Talk:Montreal Protocol

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 22 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Allegedecologystudent.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Developing countries

I have been told that the protocol allows 'developing countries' to continue producing the banned CFCs. I'm wondering what countries are defined as 'developing' for this purpose. Any ideas?

-- Yes. "Developing countries" is used here as a technical short-hand for those countries the Parties refer to as "Article 5 countries." Article 5 countries have limited production of ozone-depleting substances, and are in some sense self-defined, but generally fall beneath certain thresholds for low income and development. The list of countries corresponds very closely to the general understanding.

Developing countries must also phase out the listed ozone-depleting substances, but they are on a longer time-frame for the phaseout.

Take a look at link UNEP's Article 5 Parties. Most countries on the list would be regarded as developing by most people, but the are some that many people would regard as developed. The IMF regards Singapore as an advanced economy and the World Bank classifies Antigua & Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Brunei Darussalam, Equatorial Guinea, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Trinidad and Tobago and the United Arab Emirates as high income countries. David Sturt (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:RM

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Discussion on renaming page, from WP:RM

Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer → Montreal Protocol -- The Kyoto Protocol is set up with its common short name, instead of Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, whereas the almost as common Montreal Protocol is not... (or you can reverse this argument and move Kyoto Protocol to its proper name) 132.205.15.4 19:46, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• No opinion - William M. Connolley 20:39, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC).
• Definitely should both be the same, and I suspect the shorter name is the way to go (in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), wnich ways we're supposed to use "the most common name of a person or thing"). Noel 18:27, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Binding?

Is this a "binding" agreement? If so, what are the signatories required to do? What has been the U.S. response to the treaty? What has the EPA done to enforce the treaty? -- User:Ed Poor

-- Yes. The treaty is binding for Parties. Parties have a wide range of responsibilities, the most important of which is the phasing out of the production and use of certain ozone-depleting substances. The U.S. EPA has promulgated a wide range of regulations to enforce the treaty, largely pursuant to its authority under the U.S. Clean Air Act.

Moving the reasons

I am planning to move all the reasons for the protocol to this page. I will leave behind on the relevant pages links to the following argument:

1. CFC emissions reduce statospheric ozone
2. Reduced ozoze increases surface UV
3. Increased surface UV increase skin cancer

I will put all the evidence which supports this hypothesis here, as well as evidence that fails to support the hypothesis. Readers can make up their own mind as to whether the facts support the hypothesis.

The relevant pages (CFC, Ozone depletion, Ultraviolet) are just fine and don't need to be changed. You can easily add the rationale behind the protocol to this article by pointing to the other articles. If somebody wants to know why UV causes cancer, they certainly would not (and should not!) look under "Montreal protocol". AxelBoldt

-- I agree. Links are more appropriate. This page would be most useful to readers if it stays focused on the Protocol itself.

CFC Ban

The article CFC ban is listed to be merged with this article. It seems to be all here except the following: Other bans have been made or proposed based on incomplete or disputed science (see precautionary principle). I'm not sure this material belongs here. I'm going to make CFC ban a redirect to here. If anyone thinks the above line (and its list of articles) belongs here they can merge it in (see the history of that article if interested). RJFJR 03:51, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

When?

When was the Protocol negotiated? How long did it take? Any interesting diplomacy to discuss? RJFJR 03:44, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Strawberry fields forever ozone depleting in america

This is the same america that did Agent Orange:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/11/28/pesticide.politics.ap/index.html

HCFCs

I will try to add something in the text about HCFCs, please correct me if I was to bold ;-) --Bbold 17:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Contributor 209.219.75.98 added a link to a 1998 document from the Competitive Enterprise Institute that is, IMO, biased, tendentious, and inaccurate on several points. Since the Montreal Protocol is ultimately a matter of politics rather than science, it is not inappropriate to have links to dissenting views, but I have added a couple of links to more mainstream views in order to provide some balance. (Note that even people like Bjorn Lomberg nowadays regard ozone depletion as a case where strong environmental regulations were appropriate.) --Rparson 00:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Scientific Background

Changed "recent" to "contemporary" in the first paragraph. "Recent" is always related to the present and so didn't seem to make sense.Schaddm 04:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Vienna Amendment

Pardon my forward comment, but I am unaware of a Vienna Amendment signed in 1995, only the Vienna Convention which was initiated in 1985. Is this correct? The basis for my comment is a research paper produced by the national environmental ministry in South Africa. Please provide clarity. Y Naiker 08:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

hay naku bakit niyo yan pinag uusapan  h8huhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh

mabuti la na ung mga HCFC HFC HC AT CFC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.96.37 (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday, Wednesday, the fifth,

Paul Ralph Ehrlich, George Shultz, Amy Goodman, < http://auroraforum.stanford.edu/events.php?id=47 >, discussed Montréal Protocol, Kyoto Protocol, global warming, Iraq,... et cetera, @ Stanford.

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 15:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Name

it's odd that this article gives no indication of why it is called the Montreal protocol. I'm assuming it was negotiated there? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

See

I still see no evidence that CFC's can get "up" into the ozone layer to cause damage. These molecules are very dense. I've see a quick puff of R-12 snuff a smoldeering cigarette butt 10 feet away in about 30 seconds. This substanse creeps along the ground, even high heat cannot make it get higher in the atmosphere than hydrogen could. 68.231.189.202 (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

CFC Inhalers / Evohalers

Just wondering about the section referring to inhalers being critical use and still allowed; I heard that evohalers or something of the kind were being produced, and thus old style inhalers were being phased out. http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=195940 + http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=2222599 - I know personally I'm using a salbutumol evohaler atm, so just thought I'd look for quick sources and post a note, may correct if I have more time or a more informed response.~CortalYX^Talk? 23:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

UN Member State Ratification

The article says that 195/196 UN member states have ratified the Protocol. However, there are only 192 member states (according to United Nations). Should it say 191 of 192? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.208.186 (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Usage of "State"

State is the most correct word to use referring to the entities that have ratified the Montreal Protocol. However, it may be confusing to some US readers, who tend to use 'state' mostly for referring to parts of the USA. Is there a policy or consensus on the usage of 'state' vs. 'country' vs. 'nation'? EricWesBrown (Talk) 23:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

0.3 kg ?????? looks like a data error

"The main objective of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol is to assist developing country parties to the Montreal Protocol whose annual per capita consumption and production of ozone depleting substances (ODS) is less than 0.3 kg to comply with the control measures of the Protocol." -----------this is why references would be useful... appears to be a mistake that calls into question the whole sentence..........

Avram Primack (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe the text is correct: 0.3kg consumption per capita, as found here: https://ozone.unep.org/treaties/montreal-protocol/articles/article-5-special-situation-developing-countries

The definition of "consumption" can be found in Article 1: ""Consumption" means production plus imports minus exports of controlled substances." https://ozone.unep.org/treaties/montreal-protocol/articles/article-1-definitions

One nuance is the following situation: suppose that 1 kg of a banned substance is produced in country A and filled into a refrigerator which is then exported to country B. I believe this still counts against country A, but I can't find a source.

Flinker123 (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Missing what was banned and when

Article has only the barest description of what got banned and what got used to replace it. Also, no description of the aspects of the treaty that make it equitable or why it needed to be equitable. Someone should add this material, as most of the value of the article could be in this material. What is there is very formalized and cryptic.

Avram Primack (talk) 05:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This reference does not exist at the listed address

"Source - http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/montreal/01.ht" Since the reference does not exist, the section has no verifiable source. It should have. Avram Primack (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Missing Reference

BTW, I attended an Ecology lecture at ASU (PhD in Biology plus post-doctoral study of Ecology) in 1990 where I learned that chlorine in the stratosphere takes from 75 - 115 years (depending on the CFC chemical tranport) before it stops grabbing ozone ions split via UV radiation allowing the oxygen ions to re-combine to form another ozone molecule. If we stopped today, there'd still be another 100 years of depletion ahead of us; we won't stop today. But I digress.

I can't find the "Roan, p56" reference. I corrected the link to the Chaffee Memorial Lecture, http://www.ncseonline.org/sites/default/files/ChafeeMemorialLecture2000.pdf, but that's only 52 pages, so "Roan" couldn't be a mis-spelling of Rowland. I earned my Masters at UC Irvine, then was employed there as a director of computer labs, thus my interest in a letter to the Chancellor complaining about Rowland's public statements. Sew! where's the letter? I grepped Roan on the article source, found only once at the end of the Abplanalp sentence. The wiki/Abplanalp contains only his obituaries, labeled a stub.

Why isn't the interview archived at http://www.vega.org.uk/video/programme/119 mentioned?

Although the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 may seem like a smart idea, Congress has yet to provide sufficient funds for enforcement. Count the field agents over at EPA. But I digress. --- Wow, I entered "abplanalp uc irvine chancellor letter" at https://duckduckgo.com/ (my new favorite search engine) and turned up half a dozen hits containing the same paragraph as that published herein. The correct citation is: Roan, Sharon (1990). Ozone Crisis, the 15 Year Evolution of a Sudden Global Emergency. Wiley. ISBN 0-471-52823-4. I may have to retract my criticism of the missing reference, that is, if Amazon has a used paperback copy of the book. Maybe http://archive.org has a copy. I'm amazed at how one sentence gets propagated all over the place, from Websters dictionary entry on "ozone", the Full Wiki and http://www.historyofinformation.com (self-reference?).

Hpfeil (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The two ozone treaties have been ratified by 197 states and the European Union

Why group the EU when they are separate states? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.161.42.156 (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Terms and purposes section Comment

I attempted to point to a name instead of just a reference but made an error. I was also reviewing the reference and was putting the access date. Apparently I need to work on using this system as it only produced a reference error so I self reverted. Under the old way I could simply use a name as a clickable link that I think would look better but this would be mixing reference styles.

• See: EPA Ozone depleting substance table. Otr500 (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Montreal Protocol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150306095853/http://www.al.noaa.gov/assessments/2002/Q&As16.pdf to http://www.al.noaa.gov/assessments/2002/Q&As16.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Montreal Protocol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826115142/http://stsclimate.soc.ku.dk/papers/grundmannclimatechangeandknowledgepolitics.pdf to http://stsclimate.soc.ku.dk/papers/grundmannclimatechangeandknowledgepolitics.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

"molecule-for-molecule basis" ?

The article currently contains the following sentence: "On a molecule-for-molecule basis, these compounds are up to 10,000 times more potent greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide". I believe this is wrong. Everything I've seen about the climate impact of these compounds is on a per-weight basis, not per-molecule. See for example the page on Global Warming Potential: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential

Does anyone have a reason to believe the sentence is correct?

Flinker123 (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan had skin cancer in 1985

What Convinced Ronald Reagan to Take Action on Ozone Hole Time, 2019.

THE HOLE How Ronnie and Maggie Saved the World

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2JzOlRff08 narrated by David Attenborough probably deserves a mention either in this article or in Ozone depletion or both. It's notable IMO and should be covered somewhere in Wikipedia, at least as further reading (viewing?). Comments? Andrewa (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Which treaty?

The Montreal Protocol is a protocol to a treaty - which treaty? Alanthehat (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Plant Ecology Winter 2023

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2023 and 10 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Briannabanana0 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Briannabanana0 (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Nitrous Oxide speculation is misplaced

The speculative content about Nitrous Oxide as a candidate for inclusion in the Montreal Protocol is probably misplaced. The primary anthropogenic sources of nitrous oxide in the upper atmosphere are agricultural fertilizer and animal waste in the tropics. NB: animal in the biological sense includes reptiles, birds, fish, shellfish, insects, krill, zooplankton… This would have to be addressed by changes in the same developing nations whose commitment to reducing CFC and HCFC production doesn’t take effect until the 2040’s. Ending anthropomorphic generation of NO2 in the developed nations that have already ended CFC production would change the amount transported into the upper atmosphere by -5%, much less than the variation in the rate it is destroyed by sunlight, and result in an unmeasurable -0.25% change in the 0.38ppb/year change in concentration. A mandate that would have the effect of reducing the food supply by 60%-80% and raising its cost 2.5x to 5x that can’t produce a measurable effect is impossible for any national government to agree to without being driven from power. Mercifully the model shows 94% feedback on the rate of destruction, i.e. it reaches a steady state value that attenuates the effect of a change in the rate of production by more than 20:1. PolychromePlatypus (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)