By Tom Kelly
The depletion of the ozone layer is a problem of our own making and potentially under our control. When we look at the seriousness of the problem, however, it's clear that governments are still approaching it in a half-hearted manner, and significant sections of industry are opposed to the measures necessary to address the situation.
Scientists have been aware of the ozone destroying role of CFCs and halons since 1974. The hole in the ozone layer in Antarctica was discovered in 1984. It was not until 1987, however, that an international treaty to phase out CFCs was negotiated.
The 1987 Montreal Protocol proposed to freeze CFC production at 1986 levels by 1989, to reduce production by 20% by July 1993, and to reduce this by a further 30% by July 1998. Halon production was to be frozen at 1986 levels by 1993. Before long, it became apparent that these measures needed to be tightened up considerably and extended to a range of other ozone-damaging chemicals.
A London meeting in 1990 agreed to a total phase-out of CFCs, halons and carbon tetrachloride by 2000, and a total phase-out of methyl chloroform by 2005.
In 1992, the world's environment ministers were back at the negotiating table, this time in Copenhagen. The context was one of increasing degradation of the ozone layer both north and south of the equator. New control measures brought forward the CFC, carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform phase-out deadlines to 1996, and the halon phase-out to 1994. HCFC production is to be reduced by 90% by 2015, and phased out by 2030.
HCFCs, chemically similar substitutes for CFCs, are less harmful to the ozone layer but still do significant damage. They are promoted by industry as an alternative to CFCs because they can be used with existing technology, without it needing to be redesigned. According to Greenpeace, industry pressure forced the UN to abandon its original goal of a total ban on HCFCs by 2005. The cost of this convenience for industry will be a prolonging of industrial impact on the ozone layer at a time when we should be doing everything possible to reduce that impact.
Scientists from Britain's Stratospheric Ozone Review Group announced last week that HCFCs present a bigger threat to the ozone layer than previously thought. They highlighted the need to phase out emissions of chlorine-containing substances as soon as possible in order to limit further ozone depletion.
Corin Millais of Greenpeace UK points out that "the gains made by phasing out CFCs will be lost in another 20 years' use of HCFCs". He charged that the governments of the UK, the US and Japan were content to bow to the pressures of the refrigeration industry, and argued that they should reconsider the half measures they had taken (in supporting the longer usage period of HCFCs).
The Copenhagen meeting also saw conflict over the issue of methyl bromide, which releases bromine, a substance 60 times more destructive of ozone than chlorine. Production of methyl bromide increased by 50% between 1984 and 1990. Estimates blame it for up to 10% of total ozone destroyed so far.
Methyl bromide is used in agriculture as a fumigant to sterilise soil, and to rid fruit and vegetables of pests before export. Opposition to its phase-out came chiefly from Israel, the European Community and Third World countries heavily dependent on exporting fruit and vegetables.
US representatives in Copenhagen announced that their country would ban methyl bromide by 2000. However, a report in the New Scientist of November 27 indicates duplicity in the US position. Seventeen countries, including the US, had met in Bangkok earlier that month and agreed to cut methyl bromide emissions by one quarter by 2000. At the same time, US President Bill Clinton was promising that there would be no restrictions on the chemical before the year 2000. The administration had already agreed to freeze production at 1991 levels by 1995.
At each stage of negotiations to reduce the production of ozone-damaging chemicals there is competition between groups with vested interests for economic and political advantages. These vested interests actually block and delay action that is vital not only to human health, but to the planet's ecological balance.
The longer term habitability of our planet doesn't seem to be a priority that overrules the pursuit of narrow and short-term interests of the big companies that profit from the production and use of ozone destroying chemicals.
The priority of phasing out and safely destroying ozone-damaging chemicals needs to be asserted over considerations such as the profit rates of industry, concern for which appears to be the key obstacle to decisive action. The slogan of "people before profit" has a growing urgency as the global ecological crisis escalates.
If capitalism can't afford to take all possible action to save our environment from potentially irreversible damage, then clearly we can't afford capitalism.