Two years after Farman et al. (1985)’s
findings were published, the ‘Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer’ was agreed. Under the Protocol, there are legally binding
regulations to phase out (in other words, gradually reduce to nothing) the
production and use of CFCs worldwide. The Protocol is now signed by 197 nations
and continues to undergo revisions to set new targets for the CFC phase out
process (The Australian Government: Department of the Environment, n/d).
The original target was to reduce CFC production by 50% by 1999 (Hardy and Gucinski, 1989) but this progressed to a complete phase out by 1995 (The Australian Government: Department of the Environment). The Protocol does not
only require CFCs to be phased out though. Other substances that can react with ozone are also targeted to be phased out. These substances are appropriately
named as ‘ozone depleting substances’ (Weatherhead and Andersen, 2006). Furthermore, one
fact to note is that the obligations for developing and developed countries are
different. The total phase out target for developing countries is later than
for developing countries, this reflects the fact that they may have a lower
ability to adapt and find alternatives than developed countries.
How successful was
the phase out?
There is wide consensus among academics, politicians,
researchers and scientists that this protocol has been one of, if not, the most
successful international treaty ever (for example, The Australian Government; Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the
United Nations;
Aronson et al. 2011; Fahey, 2013;
Mӓder et al. 2010).
Indeed, what these scholars and politicians consider a success is the way that
the agreement has reduced emissions of CFCs. By banning the production of CFCs
and phasing out their usage, fewer chlorine molecules are able to react with
ozone. Therefore the total layer of ozone gas should be restored. For
example, Mӓder et al. ran a
regression to analyse the effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol in protecting
the ozone layer. The authors conclude from their analysis that their models
have proven the effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol and the ozone layer is
indeed protected by the regulations that came out of the Protocol.
This evidence seems convincing, right? I thought it was,
until I came across a video by the National Geographic, which can be accessed here (apologies I am unable to post it up on this blog). The video states that the ozone hole (not layer!) peaked
in 2008. Therefore despite the widespread appraisal of the Protocol, levels of
ozone have not actually been increasing since the ban of CFCs. Additionally,
when NASA measures the amount ozone in Antarctica using satellites, the results
are unexpected, and counter what scientists, politicians, and the general public,
believe about the success of this regulation. For instance, figure 1 shows that
the amount of ozone over Antarctica through the years has only been increasing since the Protocol, with 2014 spring levels still significantly lower than in 1979. This
means that since the ban of CFCs, ozone depletion has continued!
Figure 1. Ozone levels in October 1979,
1989, 1999 and 2014. Adapted from ‘Map Archives' from NASA (2015).
The depth of the ozone hole is measured in Dobson units. Purple
and blue indicate low levels of ozone. Green and red indicate high
levels of ozone.
What can explain this? Does this mean that banning CFCs
was ineffective? Not necessarily. There are many factors that affect the levels
of CFCs that remain in the ozone layer. These factors can limit the effectiveness
of banning CFCs. For example, the ban was implemented approximately 50 years
after CFCs first came into use. This means that 50 years’ worth of chlorine and bromine
molecules are currently present in the ozone layer, despite having been emitted
years ago. Thus, although Montreal has been effective at preventing further chlorine and bromine molecules
from reacting with ozone, it has been unable to alter the composition of CFCs that
are still present in the stratosphere. Current CFCs in the stratosphere remains a challenge to address
unless the international community wishes to physically remove them from the stratosphere.
I am definitely not suggesting that they do this as this task is impossible to carry out! The point I would like to make is that, unfortunately,
humans’ past actions are leaving an unwanted legacy on the ozone layer which is
beyond human control. Solomon (2004) states that lifetimes of CFCs can be
between 50 and 100 years, showing that this legacy is going to exist for a long
time and will prevent the ozone layer from fully recovering in the short term.
Another influence on the ozone layer is climate. Solomon mentions that a warm spring can result in less ozone depletion, and
therefore a cold spring can lead to more ozone depletion. Given this trend,
global circulations such as the Arctic Oscillation can affect the levels of
ozone that are observed in Antarctica. As my post on 22 October explained, the Arctic Oscillation affects the climate in Antarctica and can be
used to explain the extent of ozone depletion (Zhou et al. 2001). A further climatic factor that
affects the level of ozone is temperature. Weatherhead and Andersen (2006:41) mention that ‘colder
conditions in the lower stratosphere promote the formation of polar
stratospheric clouds which contribute to severe ozone depletion’. These factors
show that climate can interfere with levels of ozone, and that ozone levels are
interconnected with a whole range of natural climatic systems. This makes the
analysis of ozone complicated and challenging to understand. Furthermore,
because of the range of factors that affect ozone, the true effect of the Montreal
Protocol will never be fully known. This means that celebrating the success of
the Montreal Protocol may be naïve.
Conclusions
Although the Montreal Protocol has successfully reduced emissions
of CFCs, this is not enough to deal with the problem of CFCs. CFCs are still in
the stratosphere which means that the hole in the ozone layer will be present
until the end of CFC lifetimes. Furthermore, climate also affects ozone levels.
These additional determinants of ozone levels complicate scientists’
understanding of ozone and so it is difficult to understand how successful the
Montreal Protocol really is. As figure 1 shows, ozone levels are worse now than
they were before the Montreal Protocol. Because of this, perhaps celebrating
the success of the Protocol is premature.
I would like to end this post with a reference to the song
indicated in the title. This folk song is a story about a hole in a bucket that needs amending. In order to fix it,
many actions are required until the character trying to fix it cannot because
he ends up back where he started and the story forms a loop. In terms of the ozone
layer, the Montreal Protocol has found a solution in the long term. However in the
short term, CFC molecules will continue to destroy ozone molecules until the
end of the CFC's lifetimes. This means that no additional
measures can be implemented to protect the ozone layer as these attempts will
only lead us back to the same problem (i.e. the problem of having chlorine and bromine
molecules that were emitted in the past in the stratosphere). This post therefore emphasises that human actions from the past can continue to have effects on the Antarctic environment. This means that measures taken in the present do not compensate for the negative impacts resulting from the past. Because of this, I believe that the Protocol has
achieved all it can for the moment and only time will tell how effective it is
at restoring the ozone layer to natural levels. For this reason, I will award a
point to the positive side. Now the score is 7-5.
My next post will sadly be my last and this is where I'll summarise the key findings from my blog. Thanks for reading!
My next post will sadly be my last and this is where I'll summarise the key findings from my blog. Thanks for reading!
