The United States is teetering on the brink of a huge travesty for humankind. If the United States exits the Paris Agreement, it joins only Nicaragua and Syria as non-participants. Unlike those countries, the U.S. is a significant global emitter. 21% of the pledged emission cuts by 2030 are from the United States alone. Even with a fully executed Paris Agreement, it is not clear that we can stabilize or reduce warming to "safe" levels, but it is a needed start. Considering U.S. economic well-being is important, but ignoring the economic costs of inaction are equally important. Not acting on a stated risk for our only home is careless and inconsistent with sound conservative principles. I reflected this morning on how the arguments against the Paris Agreement sound sooooooooo familiar to initial skepticism against efforts to fix the Ozone Hole.
Sept. 28, 2016, the ozone hole, at its peak (purplish-blue color), extended across an area nearly... [+]
The Ozone Hole was one the great threats to humanity. Ozone is a colorless gas. At the surface where we live, it can be toxic to humans and plant life. However there is vital Ozone layer in the stratosphere that absorbs ultraviolet B (UV-B) radiation from the sun. Without exaggeration, it is safe to say that the Ozone layer protects life on Earth. According to NASA's OzoneWatch website
Each year for the past few decades during the Southern Hemisphere spring, chemical reactions involving chlorine and bromine cause ozone in the southern polar region to be destroyed rapidly and severely. This depleted region is known as the “ozone hole”.
Those chemical reactions were related to industrial chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer was an international agreement similar to what is on the table with the Paris Climate Agreement. It worked. CFCs have long residence times in the stratosphere so the seasonal ozone hole will likely be with us for a while longer, but it has stopped growing and is on the mend.
Aaaaah, but the Montreal Protocol had its critics, and their song sounded very familiar. Many in the chemical industry were initially opposed and even attempted to discredit the Nobel Prize winning science of Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina, and Sherwood Rowland. Their work was fundamental in identifying why Ozone was being decomposed. Weather Underground's Dr. Jeff Masters previously wrote an excellent summary of the skeptic tactics during this period. He points out that private industry launched a public relations campaign to dispute the evidence (sound familiar). Masters wrote
DuPont, which made 1/4 of the world's CFCs, spent millions of dollars running full-page newspaper advertisements defending CFCs in 1975, claiming there was no proof that CFCs were harming the ozone layer. Chairman Scorer of DuPont commented that the ozone depletion theory was "a science fiction tale...a load of rubbish...utter nonsense."......The aerosol (spray cans) industry also launched a PR blitz, issuing a press release stating that the ozone destruction by CFCs was a theory, and not fact.....The symbol of Chicken Little claiming that "The sky is falling!" was used with great effect by the PR campaign, and appeared in various newspaper headlines.
The tactic of overstating potential economic damages while ignoring cost benefit is very common to the current narrative against U.S. participation in the Paris Climate Agreements. Master's reminds us
The CEO of Pennwalt, the third largest CFC manufacturer in the U.S., talked of "economic chaos" if CFC use was to be phased out ......The Association of European Chemical Companies warned that CFC regulation might lead to "redesign and re-equipping of large sectors of vital industry..., smaller firms going out of business... and an effect on inflation and unemployment, nationally and internationally
These inflated predictions never emerged, and replacement substances turned out to be less expensive and technologically innovative according to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Economic Options Committee.
Other familiar tactics Masters documents from the Montreal Protocol skeptic period include:
- Find a respected scientist to argue persuasively against the threat
- Roll out discredited or non-published science studies to selective poke holes in the peer-reviewed science
- Mischaracterize scientific "uncertainty" while affirming the "certainty" of economic demise (By the way, does anyone else see the irony in that?).
- Make environmentalists the enemy
- Use conservative think tanks and consultants to make arguments about scientists wanting grant money or aggressive regulatory practices.
- Argue that it more research is needed or that it is less expensive to live with the impacts
Masters provides specific examples of each of these at the hyperlink above.
Ultimately, the Montreal Protocol was adopted and thank goodness for all of us that claim Earth as our home. One of the key reasons is that industry eventually came around. Dupont pledged to phase out CFCs and halons by 2000. I am starting to see in the climate discussion also. Just this week, Exxon shareholders voted to support a key climate change measure.
The Montreal Protocol did have some other advantages in its pathway. It was associated with a more narrow aspect of the science whereas there are multiple complexities and feedbacks with climate science. Early efforts also actively included developing nations and their unique concerns. There were also readily available alternatives like Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) ready to go. Renewable, nuclear, and other energy sources are viable to combat climate warming, but our global economy is not ready (or able) to completely kick the "carbon-based" energy fix so it makes people nervous.
It is often said that if you do not know your history, you are doomed to repeat it. Let's review the Montreal Protocol's journey as we watch the Paris Climate Agreement play out and hope that our nation does the right thing.
Stay in.
