When environmentalist are asked what is the most successful international legislation in recent history, they will say the Montreal Protocol of 1987. Aimed at reducing and ultimately phasing out the production and trade of CFCs harmful to the Earth's atmosphere, world leaders acted relatively quickly when compared to today's standards to apply the correct measures against increasing dangers from a weaker Ozone.
Although initial warnings of the dangers of CFCs were made in 1974, it took the international community over a decade to act. What is notable is that prior to Montreal, individual countries like the United States and the "Toronto Group" composed of mainly Nordic countries, passed domestic legislation eliminating the use and production of CFCs. Strong leadership within these governments as well as better scientific consensus helped the issue spring forward. Despite this, the early 1980s faced a decline in international participation for renewed doubt in the science of CFCs. At the time, the United Nations Environmental Programme was task with the challenge of renewing the efforts after a failed Vienna meeting a few years earlier to restart the talks. What followed was a string of agreements ultimately leading to Montreal in 1987 and London in 1990, where amendments and funding for developing countries were added.
So what does the Montreal Protocol have to do with current emission reduction negotiations? David G. Victor does a phenomenal job of explaining this in his book, Global Warming Gridlock, Creating More Effective Strategies for Protecting the Environment. In it, he argues that the current negotiating strategies are ineffective and will lead to more in-action. His reasoning is that policymakers and some mainstream environmentalists are relying on the mechanism the Montreal Protocol was established. Based off a goal-oriented and timetables method that is rather top-down from the UN to national governments, this was successful in Montreal because of different reasons. Among them was that CFCs had cheaper alternatives, the science was more certain on the levels needed to determine a "safe" level, and regulation of commitments on Montreal were and are largely self-enforcing.
Implementing the goal-oriented and timetables method to the global warming problem will only lead to more in-action, as mentioned earlier. Since fossil fuels are deeply embedded in the world's economy, cheap alternatives are still not readily available that would allow for the same function Montreal had. Moreover, the Copenhagen Accord agreement on limiting global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius is, according to Victor, most likely going to be surpassed. This is because national governments need to understand what they are realistically able to do politically, and then come to the international negotiating table with numbers and not guesses. He also stresses that "legally binding" agreements are less effective because governments are more likely to be conservative in their reduction commitments. Instead, he suggests reduction agreements to be flexible and non-binding, leaving government with the incentive to increase their initial reduction otherwise seen with the binding agreements.
Unfortunately, species on the planet are headed for a warmer planet whatever reductions are implemented in the near future. As CO2 is a stock pollutant, it will take many years for levels in the atmosphere to drop unless a total stop of CO2 production is made very soon. This warmer planet will need adaptation and mitigation strategies that are not the main priority of governments. Instead, they hold hope that the world will evade the 2 degree mark. However, Victor states that realizing this scenario will help negotiations today, and tomorrow.
Jeffrey Sachs, professor at Columbia University's Earth Institute and special assistant to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon on sustainable development, is arguable seen as a proponent of the UN-led, goal-oriented agenda Victor precisely suggest against. This is interesting given the fact that with the recent Sustainable Development Solutions Network advocating for the UN-led strategy as part of its overall SD agenda.
Dr. Victor brings up an interesting alternative that looks promising given the constant gridlock on climate issues as seen with the recent Copenhagen Accord, and Rio+20. Should Dr. Sachs and the UN refocus their efforts and work with Dr. Victor, or should they stride with uncertain strategies that have already been repeated? What are your thoughts?
