Editing Ozone depletion (section)

== Public policy ==
[[File:Future ozone layer concentrations.gif|thumb|right|upright=1.7|NASA projections of stratospheric ozone concentrations if chlorofluorocarbons had not been banned]]

The full extent of the damage that CFCs have caused to the ozone layer is not known and will not be known for decades; however, marked decreases in column ozone have already been observed. The Montreal and Vienna conventions were installed long before a scientific consensus was established or important uncertainties in the science field were being resolved.<ref name = RG /> The ozone case was understood comparably well by lay persons as e.g. ''Ozone shield'' or ''ozone hole'' were useful "easy-to-understand bridging metaphors".<ref name="Ungar">{{cite journal|last1=Ungar|first1=Sheldon|title=Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture: climate change versus the ozone hole|journal=Public Understanding of Science|date=1 July 2000|volume=9|issue=3|pages=297–312|doi=10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/306|s2cid=7089937}}</ref> Americans voluntarily switched away from aerosol sprays, resulting in a 50 percent sales loss even before legislation was enforced.<ref name = Ungar />

After a 1976 report by the [[United States National Academy of Sciences]] concluded that credible scientific evidence supported the ozone depletion hypothesis<ref name="NAS1976">{{cite book | last = National Academy of Sciences | author-link = United States National Academy of Sciences | title = Halocarbons, effects on stratospheric ozone | year = 1976 | location = Washington, DC | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=a2YrAAAAYAAJ&q=Halocarbons:+Effects+on+Stratospheric+Ozone | isbn =  9780309025324| access-date =May 28, 2016}}</ref> a few countries, including the United States, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, moved to eliminate the use of CFCs in aerosol spray cans.<ref name="Morrisette1989">{{cite journal|title=The Evolution of Policy Responses to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion|journal=Natural Resources Journal|year=1989|first=Peter M.|last=Morrisette|volume=29|pages=793–820|url=http://www.ciesin.org/docs/003-006/003-006.html|access-date=April 20, 2010 }}</ref> At the time this was widely regarded as a first step towards a more comprehensive regulation policy, but progress in this direction slowed in subsequent years, due to a combination of political factors (continued resistance from the halocarbon industry and a general change in attitude towards environmental regulation during the first two years of the Reagan administration) and scientific developments (subsequent National Academy assessments that indicated that the first estimates of the magnitude of ozone depletion had been overly large).

A critical DuPont manufacturing patent for [[Freon]] was [[Chlorofluorocarbon#Regulation and DuPont|set to expire in 1979]]. The United States banned the use of CFCs in aerosol cans in 1978.<ref name="Morrisette1989" /> The European Community rejected proposals to ban CFCs in aerosol sprays, and in the U.S., CFCs continued to be used as refrigerants and for cleaning circuit boards. Worldwide CFC production fell sharply after the U.S. aerosol ban, but by 1986 had returned nearly to its 1976 level.<ref name="Morrisette1989" /> In 1993, [[DuPont (1802–2017)|DuPont]] Canada closed its CFC facility.<ref>{{cite web |author=Sawchuk, Arthur R. |date=December 19, 1994 |title=Voluntary Initiatives to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions |url=http://www.ghgregistries.ca/registry/out/C650-DUPONT-PLN.PDF |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110706181844/http://www.ghgregistries.ca/registry/out/C650-DUPONT-PLN.PDF |archive-date=July 6, 2011 |access-date=2010-06-03}} DuPont Canada Incorporated.</ref>

The U.S. government's attitude began to change again in 1983, when [[William Ruckelshaus]] replaced [[Anne M. Burford]] as Administrator of the [[United States Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA). Under Ruckelshaus and his successor, Lee Thomas, the EPA pushed for an international approach to halocarbon regulations. In 1985 twenty nations, including most of the major CFC producers, signed the [[Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer]], which established a framework for negotiating international regulations on ozone-depleting substances. That same year, the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole was announced, causing a revival in public attention to the issue.

In 1987, representatives from 43 nations signed the [[Montreal Protocol]]. Meanwhile, the halocarbon industry shifted its position and started supporting a protocol to limit CFC production. However, this shift was uneven with DuPont acting more quickly than its European counterparts. DuPont may have feared court action related to increased skin cancer, especially as the EPA had published a study in 1986 claiming that an additional 40&nbsp;million cases and 800,000 cancer deaths were to be expected in the U.S. in the next 88 years.<ref>{{cite news |author=Shabecoff, Philip |title=U.S. Report Predicts Rise in Skin Cancer with Loss of Ozone |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/05/us/us-report-predicts-rise-in-skin-cancer-with-loss-of-ozone.html |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=November 5, 1986 |page=A1 |access-date=January 10, 2013}}</ref> The EU shifted its position as well after Germany gave up its defence of the CFC industry and started supporting moves towards regulation. Government and industry in France and the UK tried to defend their CFC producing industries even after the Montreal Protocol had been signed.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite book|last1=Grundmann|first1=Reiner|title=Transnational Environmental Policy: the ozone layer|date=2001|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|isbn=978-0-415-22423-9}}</ref>

At Montreal, the participants agreed to freeze production of CFCs at 1986 levels and to reduce production by 50 percent by 1999.<ref name="Morrisette1989" /> After a series of scientific expeditions to the Antarctic produced convincing evidence that the ozone hole was indeed caused by chlorine and bromine from manmade organohalogens, the Montreal Protocol was strengthened at a 1990 meeting in London. The participants agreed to phase out CFCs and halons entirely (aside from a very small amount marked for certain "essential" uses, such as [[asthma inhaler]]s) by 2000 in non-Article 5 countries and by 2010 in Article 5 (less developed) signatories.<ref name="hist">{{cite web|url=http://www.epa.gov/ozone/intpol/history.html |title=Amendments to the Montreal Protocol &#124; Ozone Layer Protection &#124; US EPA |publisher=Epa.gov |date=June 28, 2006 |access-date=March 28, 2011}}</ref> At a 1992 meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark, the phase-out date was moved up to 1996.<ref name="hist" /> At the same meeting, [[methyl bromide]] (MeBr), a fumigant used primarily in agricultural production, was added to the list of controlled substances. For all substances controlled under the protocol, phaseout schedules were delayed for less developed ('Article 5(1)') countries, and phaseout in these countries was supported by transfers of expertise, technology, and money from non-Article 5(1) Parties to the Protocol. Additionally, exemptions from the agreed schedules could be applied for under the Essential Use Exemption (EUE) process for substances other than methyl bromide and under the Critical Use Exemption (CUE) process for methyl bromide.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1007/s10784-010-9120-z |title=A critical review of the successful CFC phase-out versus the delayed methyl bromide phase-out in the Montreal Protocol |journal=International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics |volume=10 |issue=3 |pages=209–231 |year=2010 |last1=Gareau |first1=Brian J. |bibcode=2010IEAPL..10..209G |s2cid=153692785 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=Economics of the 'Critical use' of Methyl Bromide under the Montreal Protocol |journal=[[Contemporary Economic Policy]] |volume=23 |issue=3 |pages=376–393 |date=July 2005 |doi=10.1093/cep/byi028|last1=Decanio |first1=Stephen J. |last2=Norman |first2=Catherine S. }}</ref>

Civil society, including especially non-governmental organizations (NGOs), played critical roles at all stages of policy development leading to the Vienna Conference, the Montreal Protocol, and in assessing compliance afterwards.<ref>Sarma, K. Madhava, "Compliance with the Multilateral Environmental Agreements to Protect the Ozone Layer" in Ulrich Beyerlin et al. ''Ensuring Compliance with Multilateral Environmental Agreements.'' Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff 2006.</ref><ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.1111/1467-9388.00275|title=Making a Difference: A Case Study of the Greenpeace Ozone Campaign|journal=Review of European Community and International Environmental Law|volume=10|issue=2|pages=190–198|year=2001|last1=Mate|first1=John}}</ref><ref>Currie, Duncan E. J. (2005) "The Experience of Greenpeace International"  in Tullio Treves et al. (eds.) ''Civil Society, International Courts, and Compliance Bodies,'' The Hague, The Netherlands: TMC Asser.</ref><ref>Benedick, Richard Elliot (1991) ''Ozone Diplomacy''.  Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University.</ref> The major companies claimed that no alternatives to HFC existed.<ref name="greenpeace.org" /> An ozone-safe hydrocarbon refrigerant was developed at a technological institute in Hamburg, Germany, consisting of a mixture of the hydrocarbon gases [[propane]] and [[butane]], and in 1992 came to the attention of the NGO Greenpeace. Greenpeace called it "Greenfreeze".<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.greenpeace.org/greece/Global/greece/report/2011/greenfreeze/6_Greenfreeze_story_2004_en.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161010215153/http://www.greenpeace.org/greece/Global/greece/report/2011/greenfreeze/6_Greenfreeze_story_2004_en.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=2016-10-10 |doi=10.1016/S0007-6813(03)00009-0|journal=Business Horizons|volume=46|issue=2|pages=47–56|date=2016-10-10|last1=Stafford|first1=Edwin R.|last2=Hartman|first2=Cathy L.|last3=Liang|first3=Ying|title=Forces driving environmental innovation diffusion in China: The case of Greenfreeze }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/green/Climate-Friendly_Greenfreezers_Come_to_the_United_States.html|title=Climate-Friendly Greenfreezers Come to the United States|work=NBC New York|date=2 October 2008 |access-date=May 28, 2016}}</ref> The NGO then worked successfully first with a small and struggling company to market an appliance beginning in Europe, then Asia and later Latin America, receiving a 1997 UNEP award.<ref name="ReferenceB">{{cite web|url=http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/green-solutions/green |title=Greenpeace USA |publisher=Greenpeace.org |date=September 23, 2015 |access-date=September 27, 2015}}</ref><ref name="ecomall">{{cite web|url=http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/greenfreeze.htm |title=Greenfreeze: A Revolution In Domestic Refrigeration |publisher=Ecomall.com |date=January 1, 1995 |access-date=May 28, 2016}}</ref> By 1995, Germany had made CFC refrigerators illegal.<ref name="ecomall" /> Since 2004, corporations like Coca-Cola, Carlsberg, and IKEA formed a coalition to promote the ozone-safe Greenfreeze units. Production spread to companies like Electrolux, Bosch, and LG, with sales reaching some 300&nbsp;million refrigerators by 2008.<ref name="ReferenceB" /><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/solutions/natural-refrigerants/businesses/|title=Natural Refrigerants – Businesses|work=Greenpeace International|access-date=May 28, 2016}}</ref> In Latin America, a domestic Argentinian company began Greenfreeze production in 2003, while the giant Bosch in Brazil began a year later.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ilustrados.com/tema/3015/Historia-Greenfreeze.html |title=La Historia del "Greenfreeze" |publisher=Ilustrados! |access-date=September 27, 2015 |archive-date=September 12, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150912080004/http://ilustrados.com/tema/3015/Historia-Greenfreeze.html |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.greenpeace.org/argentina/es/noticias/lanzan-la-primera-de-las-prop/ |title=Lanzan la primera de las "Propuestas Greenpeace": la heladera "Greenfreeze" &#124; Greenpeace Argentina |publisher=Greenpeace.org |access-date=September 27, 2015}}</ref> By 2013 it was being used by some 700&nbsp;million refrigerators, making up about 40 percent of the market.<ref name="greenpeace.org">{{cite web|url=http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/happy-birthday-greenfreeze/blog/44473/|title=Happy birthday, Greenfreeze!|work=Greenpeace International|access-date=May 28, 2016}}</ref>

In the U.S., however, change has been much slower. To some extent, CFCs were being replaced by the less damaging hydrochlorofluorocarbons ([[HCFC]]s), although concerns remain regarding HCFCs also. In some applications, hydrofluorocarbons ([[Hydrofluorocarbon|HFCs]]) were being used to replace CFCs. HFCs, which contain no chlorine or bromine, do not contribute to ozone depletion although they are potent greenhouse gases. The best known of these compounds is probably HFC-134a ([[R-134a]]), which in the United States has largely replaced CFC-12 ([[Dichlorodifluoromethane|R-12]]) in automobile air conditioners. In laboratory analytics (a former "essential" use) the ozone depleting substances can be replaced with other solvents.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.norden.org/pub/ebook/2003-516.pdf |title=Use of Ozone Depleting Substances in Laboratories. TemaNord 516/2003 |publisher=Norden.org |date=January 1, 2003 |access-date=March 28, 2011 |url-status=unfit |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080227052412/http://www.norden.org/pub/ebook/2003-516.pdf |archive-date=February 27, 2008 }}</ref> Chemical companies like Du Pont, whose representatives disparaged Greenfreeze as "that German technology," maneuvered the EPA to block the technology in the U.S. until 2011.<ref>{{cite web |date=14 November 2014 |title=Der Greenfreeze – endlich in den USA angekommen |url=https://www.greenpeace.de/themen/klimawandel/klimaschutz/der-greenfreeze-endlich-den-usa-angekommen |access-date=May 28, 2016 |work=Greenpeace |language=de}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.greenpeace.org/brasil/pt/Noticias/discurso-de-frank-guggenheim-n/|title=Discurso de Frank Guggenheim no lançamento do Greenfreeze|work=Brasil|access-date=May 28, 2016|archive-date=September 24, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924024715/http://www.greenpeace.org/brasil/pt/Noticias/discurso-de-frank-guggenheim-n/|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/chron.html |title=SNAP Program Chronology &#124; Alternatives / SNAP &#124; US EPA |publisher=Epa.gov |date= 2014-10-15|access-date=September 27, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/greenfreeze-f-gas-victory-greener-refrigerato/blog/38405/|title=Greenfreeze F-Gas Victory! Greener Refrigerators Finally Legal in the U.S.|date=December 14, 2011|work=Greenpeace USA|access-date=January 1, 2018|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120129234921/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/greenfreeze-f-gas-victory-greener-refrigerato/blog/38405/|archive-date=January 29, 2012}}</ref> Ben & Jerry's of Unilever and General Electric, spurred by Greenpeace, had expressed formal interest in 2008 which figured in the EPA's final approval.<ref name="ReferenceB" /><ref>{{cite press release |url=http://www.genewscenter.com/content/detail.aspx?releaseid%3D4303%26newsareaid%3D2%26menusearchcategoryid%3D |title=GE Opening a Door to a Future of Cleaner Home Refrigeration |access-date=August 24, 2014 |url-status=unfit |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110605195107/http://www.genewscenter.com/content/detail.aspx?releaseid=4303&newsareaid=2&menusearchcategoryid= |archive-date=June 5, 2011 }}</ref>

The EU recast its Ozone Regulation in 2009. The law bans ozone-depleting substances with the goal of protecting the ozone layer.<ref>{{Cite web |title=EUR-Lex – 32009R1005 – EN – EUR-Lex |url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1005/oj |access-date=2022-12-07 |website=eur-lex.europa.eu |language=en}}</ref> The list of ODS that are subject to the regulation is the same as those under the Montreal Protocol, with some additions.

More recently, policy experts have advocated for efforts to link ozone protection efforts to climate protection efforts.<ref>{{Cite journal | first1=M.        | last1=Molina       | author-link1=Mario Molina | first2=D.      | last2=Zaelke | first3=K. M.   | last3=Sarma | first4=S. O.   | last4=Andersen | first5=V. | last5=Ramanathan | first6=D.       | last6=Kaniaru
| title = Reducing abrupt climate change risk using the Montreal Protocol and other regulatory actions to complement cuts in CO<sub>2</sub> emissions
| journal = [[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]]
| year = 2009 | pmid=19822751 | pmc=2791591
| doi = 10.1073/pnas.0902568106 | volume=106 | issue=49 | pages=20616–20621
|bibcode = 2009PNAS..10620616M | doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|title=The Montreal Protocol at 20: Ongoing opportunities for integration with climate protection |journal=Global Environmental Change |volume=18 |issue=2 |pages=330–340 |year=2008 |doi=10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.03.003|last1=Norman |first1=Catherine |last2=Decanio |first2=Stephen |last3=Fan |first3=Lin |bibcode=2008GEC....18..330N }}</ref> Many ODS are also greenhouse gases, some thousands of times more powerful agents of radiative forcing than carbon dioxide over the short and medium term. Thus policies protecting the ozone layer have had benefits in mitigating [[climate change]]. The reduction of the radiative forcing due to ODS probably masked the true level of climate change effects of other greenhouse gases, and was responsible for the "slow down" of global warming from the mid-90s.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Estrada|first=Francisco|year=2013|title=Statistically derived contributions of diverse human influences to twentieth-century temperature changes|journal=Nature Geoscience|volume=6|issue=12|pages=1050–1055|doi=10.1038/ngeo1999|bibcode=2013NatGe...6.1050E|hdl=2144/27169|s2cid=130224979 |hdl-access=free}}</ref>{{additional citation needed|reason=I think this statement is false with current knowledge: the slow down is now mostly attributed to internal variability and volcanic forcing|date=August 2019}} Policy decisions in one arena affect the costs and effectiveness of environmental improvements in the other.

=== ODS requirements in the marine industry ===
The [[International Maritime Organization|IMO]] has amended [[MARPOL]] Annex VI Regulation 12 regarding ozone depleting substances. As from July 1, 2010, all vessels where MARPOL Annex VI is applicable should have a list of equipment using ozone depleting substances. The list should include the name of ODS, type and location of equipment, quantity in kg and date. All changes since that date should be recorded in an ODS Record book on board recording all intended or unintended releases to the atmosphere. Furthermore, new ODS supply or landing to shore facilities should be recorded as well.