Interstellar

Taking a cue from the Montreal Protocol

Can we get a second wind of efficient international cooperation?

For individuals who were fortunate enough to receive a formal education in their earlier years, it is highly likely that they will recall the grueling yet somewhat intriguing "frog experiment" from their biology class. Considered a rite of passage akin to being teased, picked on, and slightly bullied by older siblings or cousins, this experiment would involve a biology teacher handing students a set of white gloves, a scalpel, and an (inanimate) frog, sitting on some sort of a petri dish. Although 8th grade may seem like a distant memory, the skills acquired in that particular class are described in the adult world as "transferable skills”. In other words, the sacrifice of these frogs contributed to teaching students the fundamental principles of science, such as observation and experimentation; the pillars of scientific theories and discoveries.

Politics on the other hand, science’s distant relative (or perhaps brother? Readers are invited to watch the Netflix show Painkillers by Peter Berg), was taught through a different kind of experiment. This time, it took place in the playground under the supervision of the most important teacher of all; Life. Whether it occurred as one tried to exchange an apple with the lucky classmate whose parents doubled down on the cookie dough or while trying to bargain with bullies between a slap on the face and a new haircut, children across the world were introduced to the foundations of diplomacy: negotiations and trade.

Science and politics came together in 1987 to address the depletion of the Earth’s ozone layer caused by emissions from the air conditioning and refrigeration industries. The scientific community had raised serious concerns about the issue, prompting the need for a collaborative effort to find a solution that would protect the planet's atmosphere. What was the threat? The continuing use of ozone-depleting substances known as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) against the survival of all living organisms. The solution? The Montreal Protocol, a treaty between scientists, industry representatives and elected governmental representatives. Scientists and politicians came together previously, as seen during the Apollo Program when the United States rallied around a common national goal of innovation, development, and strategic advantage. However, the Montreal Protocol stands out as the first international agreement of significant importance that was signed, enforced, and diligently upheld to this day, despite its inevitable economic losses for all signatories involved. The treaty's strength lies in its collective action principle and is regarded as the most influential international agreement of the post-industrial era. Without it, Earth's protective stratosphere would suffer further damage, exposing us to harmful UV radiation that can alter eyesight, disrupt the immune system, and increase the risk of cancer, not to mention the impact on aquatic ecosystems and terrestrial plants.

Photo from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Cut to 28 year later. This is the year 2015 in Paris, France, where 196 parties came together to sign the Paris Agreement in response to scientists' urgent call to address climate change and the devastating natural disasters it will bring to every corner of the planet. The Paris Agreement and the Montreal Protocol are two vital international environmental treaties that aim to address significant issues that impact the planet's atmosphere and biosphere. The Paris Agreement primarily focuses on limiting global warming by maintaining the global temperature increase below 1.5 degrees Celsius, while the Montreal Protocol is dedicated to controlling the depletion of the ozone layer.

Despite the significant decrease in the world's use of ozone-depleting substances as a result of the Montreal Protocol, the implementation of the Paris Agreement still struggles to quantify major results. Climate change is as alarming today as ozone depletion was in the 1980s, but it is not receiving the same level of collaborative action. Planetary problem? Check. Global threat? Check. Same number of signatories (by a margin of one vote)? Check. Failure is not an option? Check. Passion? Check. A problem that can’t be seen but eventually felt? Check. International scientific consensus? Check. A need for brilliant minds, progress, and innovation? Check, check, and check. There are a number of factors that may be contributing to the Paris Agreement's inability to meet expectations, including the fossil fuel industry's reluctance to change and inconsistencies in the international enforcement landscape.

The fossil fuel industry is the main source of energy in the world, using coal, natural gas, and oil. Unless a more profitable solution can outcompete it, it will remain the dominant provider of energy. The industry will only change if an economic incentive presents itself whereby generating energy through fossil fuels becomes too expensive compared to other energy generation technologies on the market. This is an advantage the Montreal Protocol had at the time of its inception, making it easier to phase out ozone-depleting substances (CFCs). In the late 1980s, companies such as DuPont, which created CFCs and other chemicals, expressed interest in using different substances. The expiry of patents for their CFCs and the outdated formulas presented a marketable opportunity. The increasing availability of new substances that could replace ozone-depleting ones made it easier for industries to support the Montreal Protocol. Using alternate substances became an economically viable option for most companies, as they could substitute the harmful old substances with these new ones. A market has to remain a market and this notion was crystal clear to the signatories of the Montreal Protocol. Indeed, as soon as the initial major countries signed the treaty, it became advantageous for every other CFCs producer to join in. This would ensure their inclusion in the trade agreement between the signatories. This shift facilitated a gradual transition away from hazardous substances.

At present, the Paris Agreement is only a moral obligation for those who are involved in the extraction and distribution of fossil fuels. Considering their current advantage in the energy market, it remains unlikely that they will shift towards developing and expanding renewable energy sources. It will take a considerable amount of time for individual countries to finance non-renewable projects throughout their territories, which will reduce their dependence on fossil fuels to power their cities, towns, and rural areas. This undermines the success of the Paris Agreement, which requires a balancing act of changes across industries and countries alike. Unlike renewable energy plants, fossil fuel extraction is a straightforward and scalable process, without the need for costly technological revamps. Furthermore, transitioning to low-carbon energy sources requires a significant investment of time, money, and resources, including the training of a new generation of workers. Therefore, the fossil fuel industry has little motivation to develop renewable energy sources.

Furthermore, even if the fossil fuel industry were to completely commit to renewable sources of energy generation overnight, the current infrastructure of the electric grid in countries such as the United States would not be capable to sustain a massive influx of green energy. In fact, the current electric system in the United States would leave Thomas Edison perplexed if he were to observe the unaltered nature of the system he pioneered in the 1880s, which is still in use today. Energy providers acknowledge the complexities associated with upgrading our electricity transmission and storage infrastructure. The current process is both time-consuming and expensive, with a high degree of bureaucratic involvement. Even if providers were to transition to renewable energy completely, the existing grid infrastructure would impede prompt and reliable distribution to all households, and efficient storage of the surplus energy would prove challenging. The production of energy that cannot be stored as fast and efficiently as gas or petrol poses a significant risk that the fossil fuel industry is reluctant to take.

Photo by NASA

Compared to the Montreal Protocol, where all signatories were committed to enforcing the treaty's requirements, the Paris Agreement faces challenges due to a lack of homogeneity, primarily regarding the position of emerging economies like the BRICS countries towards meeting the goals and targets outlined in the treaty. These nations, including Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, face significant challenges balancing their economic growth with emissions reduction targets. The BRICS countries have committed to adhering to the guidelines of the treaty. However, their reliance on fossil fuels for energy generation will impede global efforts towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This reliance has created a predicament for these countries, as they require fossil fuels in the short term to generate electricity and maintain their development, while their long-term sustainability goals necessitate a reduction in fossil fuel consumption and a faster transition to renewable energy sources. The provision of financial assistance to BRICS countries is a crucial factor in promoting collective efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, as the absence of adequate funding threatens the ability of developing nations to prioritize climate change mitigation measures without compromising their economic growth. This responsibility lies with developed nations that built their economies on the excessive use of fossil fuels, which are the leading cause of climate change. It is unreasonable to expect developing economies to abandon fossil fuels without adequate financial support to transition to renewable energy sources. A proportional allocation of financial assistance is necessary to facilitate a harmonious shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources and promote the growth of sustainable energy in BRICS countries. Therefore, the provision of financial support to developing countries is essential to reduce carbon emissions, mitigate the impact of climate change and harmonise the contributions of each member of the Paris Agreement.

Acknowledging the complexity of the issues surrounding all the interconnected actors that make up life on Earth, it is important to recognize that there is nonetheless significant progress made by the Paris Agreement in achieving its objectives. The creation of The Conference of the Parties (COPs) has opened up conversations between various sectors, activities, and governments. This has been highly successful in bringing signatories together to discuss progress and setbacks and make necessary amendments to the framework. Moreover, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has been instrumental in setting climate policy, outlining adaptation and mitigation strategies, overseeing funds, monitoring and reporting signatories’ reduction targets. Likewise, the Sustainable Development (SDGs) are critical in offering countries a backbone on which to build their goals, targets, and implementation plans. This is no small fleet when navigating the scale of climate change, with added challenges such as personal agendas and differing willingness among member state signatories. One could argue that the Montreal Protocol’s issue is narrowly defined and targets a clear and indisputable culprit (ozone-depleting substances). The solution of a gradual phase-out was clear, making regulation much more straightforward. In terms of enforceability, the phase-out was made legally binding, leading to inevitable compliance, transparency, and accountability as opposed to the voluntary actions of the Paris Agreement.

The core issue is that nations have their own agendas, which leads to different behaviors and makes the Montreal Protocol more successful than the Paris Agreement, because of the political landscape in terms of development at the time. The fossil fuel industry is still the leading supplier of the entire world’s energy portfolio. Requesting that BRICS spend on a transition to green energies at the expense of their development is unfair compared to the advantages developed countries profited from for their own successes. The green energy sector still needs to overcome technical and affordability challenges that hinder widespread adoption. The Paris Agreement wasn’t designed as a balancing act, where some countries can transition to ‘green’ energy and practices while others can continue with the status quo of fossil fuel use. The Treaty was and is to this day meant to be a collective effort. But how can we do that if all nations don’t start with all the same advantages and disadvantages? How do we level the playing field?

Photo by Jason Leung via Unsplash