1 / 14

Science and global environmental politics

Science and global environmental politics. The Case of Stratospheric Ozone Depletion. Science, Uncertainty & Risk. The authority of science Modern notion of progress “Knowledge is power” Perceived neutrality, objectivity (fact/value) Uncertainty: incomplete information

joshua-justice
Download Presentation

Science and global environmental politics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Science and global environmental politics The Case of Stratospheric Ozone Depletion

  2. Science, Uncertainty & Risk • The authority of science • Modern notion of progress • “Knowledge is power” • Perceived neutrality, objectivity (fact/value) • Uncertainty: incomplete information • Risk: probability of an undesirable event • Policy Qs • Which risks to mitigate? • How to mitigate risk? • Who decides? • Risk assessment • Cost-benefit analysis • Probabilistic; money is the measure • Problems • Future vs. present; elitism; nonmonetary values; risk cultures

  3. Risk Perception & (Ir)rationality • Representativeness: drawing analogies • Availability: over-rating highly publicized risks • Anchoring: people stick to old information • Overconfidence, denial of risk • Subjective factors • Autonomy: more risk-accepting when voluntary • Fairness: who causes & who bears risks? • Natural causes more acceptable than human-induced

  4. Epistemic Communities • Groups of technical experts united by consensual knowledge and common policy goals • Transnational scope • Influential through state agencies, IOs, NGOs, media • Agenda-setting, fact finding, developing policy options, implementation • Said to be influential in many treaties • Rational experts > international cooperation

  5. Why science does not generate rational policy • Scientific consensus is rare • “Facts” must be interpreted • Scientists are rarely advocates • Much policy is not based on science • Risk of information overload • Scientific agenda is moral, political decision • What counts as knowledge? • “Other” knowledges

  6. Precautionary Principle • Under threat to human health or environment, precautions should be taken even without full scientific proof of causality. • “ounce of prevention is worth pound of cure” • German “forecaring principle” (acid rain) • Embryonic principle of international law • Shifts burden of proof • Promotes foresight, humility, recognition of interdependence

  7. Ozone Depletion: Agenda Setting • CFCs: the “miracle compound” • Non-toxic, chemically inert, many uses • Few makers (DuPont is #1) • Stratospheric ozone • O3 absorbs UV-radiation, which causes skin cancer, cataracts, phytoplankton death… • 1974 discovery: CFCs destroy ozone • 1978: U.S., Canada, Nordic aerosol ban • 1977-85: fact-finding, little action

  8. Science in the Ozone Negotiations • Vienna Convention (1985) • Antarctic ozone hole (1986) • Not predicted by models • Cause unknown; CFCs suspected • Negotiators advised to ignore it • Models predicted 7% ozone loss by 2050 • Montreal Protocol (1987) • U.S. vs. E.U.; virtually no DC participation • IC’s to cut CFCs in half by 2000 • DC’s can increase CFC use for 10 years

  9. How did the ozone hole have an effect? • Not predicted by models, opened door to knew way of framing the knowledge • “Chlorine-loading” scheme • Emerged when chlorine concentrations reached 2 ppb • Stabilizing Cl required 85% reduction • U.S. position: 95% cutback • Montreal Protocol was not enough

  10. Beyond Montreal • Amendments: 2/3 vote, majority of IC’s & DC’s • Binding on dissenters: sovereignty? • 1988: New Science • Arctic “hole” • Antarctic hole linked to CFCs • Global ozone losses • 1990s: CFC substitutes & Multilateral Fund • Necessity for DC participation • India & China to consume 1/3 CFCs by 2008 • Grand bargain: participation for development aid

  11. Amending Montreal • London, 1990: CFC phaseout by 2000 • Plus carbon tetrachloride & methyl chloroform • Multilateral ozone fund ($1 B since) • Copenhagen, 1992: phaseout by 1996 • Phase out HCFCs by 2030 • Bangkok, 1993: phase out methyl bromide • Montreal, 1997: ban MB by 2005 (IC’s) • Beijing, 1999: HCFC freeze @ 1989 levels • IC’s ban by 2004; DC’s by 2016 • Compliance, black market

  12. Coming Attractions • 2010 ~ Total phase-out of CFCs, halons and carbon tetrachloride in developing countries. • 2015 ~ Total phase-out of methyl chloroform and methyl bromide in developing countries. • 2030 ~ Total phase-out of HCFCs in developed countries. • 2040 ~ Total phase-out of HCFCs in developing countries

  13. Montreal Protocol Effectiveness • The shining example of green diplomacy • Ozone hole • 1986: 14 million km2 • 2006: 28 million km2 • Chlorine loading near its peak • At least a decade before it begins to heal • Predicted to be normal mid-century • Multilateral ozone fund • $2.2 billion, 1991-2007 • Considered very effective

  14. Relationship & contrast to climate change • Scientists increasingly outspoken • Small, concentrated industry vs. the glue of the global economy • Availability of profitable substitutes • Science-led protocol amendment process • Norms of universal participation and “common but differentiated responsibility” • U.S. demands “universal participation” on climate change

More Related