Montreal Protocol, a viable solution to solving climate issues

Blog Assignment 3

Lucas McCann

In the New York Times article “A novel tactic in climate fight gains some traction” (November 8, 2010) the author, John M Broder examines the claim that could impact climate change regulations for years. The claim that was made is that the Montreal protocol should be expanded so that it would include the phasing out of HFC’s (hydroflourocarbons), a potentially harmful greenhouse gas. To further show this claim, Broder uses a quote from Mr. Reifsnyder:

“What we’ve found is that the Montreal Protocol has been a very effective instrument for addressing global environmental problems,” Mr. Reifsnyder said in an interview. “It was created to deal with the ozone layer, but it also has tremendous ability to solve the climate problem if people are willing to use it that way.” (Broder 2010)

Broder offers both strong and weak evidence to back up this claim that the Montreal protocol can be used to improve other aspects of climate change. In particular these main points seem to be: (1) even though the Montreal protocol was designed for the ozone layer; it could also be used to promote the reduction of climate issues, (2) HFC’s are potentially 1000 times worse than carbon dioxide and (3) the Montreal protocol actually achieved what it was designed for, compared to recent climate talks.

I think that the first and third pieces of evidence are particularly stronger than the second piece of evidence. First off, it is true that the Montreal protocol was designed to eliminate chemicals that were potentially harmful to the ozone layer. However this does not mean that it could not be used for much brooder applications. The full effects that hydroflourocarbons may have on the environment are not known for sure; however that is not to say that we shouldn’t do anything about them just because we don’t what affect they have. The wingspread precautionary principle states that, “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically”. Just because we do not know the full affect that hydroflourocarbons have on the environment, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do anything to prevent it Interpreting the precautionary principle in this way allows for an accurate expansion of the Montreal protocol to include phasing out HFC’s.

Over the past couple of years, international climate talks have produced little results or actions at all. The Montreal protocol is one of the most significant and effective (if not the most) international environmental treaties signed. It achieved the goals it was designed for, and it is a perfect vehicle to use for lowering other climate problems. Therefore it is only natural that we try and adapt the Montreal protocol so that it incorporates different climate problems, other than ozone. For example, say that the Montreal protocol was adapted to reduce hydroflourocarbons and it yielded extremely positive results, say it decreased the rate of global warming. If this were the case than the Montreal protocol would be applicable to all climate change issues, it could possibly be used to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the environment. This is a key part of the argument, we do not know if the Montreal protocol is applicable to other climate problems until it is tested; but the possibilities if it were are endless. Therein lays a problem because possibly applying the protocol will not occur for years. The Environmental Protection Agency estimated that adapting the Montreal protocol to adopt the HFC proposal could eliminate approximately 88 billion metric tons of CO₂ by 2050. If there were even the remote chance of that occurring, than we should obviously adopt the HFC proposal.

Now, ignoring the potential strong points in this argument; there is a weak point that Broder has made. The evidence in question is that hydroflourocarbons possibly have thousands the global warming potential compared to carbon dioxide. I feel that this part of the argument is extremely unconvincing without further scientific proof. The claim that HFC’s are thousands of times worse than carbon dioxide is outrageous, how can you possibly know to what extent if something is worse compared to another, without scientific testing. I feel this argument is flawed here because Broder doesn’t present any scientific proof, which specifically says that HFC’s are worse than carbon dioxide. For all we know HFC’s are better than CO₂, it is impossible to know without scientific proof.

One way Broder could make this argument more convincing would be to actually incorporate scientific facts about HFC’s, if there are any. This could reduce any uncertainties that are involved in his argument and make it more convincing. This is really the only low point in his argument; however there is no real way to test if this approach could reduce HFC’s. The claims are mostly based on what if arguments, which does not make them relatively, sound.

Broder is arguing that the Montreal protocol can be updated so that it includes reducing the amount of HFC’s that are used. The evidence provided shows that this may indeed by true, and this could ultimately have extremely positive effects. However it is impossible to know this for sure, because this hypothesis has not yet been tested. Until this is actually tested and scientific knowledge is produced we cannot be sure of what effects this may have. To me the argument that has been made logically commits us to pursuing it, to find out if the Montreal protocol is truly effective on climate issues other than ozone depletion. If true this could change the way we attempt to reverse the damage we have done with greenhouse grasses.

Reference

Broder, John M. "A Novel Tactic in Climate Fight Gains Some Traction." New York Times. 8 Nov. 2010. Web. 9 Nov. 2010. .