The bad news behind the good news of fixing Antarctica's ozone hole
Delegates debate a point at ozone talks in Geneva in April. It's the most successful environmental treaty, but contains a huge flaw.
Last week's news that the Antarctic ozone hole was "healing" was good news. Here finally was an example of scientists, industry and governments working together to solve a problem that would have caused huge problems for humanity.
Researchers credited the 1987 Montreal Protocol for this win and many others have noted the protocol is the most successful international environmental treaty ever. Over 195 nations have signed up and implemented its provisions. It seemed like the opposite of climate change talks.
What wasn't mentioned much is that the Montreal Protocol increases climate change. It solved one problem by contributing to another, more dangerous problem.
The ozone hole is purple-blue in this October 2, 2015, Nasa image.
It's an awkward thing to get your head around. The protocol phased out gases that deplete atmospheric ozone and create the ozone hole over Antarctica in spring. But the gases phased in as replacements are called "super greenhouse gases" by observers such as David Doniger, director of climate and clean air at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a New York-based international environmental advocacy group. They are much worse than carbon dioxide, he says.
READ MORE:
* Antarctic ozone hole has finally started to heal
* New Zealand overtakes Australia for highest rates of skin cancer
* Melanoma in South Islanders may be more treatable
* Paris climate deal: what does it mean for New Zealand?
This lacuna was known pretty much from the beginning, says New Zealand's lead delegate at the Montreal talks, then environment minister Philip Woollaston. A 1989 follow-on from the protocol, known as the Helsinki Declaration stated "some ozone depleting substances are powerful greenhouse gases leading to global warming".
New Zealander Malcolm McKee co-chairs an ozone depletion meeting in Bangkok in 2013.
It was a "deliberate choice to move to a lesser evil", says Woollaston. The replacement gases were understood to be "transitional substances" that would eventually need to phased out.
Talks started about 10 years ago, says Doniger. Some years, he recalls, delegates argued about the agenda for the first three days of a five day meeting. Deadlock and frustration reigned, nothing got done.
The talks were nominally about ozone depletion but really about climate change and that made everything "more contentious and ideological", says Doniger. Some counties such as India argued climate change should only be negotiated in climate change forums.
David Doniger, left, of the Natural Resources Defense Council at ozone talks in Montreal in 2007. There's a renewed spirit of co-operation, he says.
That argument was overcome almost by a sense of duty, Doniger says. The feeling was that the ozone negotiators had to clean up their own mess.
Last year at a meeting in Dubai, the 27th meeting of the parties to the Montreal Protocol, a new spirit of co-operation was evident the first morning, says Doniger. He's followed the ozone problem since the 1980s.
"If that spirit continues ... we'll be back to the spirit of the Montreal Protocol," he says.
And so on July 13 talks restart in Vienna and many are predicting a breakthrough. "We're very hopeful of a decision," says Malcolm McKee, director of stewardship at the Ministry for the Environment and the country's chief delegate for the talks.
If matters aren't quite concluded in Vienna, another round of talks are scheduled for Rwanda in October.
Most challenges have been well worked through, says McKee. "There's momentum."
If the talks are successful, New Zealanders are unlikely to notice much change immediately, says McKee. Replacement gases for freezers, heat pumps and the like will be phased in and most will be replaced as equipment is replaced. It will "happen behind the scenes," he says.
His ministry has been meeting with industry for six months, explaining what a deal will mean and discussing timeframes, he says.
As with the original protocol, the current amendments turn on replacement gases and technology being available at acceptable prices and a pot of money supplied by developed countries, including New Zealand, to subsidise action in developing countries.
Since 1991, the Multilateral Fund set up to subsidise replacement gases and equipment has raised US$3.5 billion, according to a May 2016 report. The US has been the biggest contributor, putting up US$796 million, followed by Japan at US$665m and Germany at US$383m. New Zealand has contributed US$10.5m since 1991 and may be asked for more if the current talks succeed, says McKee.
The money is disbursed to developing countries and some may go directly to businesses and individuals to fund upgrades, says observer Doniger. The money has also been used to help developing countries with technology transfer and the cost of patented gases and processes.
Fighting ozone depletion was easier than climate change because negotiators tackled a fairly small class of gases, he says.
"We were fortunate that science and industry ... could say, 'Yes, here is a replacement'," says NZ's Montreal negotiator Philip Woollaston.
There was initial resistance from industry, especially European companies, but that was overcome once they saw the profits to be made from new chemical and equipment sales. Woollaston recalls running into reps from chemcial giant DuPont at a social event and they "seemed very happy with the outcome" of Montreal.
Social events don't take up much time at ozone talks, say both Woollaston and McKee. Both recall back-to-back meetings starting at, say, 9am and running until 11pm and in some cases until 1am and 2am.
The Montreal Protocol was negotiated in English by 46 countries. A November meeting of negotiators included about 150 nations including the Holy See and formal proceedings were simultaneously translated into all six official languages of the United Nations.
The important work doesn't often happen in full plenary meetings, Woollaston says. Rather small "contact groups" are convened to thrash through problems in private, in English. He was a member of an eight-member Chairman's Panel that reached the critical compromise in Montreal.
These days New Zealand isn't "in the room", says negotiator McKee. The country will send a delegation of two to Vienna next week and their role is to "mediate and find middle ways through", he says.
Cancer rates in New Zealanders haven't changed because of the Montreal Protocol – the ozone hole doesn't contribute much to melanoma rates, the Cancer Society says. Nor does the protocol and its likely amendments help the country with its climate change commitments arising from the 2015 Paris agreement. The gases to be phased out amount to 2 per cent of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions, says McKee.
And in case, you're wondering: there is a cottage industry of ozone hole skeptics, but it's nothing like the resistance to climate change negotiations. And those people don't seem to have cottoned on to what's happening, quietly in Vienna next week, and possibly Rwanda in October.
- Stuff
Comments