advertisement

hammitt airlie june 2002

50 %
50 %
advertisement
Information about hammitt airlie june 2002
Education

Published on February 20, 2008

Author: Raulo

Source: authorstream.com

advertisement

Stratospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change:  Stratospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change James K. Hammitt Harvard School of Public Health Different US and European Responses Support Common Wisdom?:  Different US and European Responses Support Common Wisdom? Stratospheric ozone depletion US more precautionary in 1970s, early 1980s Global climate change EU more precautionary in late 1980s, 1990s Outline:  Outline Similarities and differences between issues Stratospheric ozone depletion History US and EU responses Explanations? Global climate change History US and EU responses Explanations? Similarities:  Similarities Global, atmospheric externalities Century-scale characteristic times Effects theorized before observed Environmental change well characterized Consequences more speculative Precautionary language in major agreements Montreal Protocol (1987):  Montreal Protocol (1987) “Parties to this protocol ... determined to protect the ozone layer by taking precautionary measures to control equitably total global emissions of substances that deplete it.” Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992):  Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) “The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its averse effects. When there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific uncertainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost.” Interactions:  Interactions CFCs and many substitutes are GHGs Ozone depletion reduces climate change Ozone in lower stratosphere is a GHG Global warming reduces ozone depletion Stratospheric cooling Differences:  Differences Few CFC producers (firms and countries) v. many CO2 and other greenhouse gas (GHG) producers But many CFC users (aerosols, refrigeration, air conditioning, foam manufacture, industrial solvent) Modest number of fossil-energy producers? CFC producers could produce substitutes, unlike coal and oil companies? Major chemical firms benefit by shifting market from low-market commodity to development of new compounds CFCs represented small share of economy and of firm profits Not worth sacrificing corporate image Differences:  Differences CFCs less essential than fossil fuels? “Frivolous” aerosol personal care products? “Frivolous” automobile air conditioning? “Frivolous” large cars and sport utility vehicles (SUVs)? CFCs — Wonder Chemicals:  CFCs — Wonder Chemicals CFCs 11 and 12 developed in 1930s as refrigerants Chemically stable and non-toxic By 1970s, used as Aerosol propellant Refrigerant (refrigeration, building and mobile air conditioning) Blowing agent for flexible and rigid plastic foams CFC-113 used as solvent, especially for microelectronic production CFC History — SST:  CFC History — SST 1960s and early 1970s — US and UK/France developing supersonic transports (SST) Concerns that HOx then NOx in exhaust would deplete ozone US cancelled SST, largely for economic reasons UK/France built Concorde Later disputes over US landing rights for Concorde Ozone discussed, but mostly about noise, technology Discovery of Threat to Ozone:  Discovery of Threat to Ozone June 1974 — Molina and Rowland paper identifying threat from CFCs published Attracted little attention September 1974 — Molina and Rowland held press conference and discussed work at American Chemical Society Widely publicized (e.g., two New York Times articles) US Response:  US Response October 1974 — National Academy of Sciences convened ad hoc panel November 1974 — Natural Resources Defense Council petitioned Consumer Products Safety Commission to ban CFC aerosol sprays December 1974 — Congressional hearings US consumer boycott of aerosol products June 1975 — Johnson Wax announced it would eliminate CFCs from its products (required changing only three) US Regulatory Action:  US Regulatory Action US Government uncertain about regulatory authority Convened interagency taskforce on Inadvertent Modification of the Stratosphere (IMOS) June 1975 — IMOS report concluded authority to regulate CFCs existed only for aerosol products through (depending on application) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Impetus for Toxic Substances Control Act, 1976) US Regulatory Action — IMOS Report:  US Regulatory Action — IMOS Report Concluded CFC releases “a legitimate cause for concern” “Unless new scientific evidence is found to remove the cause for concern, it would seem necessary to restrict uses of (CFCs) 11 and 12 to replacement of fluids in existing refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment and to closed recycled systems or other uses not involving release to the atmosphere.” Very precautionary? Put onus on ongoing National Academy of Sciences study Significant Local Activity:  Significant Local Activity June 1975 — Oregon banned CFC aerosols effective 1977 New York state legislature passed labeling requirement Bills introduced in 12 other states and US Congress US Regulation:  US Regulation September 1976 — National Academy released report supporting CFC-ozone hypothesis Concluded “selective regulation of (CFC) uses and releases is almost certain to be necessary at some time and to some degree” but “neither the needed timing nor the needed severity can reasonably be specified today” US Regulation:  US Regulation IMOS taskforce recommended federal agencies begin rulemaking October 1976 — Regulatory plan announced Phase 1 — Restrict “non-essential” aerosol uses of CFCs 11 and 12 Rule finalized March 1978 Phase 2 — Restrict additional uses of CFCs and other ozone depleters Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 1980 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments :  1977 Clean Air Act Amendments New CFC title consolidated authority in EPA Required EPA administrator to Commission biennial NAS studies Regulate any substance that “may reasonably be anticipated to affect the stratosphere, especially ozone in the stratosphere, and (sic) such effect may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare” Not very precautionary European Response:  European Response 1977 — Germany reached voluntary agreement with industry to reduce CFCs 11 and 12 in aerosols by 30% from 1976 level by 1979 Denmark, Switzerland achieved similar voluntary reductions Netherlands adopted labeling requirement Sweden and Norway adopted aerosol bans in 1977-1978 winter Countries had little domestic industry EC Response:  EC Response August 1977 — EC Commission proposed production capacity freeze for CFC 11, 12 May 1978 — Council of Ministers adopted recommendation for production capacity freeze EC Response — Conflicting Goals:  EC Response — Conflicting Goals Disagreement among member states Netherlands, Denmark, Germany proposed 50% followed by 100% cuts UK and France opposed EC Commission interested in using issue to gain authority over environment Environmental authority granted by Single European Act (1987) EC agreed to cap production capacity at 480,000 tons/yr Well above current production of 300,000 tons/yr Early 1980s — Little Movement:  Early 1980s — Little Movement Less urgency Global recession and aerosol bans had sharply reduced CFC production New science suggested somewhat less ozone depletion Each side promoted its own policy US, Canada, Norway and Sweden advocated aerosol ban EC advocated production cap Toward International Agreement:  Toward International Agreement CFC production increased with end of recession 1984 — NRDC sued to compel regulation of non-aerosol applications 1985-1986 — UNEP / EPA workshops DuPont announced CFC alternatives could be produced within 5-10 years Toward International Agreement:  Toward International Agreement May 1985 — discovery of Antarctic "ozone hole" September 1986 — US industry "Alliance," DuPont, announced support for global regulation Global rules preferred to unilateral regulation Reagan administration failed to stop "Ray-Ban plan" Montreal Protocol:  Montreal Protocol September 1987 — Opened for signature Restricted both production and consumption (= production + imports - exports) Ratified by all major parties Post Montreal:  Post Montreal Numerous amendments to increase stringency and coverage Active adaptation to new information Production of major CFCs halted about 1995 US and EU equally aggressive? US more hawkish on methyl bromide But Clinton administration asked DuPont to produce CFC-12 for extra year EU more hawkish on HCFCs Transitional compounds — ozone depleters and GHGs Explanations for US/EU Differences?:  Explanations for US/EU Differences? European industry more heavily dependent on aerosols Aerosols = 3/4 of production v. < 1/2 in US Johnson Wax did not phase out CFC aerosols in UK (5% of US products but 20% of UK products used CFCs) and exports Supplied 40% of non-producer market Legal system US industry concerned about product liability (initial suits against cigarettes producers) NRDC legal authority to intervene and force decision Stronger US public response — risk perception or accident of history? Global Climate Change:  Global Climate Change EU more precautionary than US, increasing difference Pledges 1990 — Joint meeting of EU environment and energy ministers agreed that 2000 CO2 emissions should not exceed 1990 level 1993 — President Clinton pledged to hold 2000 GHG emissions to 1990 level Energy tax soundly rejected, small gasoline tax imposed Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) EU and US signed, but US added cost-effectiveness language President Bush threatened not to attend if specific commitments included Kyoto Protocol (1997):  Kyoto Protocol (1997) EU — GHG emissions 8% below 1990 level "Bubble" with Germany and UK making largest absolute reductions Germany — reunification, modernization of east UK — energy deregulation, substitution of natural gas for oil EU has ratified US — GHG emissions 7% below 1990 level Voluntary measures Interest in comprehensive, multi-GHG approach Clinton Administration never submitted for ratification Bush Administration has withdrawn EU Implementation :  EU Implementation Voluntary automobile fuel efficiency increase 25% from 1995 to 2005 Permits for large GHG sources Reduced coal subsidies Limit biodegradable waste to landfills (methane emissions) National energy and road taxes Explanations for US/EU Differences?:  Explanations for US/EU Differences? Energy demand — Europe is less energy and CO2 intensive Geographically compact — less transportation? Stronger response to 1970s oil price shocks? Concern about acid deposition Harder to reduce energy use (contrast with aerosols), but less economic penalty for higher prices? Explanations for US/EU Differences?:  Explanations for US/EU Differences? Energy Supply Most European coal is in deep mines, expensive to extract Access to natural gas from North Sea, pipelines from E. Europe, Africa US a remains major coal producer (surface mining) Explanations for US/EU Differences? :  Explanations for US/EU Differences? Europe has taken lead in energy and environmental technology? Reagan administration reduced energy R&D Germany became largest producer of photovoltaics Sensitivity to climate change Netherlands at risk from sea level rise, but so is southeast US No great difference? Explanations for US/EU Differences?:  Explanations for US/EU Differences? Political system Parliamentary systems allow third parties to gain power, unlike US? But independents align with major parties in US Congress Explanations for US/EU Differences?:  Explanations for US/EU Differences? Concerns about international competitiveness US concerned about "leakage" (lack of efficacy) Competitiveness (loss of industry) EU less concerned, or hoping to gain an advantage v. US?

Add a comment

Related presentations

Related pages

Airline Accident: Incident - June 4, 2002 - Wichita, Kan ...

Incident - June 4, 2002 - Wichita, Kan. ... The captain held an airline transport pilot certificate with single and multi-engine airplane ratings.
Read more

Australian Airlines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Australian Airlines was a full-service airline based in Australia, servicing Australian and Asian destinations between 2002 and 2006. It was an all-economy ...
Read more

Guess The Airline – May/June 2002 answer | airodyssey.net

Guess The Airline – May/June 2002 answer. Posted on July 1, 2002 by Sergio Ortega ...
Read more

2002 Los Angeles International Airport shooting ...

On July 4, 2002, a lone gunman opened fire at the airline ticket counter of El Al, Israel's national airline, at Los Angeles International Airport in Los ...
Read more

Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Ronald Reagan ...

Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Directional Airline Traffic Report Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport CARGO July 2001 - June 2002
Read more

Fairline Squadron 62 June 2002 Boat News, Review & Advice ...

Fairline Squadron 62 (June 2002) If you want to escape the crowds, not accommodate them, the Fairline Squadron 62 is just the getaway boat for you, reports.
Read more

Airline Accident: Accident - June 2, 2002 - Fairfield, Ill ...

Accident - June 2, 2002 - Fairfield, Ill. ... The 2 certificated airline transport pilots, 108 passengers, and 3 flight attendants were not injured; ...
Read more

UK Airlines - Civil Aviation Authority

UK Airlines Monthly Operating and Traffic Statistics June 2002 Economic Regulation Group Aviation Data Unit
Read more

www.metwashairports.com

Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Directional Airline Traffic Report Washington Dulles International Airport CARGO July 2001 - June 2002 (Tonnes ...
Read more