REGULATIONS
While the chemical industry initially resisted the phasing out of CFCs and the development of replacements, the amount of scientific evidence documenting the extent of the damage being done by CFCs increased. In 1985 it was found that a huge ozone "hole" was forming over Antarctica
each spring; further studies in 1986 and 1987 showed that this hole was a direct result of CFC pollution1. This evidence, combined with mounting public pressure, forced the industry to address the issue. The
defining event that set goals to be followed by the chemical industries of many countries world-wide was the ratification of the "Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer" in 1987, under the auspices of the United Nations. This agreement, which grew out of the Vienna Convention for
the Protection of the Ozone Layer that had concluded two years earlier, set a definite time table for the cessation of CFC production in various areas of the world. A review in London in 1990 of progress being made towards the Protocol's goals led to an acceleration of the timetable, calling for the
complete cessation of CFC production by 2000. In the United States, enforcement of the Protocol time table was implemented by amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990.
CFC Phaseout Schedules: Allowed Production
and Consumption for Developed Countries
(percent of baseline) |
 |
|
|
|
| 1987
Original Montreal Protocol
| 1990
London Montreal Protocol
| 1992
Copenhagen Montreal Protocol
| 1990
U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments
| 1994
European Community Schedule
|
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000 |
100%
100%
100%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
50%
50% |
100%
100%
80%
80%
50%
50%
15%
15%
15%
0% |
25%
25%
0%
|
85%
80%
75%
25%
25%
0%
|
50%
15%
0%
|
The London meeting also brought about a call for the phasing out of HCFCs, which the chemical industry was developing as one possible alternative to CFCs but which had been found to still cause some ozone destruction. While European delegates pushed for the rapid cessation of HCFC development, both to reduce ozone depletion and to encourage the development of safer alternative substances, the U.S. and Japan pushed for a longer phase-out,
ending as late as 20302. It has been suggested that the influence of members of the chemical industry, which has invested large sums in HCFC development, successfully pushed for this late date in order to allow the industry to avoid taking a financial hit3.
Contrary to the industry's predictions, many of the issues they had raised, such as possible high costs, long development times, and the scrapping of CFC-based equipment, failed to materialize; indeed, some of the replacement substances are in some ways superior to CFCs4.
It is interesting to note that today the chemical industry claims to pride itself on its concern for the environment; it even boasts that industrial efforts have led to accelerated progress in curbing ozone depletion5. While substantial industrial efforts have indisputably led to the development of more-ozone-friendly alternatives to CFCs, the industry fails to mention is that it balked at replacing CFCs until international pressure, and actual observed ozone depletion over industrialized nations, made action the only option.
INTRODUCTION | OZONE CHEMSITRY | DISCOVERY | RESPONSE | REGULATION | TODAY
