How was acid rain and CFC reduction successful?
Rob Jacob
Hi everyone,
Recently a colleague made this observation: politicians were able to
successfully pass legislation restricting the -- separate -- emissions
that caused acid rain and the destruction of the ozone layer. And it
didn't take an IPCC like process to convince people. He was starting
his career at the time of the first problem (acid rain) and
characterized the science as less certain then what we have now for
CO2. Yet people took solid action.
I have some ideas on what's different now but want to hear your
thoughts first.
Rob Jacob
Coby Beck
"Rob Jacob" <rlj...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:<1179109500.0...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>...
IMO the most important difference is the pervasiveness of oil consumption.
It quite simply affects every aspect of modern living. Proposing dramatic
changes in its usage is a Big Deal. It is secondly the single largest
sector of the world economy, ignoring illegal drug trafficking. This means
the opponents to restrictions or taxes or govèt intervention in general are
very powerful.
Coby
Michael Tobis
CFCs actually thinks about this question a lot. Being a diplomat, he
does not always say everything he thinks, but he does say quite a bit.
The fellow's name is Richard Benedick and here is a recent example:
http://www.issues.org/23.2/p_benedick.html
e.g.,
"It is worth recalling that the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances
That Deplete the Ozone Layer, later characterized by the heads of the
UN Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization as
"one of the great international achievements of the century," was
negotiated by only about 30 nations in nine months, with delegations
seldom exceeding six persons and with minimal attention from outside
observers and media. I doubt whether the ozone treaty could have been
achieved under the currently fashionable global format."
mt
Andrew Dessler (adessler@tamu.edu)
the ozone debate. The World Meteorological Organization produced
periodic assessments of the science of ozone depletion, and, like the
IPCC reports, they are the gold-standard assessment of what we know
about ozone loss and how confidently we know it. They are generally
given great credit for bringing an accurate assessment of the science
to the debate. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Assessment_of_Ozone_Depletion
My view of why climate change is different is that it's a harder, more
expensive problem. Thus, there's a lot more incentive for people to
come up with reasons to do nothing.
James Annan
> My view of why climate change is different is that it's a harder, more
> expensive problem. Thus, there's a lot more incentive for people to
> come up with reasons to do nothing.
The story I've heard is this: the real difference is that DuPont (who
were playing the role that the oil and coal industry does nowadays over
climate change, and that the tobacco industry did over smoking)
developed an effective alternative to CFCs. Suddenly, far from being an
imposition with economic downside, restrictions gave them a new
worldwide market to exploit (maybe even a monopoly protected by patents,
though that is a guess). The US administration changed its attitude
overnight.
It's only 3rd hand at best though and I don't think I've seen it written
down, so perhaps the tale has grown a bit in the re-telling...
The moral of the story would presumably be that we need to give the oil
industry a monopoly on solar panels, or something like that.
James
Michael Tobis
opportunity to agree here. The biggest factor in the CFC's was
DuPont's turnaround and consequent patent monopoly.
My redneck auto mechanic friend ended up thinking the whole thing was
a conspiracy by DuPont to push competitors out of the coolant market,
incidentally making life difficult for small-time auto mechanics. He
didn't believe a word of it, probably still doesn't.
Regarding acid rain, this is handled on a continental scale, which in
North America just involves two similar countries, so it's much more
tractable. I believe that this problem has *not* been solved on a
global scale.
It's the coal, not the oil interests here, that are crucial. In
practice we will likely have to settle for coal fired plants with deep
sequestration even if renewables plus hydrogen or hydraulics for
energy storage would be cheaper and cleaner.
mt
Tom Adams
Dupont patented freon substitutes are greenhouse gases and they are
resisting the US introduction of substitutes that are widely used in
Europe:
http://archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/greenfreeze/may1997/3obsolete.html
At first, Duponts response to the Ozone Hole was similar to Exxon's
response to global warming:
http://www.wunderground.com/education/ozone_skeptics.asp
On May 15, 9:57 pm, James Annan <james.an...@gmail.com> wrote:
Michael Tobis
I can't resist pointing out that in a real-life bit of Gilbert &
Sullivanism, the leading US congressional "ozone hole skeptics" were
named Doolittle and DeLay.
mt
On 5/16/07, Tom Adams <tada...@yahoo.com> wrote:
gerh...@aston.ac.uk
> Dupont patented freon substitutes are greenhouse gases and they are
> resisting the US introduction of substitutes that are widely used in
> Europe:
>
> http://archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/greenfreeze/may1997/3obsolete.html
Having recently read a fair bit about HCFC's,I gather that China is
now the main producer,
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/15/business/warm.php
and making plenty of money from selling emissions certificates at huge
make-up.
I haven't heard anything about them paying Du Pont royalties, though.
Maybe Du Pont found a way to profit from the phase-out, just like some
oil and coal companies seem to be doing quite well in Europe's
emissions market, but the fundamental reason that CFC's were dealt
with so quickly was surely that it could be done fairly inexpensively
without troubling too many people. It didn't exactly require calls for
doing without cars, not flying on holidays, living in walkable
communities, making do without coal power etc.., all people were asked
was to boycot spray cans with CFC's in them.
James Annan
> At first, Duponts response to the Ozone Hole was similar to Exxon's
> response to global warming:
>
> http://www.wunderground.com/education/ozone_skeptics.asp
That's a great link, thanks.
Interesting to see so many familiar names...
James
Rob Jacob
I guess I would add the general political climate. The late 70's was
just after the peak of the environmental movement (recall that Nixon
signed the law establishing the EPA) and the 80's, despite Regan, had
a more liberal government in the US then we have now.
Thanks for the pointer to the IPCC-like ozone reports, Andrew.
Rob
Don Libby
From: "Michael Tobis" <mto...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
To: <global...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 9:11 PM
Subject: [Global Change: 1554] Re: How was acid rain and CFC reduction
successful?
> Regarding acid rain, this is handled on a continental scale, which in
> North America just involves two similar countries, so it's much more
> tractable. I believe that this problem has *not* been solved on a
> global scale.
>
> It's the coal, not the oil interests here, that are crucial. In
> practice we will likely have to settle for coal fired plants with deep
> sequestration even if renewables plus hydrogen or hydraulics for
> energy storage would be cheaper and cleaner.
>
> mt
Nobody has mentioned in this thread the role that a policy innovation played
in lowering opposition to sulfur emissions regulation: "cap and trade" was
implemented in the clean air act to allow industry to adjust to a new
emission reduction regime at least cost.
That is a good lesson from history, and is gradually gaining acceptance as a
mechanism for carbon emissions regulation. So far, carbon emission markets,
like sulfur emission markets before them, are regional rather than global.
There is room for improvement.
The sulfur emission control regime implemented in the clean air act of 1990
pitted high-sulfur coal interests against low-sulfur coal interests. There
may be lessons to learn there as well about negotiating and managing the
impacts of new regs on particular industry sectors (i.e. high-carbon fuel
interests v. low-carbon fuel interests).
-dl
Michael Tobis
called the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program. I see they
have produced several subsequent reports rather than disbanding. The
Canadians felt that the 1992 document systematically understated the
problem iirc.
(I believe I had the document out of the UW-Madison library system
once, Rob. It doesn't appear to be on the internet. I am guessing you
can see it at Wendt Library next time you are up there, unless Don
takes the copy out to thwart you.)
Acid rain was a fairly active topic on sci.env in the mid-90s (i.e.,
back when it was interesting).
mt
Amanda_Werhane
A search in the UW-Madison library catalog (http://
madcat.library.wisc.edu) for "National Acid Precipitation Assessment
Program" results in 72 items, of which 42 are located at Wendt
Library, including the 1992 "Report to Congress" mentioned by Mr.
Tobis.
Kurt F. Wendt Library, as you may already know, is a federal
depository library. Our collections include 1.5 million government
documents, including technical reports in print and in micofiche. We
provide free access to both UW affiliates and the general public for
viewing and scanning these documents, and printing at 7c/page. These
government documents can also be checked out to UW affiliates or
members of the general public with annual fee cards ($30/year from
Memorial Library).
For more information, see our website at http://wendt.library.wisc.edu
- thanks!
Amanda Werhane
Liaison Librarian & Marketing Coordinator
Kurt F. Wendt Library
On May 20, 12:35 pm, "Michael Tobis" <mto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There was also the 1992 report to Congress from an ad hoc commission
> called the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program. I see they
> have produced several subsequent reports rather than disbanding. The
> Canadians felt that the 1992 document systematically understated the
> problem iirc.
>
> (I believe I had the document out of the UW-Madison library system
> once, Rob. It doesn't appear to be on the internet. I am guessing you
> can see it atWendt Librarynext time you are up there, unless Don
John McCormick
On May 20, 12:57 pm, "Don Libby" <dli...@tds.net> wrote:
> Nobody has mentioned in this thread the role that a policy innovation played
> in lowering opposition to sulfur emissions regulation: "cap and trade" was
> implemented in the clean air act to allow industry to adjust to a new
> emission reduction regime at least cost.
Don, if you consider the near total destruction of the Central
Appalachian Mountains by the mountaintop removal process utilized to
mine the low sulfur compliance coal that managed to keep emission
reductions at least cost, I guess you have a point.
But, I know you will get howling resentment from the citizens of
Central Appalachia who have paid the ultimate price to save lakes in
New England and eastern Canada.
John McCormick
On May 20, 12:57 pm, "Don Libby" <dli...@tds.net> wrote:
> Nobody has mentioned in this thread the role that a policy innovation played
> in lowering opposition to sulfur emissions regulation: "cap and trade" was
> implemented in the clean air act to allow industry to adjust to a new
> emission reduction regime at least cost.
Hank Roberts
Michael Tobis wrote:
...
> Regarding acid rain, this is handled on a continental scale, which in
> North America just involves two similar countries,
I am fairly sure Scottish lakes also were getting significant acid
rain problems from the coal-burning plants in the US midwest --- same
plume that hit New York and Vermont. I'll look for a cite.
> It's the coal, not the oil interests here, that are crucial. I...
> On 5/15/07, James Annan <james...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The moral of the story would presumably be that we need to give the oil
> > industry a monopoly on solar panels, or something like that.
> >
> > James
Exactly. Assure a continuing flow of payment up to the narrow part of
the economic pyramid, that goes through relatively few hands.
It's already happened with groundwater
I recall some folks in Colorado saying that, although they're allowed
rain barrels for watering their gardens, the rainfall belongs to the
water company. Rain has to go into the aquifer; the agency owns the
rights to pump wellwater.
That means they can't tap their water barrels for indoor use, because
that diverts it to the sewer system and it eventually goes downstream
in the Colorado instead of into the aquifer. Different regulatory
system applies.
Nobody wants the single family to be self-sufficient, able to get
everything they need free from the world. That idea went out with
Thomas Paine.
Hank Roberts
Michael Tobis wrote:
...
> Regarding acid rain, this is handled on a continental scale, which in
> North America just involves two similar countries,
I am fairly sure Scottish lakes also were getting significant acid
rain problems from the coal-burning plants in the US midwest --- same
plume that hit New York and Vermont. I'll look for a cite.
> It's the coal, not the oil interests here, that are crucial. I...
> On 5/15/07, James Annan <james...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The moral of the story would presumably be that we need to give the oil
> > industry a monopoly on solar panels, or something like that.
> >
> > James
Exactly. Assure a continuing flow of payment up to the narrow part of