International Environmental Justice

A North-South Dimension

Ruchi Anand

• Éditeur: Routledge
• Année: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351926867
• Édition: 1
• Sujet: Politics & International Relations
• Sous-sujet: International Relations

This important work satisfies the need for a thorough assessment of environmental justice concerns at the global level. Using three international environmental case studies, the book extends the theory of environmental justice, commonly used in domestic settings, to the international arena of environmental law, policy and politics. Spanning the traditional boundaries between political science, international relations, international law, international political economy and policy studies, this text is intended primarily for scholars of environmental justice, national and international policymakers, businesses, activists and students of international environmental law, public policy and political economy of the third world.

Chapter 4
Ozone Politics

The Fund of Montreal Protocol has demonstrated that cooperation is indeed possible, that when the process of cooperation is real, it is not a question of donors and recipients but rather of countries, which, even at different stages of development, share a common objective and decide each to contribute something to achieve such an objective, be it financial resources, political will, technical or scientific knowledge, or any other element. In this sense, the protection or sustainable use of the environment enjoys today a propitious opportunity to help stimulate international cooperation where the political will of all and the generosity of those who have the most can help make the Earth a clean, lovely, and valuable planet for all of us, our children and for the children or our children (Mateos 1998, 116).

4.1 Introduction

The ozone regime¹ is often cited as an exemplary model of what a successful international environmental lawmaking could look like. It is viewed as a success; first in terms of securing cooperation from countries of the North and South, second, in terms of the provisions that were negotiated, distributing costs and benefits of environmental protection as evenly as it could among its participants and third, in terms of having shown positive results in terms of reductions in the consumption and production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and ozone depleting substances (ODSs). The success of the ozone regime was not achieved without overcoming many obstacles, quite similar to ones faced by other international environmental problems: “genuine scientific uncertainty over the scale of the harm, a sharply divided international community, potentially high transition costs, and a global problem requiring a global solution” (Hunter et al. 1998, 545). Despite difficulties the ozone regime demonstrated some praiseworthy trends: “the unconventional emphasis on science, even when scientific certainty remained elusive...the sensitivity to equity among sovereign nations, as manifested in new forms of international cooperation and assistance” (Benedick 1998, 82).

Some questions that arise are: what can the success of the ozone regime be attributed to? Can the success of the ozone regime be attributable to cooperative tendencies between North and South countries? Was environmental justice a crucial component of what fostered cooperation and made the ozone regime a success? Was the success of the ozone regime a function of a centralized lawmaking process, under the committed leadership of the United States and industrialized countries of the North?

In this chapter, I discuss the process by which the ozone regime was created and strengthened; and assess if the lens of environmental justice is useful in understanding the North-South dynamics of ozone depletion. In Section 4.2, I discuss the science of ozone depletion; Section 4.3 deals with the economics of the ozone problem, the responsibility for the problem and the stakes involved in negotiating a response. Section 4.4 outlines the vulnerability to health and environment caused by ozone depletion. In Section 4.5, I discuss the divergent responses that arose from the industrialized North who were the main protagonists of ozone negotiations until 1989. The United States and the European Community (now, European Union) were the two main negotiating camps within the industrialized North. This Section traces negotiations until the adoption of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer 1985. Section 4.6 elucidates how the differing responses from the United States and European Community were ironed out through negotiations, in ways that led to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 1987. In Section 4.7, the London and Helsinki meets are discussed, where, for the first time, developing countries came to the negotiating tables as active participants and with an agenda of their own. In this Section, I discuss the nature of North-South negotiations and emphasize the prominence of the criteria of “equity,” “justice” and “fairness.” Incorporating these criteria allows for meaningful cooperation and meaningful participation by countries of the North and South. In Section 4.8, I conclude by evaluating the hypotheses of this research, and argue that environmental justice provides a useful lens to understand the politics of ozone depletion. I, then, discuss some future challenges faced by the ozone regime.

4.2 Science of the Ozone Layer

The ozone layer performs vital functions to life on earth. Stratospheric ozone, in the process of its creation and destruction, absorbs harmful solar radiation wavelengths and prevents it from reaching the earth’s surface. Additionally, it absorbs and emits thermally significant terrestrial infrared radiation, maintaining the stability of global climate (USEPA 1985).

The existence of ozone was unknown before 1839. A highly unstable molecule of oxygen, ozone contains three atoms. It is found in the atmosphere in differing concentrations, mainly in its lower two layers, the troposphere and the stratosphere. The troposphere extends 10-12 kilometers upward from the surface of the earth, while the stratosphere lies between the troposphere and 50 kilometers above sea level. The ozone layer is the region of high concentration of ozone molecules, in the middle stratosphere (UNEP 1999). When an ultraviolet (UV) light photon strikes an oxygen molecule, the oxygen molecule splits into two oxygen atoms. These atoms instantly combine with the intact oxygen molecule to form ozone. Ozone then, absorbs the harmful ultraviolet radiation and disintegrates into its original parts (O and O₂). Ozone is recreated when the freed atom of oxygen joins up with another oxygen molecule. These continuous reactions ensure that ozone levels are maintained in a state of dynamic equilibrium. It is the introduction of anthropogenically-manufactured chemicals, which accelerate the process of destruction of ozone (Stolarski 1988, 258).

In 1973, two scientists of the University of Michigan, Richard Stolarski and Ralph Cicerone were studying the effects of possible chemical emission from National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) rockets. In 1974, their published research showed that a single chlorine released in the stratosphere is capable of triggering off a complicated chemical reaction, which would continuously destroy ozone for many decades. However, this theory at first did not seem very alarming because at this stage the hypotheses were rather controversial. In 1974, Mario Molina and Sherwood Rowland at the University of California, Irvine, studied some unusual characteristics of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which are widely used anthropogenic chemicals. They discovered the exceptionally stable chemical structure of CFCs, which persist and move slowly up to the stratosphere. Eventually, solar radiation breaks down CFCs, releasing large quantities of chlorine into the stratosphere (Fishman and Kalish 1990, 44).

The above two individual hypotheses, it was found, had combined implications. This led to a link between CFCs and ozone depletion. Revelations of this link came as an environmental as well as economic bombshell. It was an economic bombshell because of the commercial value of various products that could be manufactured using CFCs (see Section 4.3); and it was an environmental bombshell as CFCs came with many damaging consequences to the environment and to human health (see Section 4.4).

4.3 Economics: Who is Responsible? What is at Stake?

The economics of ozone depletion substances (ODS) is important because many ODS are commercially valuable, i.e. CFCs and halons. Certain qualities of ODS make them useful to industry namely 1) they are chemically stable and 2) they are insoluble in water. Thomas Midgely, the chief chemist of General Motors, first developed chlorofluorocarbons in the 1920s as a substitute for the existent ammonia and sulfur dioxide refrigerants that were explosive and poisonous in nature. Midgely’s discovery, called CFC-12 soon became the most common refrigerant. Additionally, CFCs were used for air-conditioning, foams, foam packaging, aerosol propellants, electronic cleansing, degreasing of parts, solvents, and as aerosol insecticides (Hunter et al. 1998, 550). CFCs such as carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform are used as agents for cleansing and methyl bromide is used as agricultural pesticides. Soon, CFC consumption reached its peak in 1988 with the level having reached 2.2 million tons per year. Europe and North America accounted for 75 per cent of CFC consumption although the developing countries had started using CFCs at an alarming rate (Hunter et al 1998, 550).

Industrialized countries were using 88 percent of CFCs although they constitute less than 25 per cent of the world’s population (Benedick 1991, 148).

According to an industry group called the Alliance for a Responsible CFC Policy, products manufactured with CFCs were worth $20 billion and provided for over 250, 000 jobs in the United States alone (Hunter et al 1998, 550).

Halons too were also of commercial value as they were used in fire extinguishers. The manufacture of CFCs and ODSs were, however, concentrated in a few multinational corporations such as Dupont and ICI, a British chemical company. Other primary manufacturers of CFCs and ODSs have been Allied-signal, Pennwalt, Kaiser Tech and Racon, and Great Lakes Chemical, all US-based corporations (Hunter et al 1998, 551). These corporations’ accrued huge profits through business in, and of, chlorofluorocarbons and other ozone depleting substances (ODSs).

Developing countries argued that since they were not responsible for the problem of ozone depletion, they should not be accountable for any efforts that needed to be taken to remedy the problem. They were concerned with more immediate issues like development and removal of poverty in their own countries.

In effect, use of these chemicals had for decades contributed to the well-being of the industrialized countries, but at the same time inadvertently built up a threat to the entire planet in the form of long-lasting CFCs in the stratosphere. Developing countries...sought assurances that their populations would neither be deprived of the benefits of these substances nor have to pay more for equivalent products and technologies...They were increasingly worried that the drive toward rapid phaseout could add new burdens to their economies and adversely affect their standard of living” (Benedick 1991, 149).

Developing countries continued with their use and increase of CFC consumption. Between 1985 and 1991 alone, India and Thailand increased their CFC consumption by 300 per cent. (Hunter et al 1998, 550). Since developing countries accounted for 75 per cent of the world population, they were potential contributors to the problem of ozone depletion and their participation in any effort to curb CFC or ODSs production would be crucial to success. A Rand study reported that if unchecked, the highest demands for CFCs in developing countries would be China, India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Indonesia, Nigeria, Mexico, Turkey, Argentina, Venezuela, Algeria and Iran, in that order (Benedick 1991, 151). These countries later became the most prominent spokespersons for developing country interests in ozone negotiations. However, it was only after 1989 that developing countries actually entered the negotiation stage with its own set of demands and issues. Until 1989, treaty negotiations were initiated and led by industrialized countries of the North, with a special mention of the role of the United States (Benedick 1991, 149).

The biggest trade off involved in the ozone depletion problem was, as it is in most...