing
countries negotiated a special status for the Montreal Protocol. They
are
allowed an extra 10 years before they have to stop using CFCs.
Developing
countries also receive considerable economic aid to help them develop
CFC-free
industries. But nobody is really adhering to the new rules. Developed
countries
are dumping old technology in developing countries. For example,
second-hand
European refrigerators were sold in Zambia for years after they were
banned in
Europe. And phasing out CFC production is taking more time than it
should.
According to Greenpeace, India says that, "unless the North (developed
countries)
compensates it for not building new CFC plants, it will go ahead and
build
them." If I had a billion dollars to save the ozone layer, I'd put my
money into United Nations aid programs.
Vic:
Forget saving the ozone layer. We can talk
all we want about what should we done, but the political process is
functioning
well. The Montreal Protocol is renegotiated regularly. New technology
is coming
on board. To my mind, the biggest problem now is that the ozone layer
isn't
going to recover nearly as fast as scientists initially thought. We
might have
to wait 45 years before we even see signs that the ozone layer is
recovering,
and unfortunately global warming could slow the recovery. If I had a
billion
dollars, I'd spend it on education. We should be staying inside,
wearing big
hats and slathering on sunscreen to protect ourselves from the Sun's
harmful
rays. Speaking of which, could you pass that bottle of Coppertone?
Objectives:
By the end of this case study, you should know what the Montreal
Protocol is, be able to explain the causes of ozone depletion, and be
able to identify several possible reasons why ozone can be destroyed.
Questions:
(1) This
dialogue mentions two types of ozone destroying chemicals: methyl
bromide and
CFC (technically chlorofluorocarbon and also known by its trade name,
Freon).
What uses of each are mentioned here? What other uses do you know of?
(2) What
international treaty was written to preserve the ozone layer? Why is
the ozone
layer important?
(3) What five
points of view are presented in this dialogue by Pat, Riley, Tory,
Sasha, and
Vic? As in the previous case studies, each of you should choose one of
these
perspectives to represent within your groups.
(4) Based on
what you know now, if you had a billion dollars, what strategies would
you
recommend to "save
the ozone layer"? What additional information do you need to more
thoroughly consider this question?
(5) As you did
for the previous case studies, make a list of questions for which you
want to
find answers, and come prepared next week to debate this topic in
greater
detail? You'll find web links to serve as starting points for your
investigations on the web site identified below, but don't feel limited
to the links
on the web - you're own searches (at the library or on the web) may
stir up
some interesting perspectives.
Click here for supplemental material, including a pdf version of the case study and web links.
The photograph at the top of this page shows a garbage barrel made from
a recycled freon can. It was taken at the site of the Oracle of
Delphi, Greece, December 1997. Copyright S. T. Gille.
Case study prepared by Sarah Gille, University of California, San
Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0230.
For further information about this case study and its companion learning units, see
(Gille, 2004) - Gille, S., Integrating Science into Policy in the Classroom: Three Case Studies on the Atmosphere, Journal of Earth System Science Education, 1 (Article + Case Studies), JESSE-04-300-07, 2004 http://jesse.usra.edu/archive/jesse04-300-07