New Technologies Preceded Regulations in Saving Ozone

Accelerating Innovation Paramount in Climate Fight, Too


Technological advances on CFC alternatives helped to “grease the skids” for policy action, creating a virtuous circle that started long before the Montreal Protocol was signed.

November 12, 2012 | Roger Pielke Jr

Twenty five years ago, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was introduced for signature by nations around the world. Since that time, the treaty has become arguably the most successful international environmental success story in history. It may also be the one which historians and policy analysts have argued about the most in an effort to draw lessons relevant to the climate debate.

Conventional wisdom holds that action on ozone depletion followed the following sequence: science was made certain, then the public expressed a desire for action, an international protocol was negotiated and this political action led to the invention of technological substitutes for chlorofluorocarbons.

Actually, each chain in this sequence is not well supported by the historical record.

Public opinion not an important factor driving action

In a poll taken in the United States in December 1987 and January 1988, the time frame when the US government was considering the treaty, the issue of ozone depletion ranked fourteenth on a list of 28 environmental problems. At the time, fewer than 50% of Americans expressed “serious concern” about the issue, falling behind concerns about issues such as farm runoff and contaminated tap water.

Even so, the United States had signed on to the Montreal Protocol several months before this and ratified the treaty a few months later. The fact that public opinion on ozone depletion was not particularly intense compared to other environmental issues provides compelling evidence that an issue does not have to be a top public priority for significant action to occur. Although the data on public opinion of the ozone issue are not comprehensive, they are strongly suggestive that policy action occurred in the context of a public that was no more concerned about ozone depletion in the late 1980s than has expressed concern about climate change for at least the past decade.

This conclusion is backed up more generally through systematic analyses of public opinion and policy action. For instance, a recent study by Paul Burstein of the University of Washington looked at 36 policies for which opinion data were available and found that Congress acted in the direction of public support only in 50% of the cases, with public opinion having a much stronger influence on Congress in the direction of that opinion when it opposed an action rather than when it supported an action.

More broadly, according to the official UN history of the ozone issue, there were exceedingly few news stories on ozone depletion in the United States, China, the United Kingdom and Soviet Union from 1977 to 1985, when much of the policy framework for the issue was developed. The New York Times had about 20 stories in 1982, and in no other year were there that many stories (cumulatively) in 10 different leading newspapers during that period.

In short, action on ozone depletion occurred despite the lack of public pressure or even much awareness of the issue.

Scientific uncertainty not an obstacle to action

In 1974, Mario Molina and Sherwood Rowland published a seminal paper in Nature in which they argued that chlorofluorocarbons posed a threat to Earth’s ozone layer. Ironically, CFCs were long considered to be a useful industrial chemical for a wide range of applications, including refrigeration, because of their inert properties. Molina and Rowland’s work suggested that these chemicals were not as inert as previously thought and could pose risks.

Following the publication of their paper, the US Congress went to work almost immediately, initiating hearings before the end of the year. The White House, under President Gerald Ford, set up the Inadvertent Modification of the Stratosphere (IMOS) Task Force, which concluded that “fluorocarbon releases to the atmosphere are a legitimate cause for concern” and recommended that “the federal regulatory agencies initiate rulemaking procedures for implementing regulations to restrict fluorocarbon use.”

Congress proceeded incrementally, first dealing with nonessential uses for CFCs, that is, those for which there were readily available technological substitutes, and putting off until later the more difficult issue of essential uses, those for which no substitutes were available. Policymakers had decided that action on the problem of ozone depletion could not wait until scientists reached consensus about the nature of the problem, its causes, and its future impacts. Decisions would have to be made in the face of uncertainties and ignorance – where even uncertainties were unknown.

As Congress made decisions about the chemicals implicated in ozone depletion in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the science of ozone depletion actually became more uncertain, as scientists began to understand the many complexities of the issue. In 1982, the National Academy of Sciences released a report suggesting that the threat of ozone depletion was perhaps less than previously thought, which was seized upon by some in Congress to argue against regulation of CFCs.

There were plenty of people who were skeptical about the magnitude of the ozone problem who were buoyed by fundamental uncertainties in the science. But the focus on implementing “no-regrets” policies – those that made sense anyway, regardless of how scientific uncertainties broke in the future kept the attention away from science and on policy options. Such an approach contributed to the invention of substitutes for CFCs, making political action all the more easier, as the justifications for action hinged less and less on scientific certainties and more on economic benefits.

Scientific uncertainty is often raised as a reason for inaction or as an obstacle to overcome in the political process. The history of ozone depletion tells that uncertainty need not be an obstacle to effective action

Technology enabled political action

In the late 1970s, DuPont was the world’s major producer of CFCs, which it calls Freon, with 25% market share. In 1980, the company patented a process for manufacturing HFC-134a, the leading CFC alternative, after identifying it as a replacement to Freon in 1976. Immediately before and after the signing of the Montreal Protocol, DuPont had applied for more than 20 patents for CFC alternatives. Du Pont saw alternatives as a business opportunity. “There is an opportunity for a billion-pound market out there,” its Freon division head explained in 1988. Du Pont’s decision to back regulation was facilitated by economic opportunity – an opportunity that existed solely because of technological substitutes for CFCs.

Technological advances on CFC alternatives, really starting in the 1970s, helped to grease the skids for incremental policy action creating a virtuous circle that began long before Montreal and continued long after. Of course, the looming threat of regulation certainly helped motivate the search for alternatives. In her excellent book on ozone depletion policy, Ozone Discourses, Karen Litfin explains: “The issue resembles a chicken-and-egg situation: without regulation there could be no substitutes but, at least in the minds of many, without the promise of substitutes there could be no regulation.”

Viable “technological fixes” can help make it easier for regulations to be put into place, and the history of ozone regulations bears this out.

The three lessons offered here provide a starkly different reading of the ozone experience from the one which has been adopted by many advocating for action on climate change. Imagine what the climate issue would look like if it were not focused on messy public debates over science in an effort to force political regulations to stimulate new technologies. What if, instead, the focus was on technology first? It worked in the case of ozone, so why not climate?


Originally published at China Dialogue.
Photo credit: Nasa


  • We have such stringent regulations regarding refrigeration gasses and the disposal of such units in the UK. In fact years ago we had what was called the fridge mountain! It was amazing that all those devices were polution causing and yet today even though dedicated sites exist we still have fly tipping. I think the problem came from locall councils charging companies for industrial waste disposal, hense they get dumped un-beknown to the customer whom paid for correct disposal. Not good.

    I have a range of fridges but they contain safe gas, they are checked every month and serviced correctly. Should the time come to dispose of them, then II will do in-line with legislation and keep our environment clean for the next generations.

    Refrigeration Rental Solutions

    By Andrew Fowler on 2013 11 12

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply

  • If you’re looking for the best screen recording app then hands down for PixlRec app for iPhone. PixlRec is the best app.

    By David Laid on 2017 05 02

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply

  • yes it’s true all New Technologies have changed the regulations, my profession is ecommerce web development but i often read about popular science stories.

    By Mariya Fox on 2017 05 16

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply

  • By jeck on 2017 07 31

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply

  • By Jerry on 2017 09 15

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply

  • Play the latest free online card game online it is the amazing free cell solitaire game most popular in worldwide so have the most fun to join the link online i sure you get the best score so thanks for the visit the online.

    By play game on 2017 11 15

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply

  • It is more the best powerfulful for me change windows password 10 and fast the windows site.

    By sidd yadav on 2017 12 14

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply

  • Get the best sewing machine tricks from our team of experts and See the review of the sewing machine in India and get the best product for your self.

    By John E. McDaniel on 2018 02 06

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply

  • I have got much clear tellpopeyes  idea concerning from this article.

    By watson54w on 2018 04 21

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply

  • No matter how much they laughed at the various simulators of the tractor driver or the loader, it is worth acknowledging that this genre proved to be quite worthy and found its audience. Routine seems to work, from which, on the contrary, I want to relax, but these games suddenly proved to be quite popular. True, in the case of simulators of a farmer or an auto mechanic, there are not enough exotics: even a city dweller roughly represents how a piece of meat with a slice of bread gets to it on the table, and everyone uses it in a different way and in general understands what’s hanging under the hood. But there are projects that highlight and noticeably narrower areas. One of these is Gold Rush: The Game, which is a simulator of a gold miner.

    Without a car on the mine, nowhere. But behind its “swallow”, too, care is needed - refueling, replacement of broken wheels and dead batteries.

    Despite the specificity and rarity of the gold mining profession, interest in this profession remains high since Jack London. Of course, the common man in the street is unlikely to go to the unknown distance in order to independently engage in gold mining, but here at leisure read about the adventures of Smoke Bellyu or see another cognitive show about gold mines - always please. One such TV program is the reality show “Gold Rush”, which has been on the air of the Discovery Channel since 2010 and still has quite high ratings. As you probably already guessed, Gold Rush: The Game was created precisely on the basis of this very telecast.

    As in the series, in the game the protagonist goes to catch luck at the tail, keeping his way to a small town, around which several gold mines are located. In the pocket a couple of hundred dollars, a flashlight and keys from an old pickup truck, and a shovel (do not be surprised - the inventory here is not provided in principle, so where else should you store this shovel?). The rest will have to be mined with our own hands.

    In the city, despite the provincial view, there is everything you need for a gold prospector: a bank in which you can get a loan to develop a business, rent or buy a plot, and sell finished gold bars; shops of machinery and equipment; finally, dressing and smith. In fact, you can go straight to the mine, pre-renting a site - the minimum required for work (except for the same shovel, it is always with you) can be found right on the spot. But to begin in this way, by washing literally the individual grains of sand manually, of course, is silly.

    With the help of a rather schematic guide, developers explain that the possible ways of mining gold are divided into three groups, the first of which is completely manual, and the remaining ones are automated by using various machines and equipment. For the youngest - a step-by-step explanation, including instructions on how and where to buy, accompanied by a video of the direct production process. But in principle, everything can be thought of and independently, especially if you watched the same series - what is happening in the game looks quite logical and realistic.

    We washed some gold manually, cashed, bought more perfect equipment, washed even more, again spent for shopping at a local store, again returned to the mine ... The game process is developing along this spiral. From manual labor with the use of running water and a tray to a whole gold-mining complex, which includes a considerable fleet of machines and equipment, this path can be taken by everyone.

    Gold Rush immediately tries to declare itself as a real simulator. It begins with the moment when the player sits down in his car to enter the city. The ignition is started by a separate button, when parking, it is necessary to put the car on the parking brake, otherwise the pick-up truck can roll under the hill. Do not forget to turn off the engine and headlights: the fuel has a property to end, and the battery - to discharge. There is even a differential lock, but the speed for some reason switches on their own.

    The first visit to the equipment store is also surprising: after choosing the goods and paying at the checkout you start to look for inventory where, as is customary, there should be purchases, but there is no inventory, as we remember. All purchased neatly stacked at the entrance to the store on a special site, and each item must be taken into “hands” and dragged into the back of the pickup truck. Again, no menu and windows of the inventory of the machine is provided for - things literally have to be thrown into the body as necessary, sometimes picking up those fallen overboard.

    By Vasilisa Cher on 2018 04 21

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply

  • It’s always technology before policy. Nevertheless, one would expect this not to be the case when the R&D of the technology depends on the policy to make a viable business case. Interesting insight. Thank you for sharing.

    Owner at a web design company based in Montreal.

    By KD on 2018 04 23

    Reply to this comment / Quote and reply

Submit a comment