A thin layer of gas called atmosphere surrounds the Earth. The atmosphere serves two important purposes: it is a filter for the suns dangerous ultraviolet radiation rays and keeps the heat, necessary to maintain life on earth, within the stratosphere (Vorlat 361). Ultraviolet light is incredibly dangerous to all the organisms within the Earth’s ecosystem because it causes skin cancer, effects the immune system, and harms plant and animal life. For that reason the atmosphere and the ozone layer within it are crucial to a stable life on this planet. The ozone layer is in danger, however.
It is facing depletion by a toxic man-made substance called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Together the international community is working through treaties and conventions to stop this environmental problem. To understand the problem behind ozone depletion we first must understand what ozone is and how it works. Ozone is a thin protective layer that starts nine miles up in the air and continues up in the sky thirty-one miles (Kellner 20). It serves as a screen against the sun’s harmful UV rays by protecting plants and animals, as well as people from skin cancer, immune system problems, and eye disorders, such as cataracts (Ozone Treaties).
Ozone is a gas, often a bluish color, made up of three oxygen atoms instead of the typical two. Ozone forms when solar ultraviolet rays and oxygen molecules meet. The result of the meeting is free oxygen molecules that form to regular oxygen molecules to create ozone molecules. Thus the process repeats (Vorlat 361). So in essence the sun’s rays are destroying oxygen molecules to create the ozone that is going to serve as a filter for the planet. It is a cyclical process that was working until man invented CFCs, an ozone-destroying chemical, in 1928 (Ozone Treaties).
CFCs are a very heavy, very stable chemical often found in things such as air-conditioners, refrigerators, fire- extinguishers etc. Upon release it can take the chemical up to five years to reach the ozone layer. Once there the sun’s rays split the chlorine atom causing it to bond with the ozone atom and in turn destroying it (Kellner 20). A single pound of Freon, a CFC, can destroy as much as 70,000 pounds of ozone (Kellner 20). CFCs are responsible for depleting five percent of the three billion metric tons of ozone in the air, that loss contributed to a twenty to twenty-five percent ecrease in the ozone over the uppermost northern region of Earth. Not to mention that every time the ozone decreases the increase in skin cancer is two-fold (Kellner 20). All of the CFCs being inputted into the atmosphere are causing the depletion of the ozone layer and the result is a hole forming over the Antarctic region. The hole forms every September to November, during the Antarctic spring. In 1998 however, the hole showed up in mid-August and in September reached a record size of ten and half million square miles.
That is three and a half times the size of the United States. The hole is not really a hole but rather a thinning of the ozone layer. The ozone layer has thinned so much though that patches are left unfilled, giving the appearance of a hole. In 1998 the layer was close to record thinness (Kloor 8). When the hole was discovered in 1985 it gave the international community the proof it needed to try to repair the damage that they had done. The first step was The Vienna Convention on the Protection of Ozone Layer.
Vienna was a framework treaty, which allowed governments to declare their commitment to protecting the ozone layer. The governments agreed “to take appropriate measures” to protect human health and the environment against adverse effects resulting or likely to result from human activities which modify or are likely to modify the Ozone Layer (The Vienna Convention). The problem with the convention, however was that it-lacked specifics. It did not declare what measures would be taken nor did it really establish what the cause of the ozone depletion was.
Rather, the convention was a precautionary measure dealing more with what future protocols would bring. It was important though because it was the first time that the international community enacted the precautionary principle and agreed to confront a problem before they really had all the research. In May 1985, the proof was found when an American satellite observed the hole in the ozone layer (The Vienna Convention). The speculation was real and the international community needed to take further steps to protect the ozone layer.
In September 1987, the international community again came to an agreement on the ozone layer under the title, Montreal Protocol on Substances that deplete the Ozone Layer. The main basis of the Protocol is to phase out the production of CFCs and other ozone depleting substances. The protocol is unique in that it is flexible. It can be altered with little to no negotiation. Furthermore, the protocol takes into account the inequity of the technology in developing nations. On January 1st, 1989 29 countries and the EEC ratified the Montreal Protocol.
Currently 165 countries have joined the Protocol, over a hundred of those being developing countries (The Montreal Protocol). The original goal of the protocol was to have developed countries freeze CFCs at 1986 levels and cut them in half by 1998 with halon being frozen at 1986 levels by 1992. Developing countries were given a ten-year grace period (Montreal Protocol Summary). Since then the agreement has been adjusted and amended many times with the final agreement being illegal for developed countries to produce CFCs after January 1996 (Retellack 188).
Furthermore, when the phaseout timetable was developed it included two exceptions. The first is that countries may trade their allotted amount of CFC production with other countries, as long as the consumption and production does not exceed what the group is allotted. Secondly, if any country had plans to develop a CFC facility before September 16, 1987 or planned one in legislation before January 1, 1987 then the country may operate production at those levels. The Montreal Protocol also offers special consideration for developing countries under Article 5.
The special consideration allows any developing country whose annual calculated level of consumption is less than 0. 3 kilograms per capita to delay phaseout by ten years and exceed their consumption and production goals if it is for basic domestic needs. The current deadline for CFC and halon phaseout in Article 5 countries is Jan 1, 2010 (Caron 366-67). HCFCs, a CFC substitute must be phased out by 2030 for developed countries and 2040 for developing. Methyl Bromide has been moved up to 2005 with developing countries phasing out by 2015 (Report on Ninth).
The reason for the push back is due to complaints by China and India. The countries want to protect their right to develop CFC technology. As a result one of the amendments created was the Interim Multilateral Fund of 240 million for developing countries to use non-CFC technology and meet protocol timetables (Montreal Protocol Summary). The ozone layer covers every nation on this earth and CFCs are a form of transboundary pollution. For this reason, The Montreal Protocol is important because it prevents the free rider problem and made the nations come together. The Montreal Protocol has its problems though.
The protocol does take into account the situation of developing nations but; it tends to be more involved with equity for those developing nations instead of protection for the ozone layer itself. This is especially obvious in the extended ten-year grace period that developing nations were allowed. The protocol also lacks in covering for the disparity between massive consumers and producers, such as the US, and limited users like China. Industrialized nations, whose populations make up less then 25% of the world’s produce and consume close to 85% of the world’s CFCs.
China and India, home to 35% of the world’s population consume only 2% of the worlds CFCs (Tripp 371). The biggest problem facing the ozone layer and the battle to curb CFC use is CFC smuggling on the black market. Production but not sales of CFCs has been banned in the US and many other industrialized nations. Companies are simply shifting their production to developing nations where it is still legal to produce CFCs. This is leading to the smuggling of CFCs into industrialized nations and huge profits at the same time.
CFCs are a colorless, odorless gas, which makes them easy to smuggle and a profitable black market industry, second only to illegal drugs. Customs official in Texas encounter an average of five smuggling attempts everyday (Retallack 189). In Florida, from 1994-1996, approximately 10,000 tonnes of CFCs were smuggled in. The demand is high because the alternative to older vehicle’s air-conditioning units is expensive (Ozone Treaty Must 219). The Montreal Protocol has gaps in that it allows old CFCs to be used and developing countries can export CFCs to other developing countries through developed countries.
The result is new CFCs being marketed as old and not being sent on to the developing country after its supposed passing through of a developed country (Phew? 48). In order to combat the problem an amendment is being suggested for the protocol. It was decided that a licensing system would be adapted. The system would be based on signatory countries notifying, reporting, and cross-checking information regarding imported and exported CFCs (Report on ninth). The hope is that the system would track all CFC imports and place a ban on unlicensed imports and exports of controlled substances (Ozone Treaty Must 219).
One must not forget however, that the black market would not exist if CFC production were phased out. Despite these fallouts the Montreal Protocol has been deemed a relatively successful endeavor in the International Community. It brought to light the importance of the precautionary principle because it was a decision to take action without full proof. For that reason, many years of continued ozone depletion with no action being taken were avoided. The Montreal Protocol also brought about a change in industry due to public and scientific concern.
Instead of fighting the phaseout of CFCs companies decided to develop substitutes and with that create new business opportunities. Most importantly is that the protocol showed developing and developed nations that they will need to work together if the environment is going to be salvaged. The protocol took into account that developing nations have not yet had a chance to develop their technologies and should not be shut off from CFCs as of yet. In turn, the developed nations agreed to work with developing nations in transferring their technology to more ozone friendly systems.
The result is a partnership and many developing nations ahead of the phaseout schedule (French 2). The Montreal Protocol is one of the first strong environmental commitments that rallied the support of the entire international community. It has had its problems and loopholes but the fact remains that CFC production has dropped by three-quarters from its 1988 numbers (French 2). If countries, developed and developing, continue to meet their phaseout production schedules, or at least continue to reduce the amount of ozone depleting chemicals they produce the ozone layer will begin to heal slowly.
It is even possible that by the end of next century the ozone layer could be one continuos layer. Global Climate Change The trapping of solar energy within Earth’s climate system to maintain higher temperatures than those that the amount of incoming solar radiation merit is termed the atmosphere or green house effect. Radiant energy from the sun is naturally trapped within the Earth’s atmosphere, where it collects and maintains the Earth’s radiative equilibrium temperature, the temperature at which the Earth absorbs solar radiation and emits infrared radiation to space equally. The Earth? radiative equilibrium temperature is approximately 35 degrees Celsius warmer than it would be without the green house effect: without this function of the atmosphere life as we know it would not be possible. Green house gases are selective absorbers of long wave radiation, and occur naturally as part of the climate system’s balance. The primary green house gas is CO2, which has increased in volume from 280 parts per million, which fossil records show to have been fairly constant throughout history, to 360 parts per million today, principally due to the combustion of fossil fuels over the past 150 years.
Green house gases such as CO2, H2O, CH4, O2, O3, and NOx are responsible for trapping and re-emitting long wave radiation emitted by Earth at night. This is why the diurnal temperature range decreases with Global Climate Change, rather than an overall increase in mean temperatures, although an increase of 0. 3 to 0. 6 degrees Celsius has been evidenced over the last 150 years. Presumably, these recent weather observations are the consequences of human encroachment upon the self-regulation of the climate system.
The emission of green house gases and the subsequent enhancement of the atmosphere effect is a function of industrial economies dependent upon the burning of fossil fuels to generate energy, and the growing per capita demand for energy intensive products. This unprecedented rise in CO2 within the atmosphere is a direct result of anthropogenic emissions far outstripping the ability of the Earth’s natural sinks and reservoirs to absorb the extra CO2.
At present, anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are estimated to be 7 billion tons per year, while the estimated capacity of sinks and reservoirs to absorb carbon is between 2 and 3 billion tons per year. At the present rate of carbon emissions, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are expected to double by 2050, accompanied by a 3 to 5 degree Celsius increase in average temperatures. Not only do we continue to increase the volume of green house gases in the atmosphere with more fossil fuel emissions and deforestation, but the cycle of emissions and heat trapping gains momentum and its effects are magnified with each turn.
In this fashion, although human contributions to the total amount of CO2 and other green house gases in the atmosphere are relatively small, their effects upon the climate system will grow exponentially. Among the myriad deleterious effects of Global Climate Change upon the environment are: increased intensity of marine and winter storms, evaporation of surface fresh water, desertification over continental regions, destruction of marine fisheries, the melting of arctic tundra and ice-caps resulting in the flooding of coastal regions and, in the worst case scenario cause another ice age by desalinating the Oceanic Conveyor Current.
It is plain to see that the issue of Global Climate Change is of pressing importance to all of humanity, and must be addressed on a holistic, international level. To address anything on an international level is difficult due to the disparate positions of all the parties involved. To address an issue so ubiquitous and so closely tied to growing economies is near impossible, but over the past 30 years we have taken incremental steps toward reducing anthropogenic emissions of green house gases.
The first step was taken at the 1972 Stockholm convention where the problems encompassed in the human environment were first addressed within the framework of the UN, and under Principle 21, nations first acknowledged a common duty not to damage the environment of any other state. The Stockholm convention produced the first in a long line of soft law regarding the environment, along with a plan to create systems for research, information and technology exchange, monitoring, and evaluating the global environment.
The emerging soft law laid the foundation for future agreements and legal obligations; however, it wasn? t until 1985 that real targets and timetables were established with respect to Global Climate Change. Out of the soft law of the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Pollution was born the 1985 Sulfur Emissions Protocol, and the 1988 Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Protocol. Reductions by 30% of 1980 baseline sulfur emissions by 1993 were stipulated along with requirements that Parties limit nitrogen oxide emissions to 1987 levels by 1995 and an on-going commitment to further eductions in accordance with the best available science and technology. These were the first resolutions with an eye to climate change that addressed targets and timetables. The 1985 Vienna Convention on the Ozone Layer and the 1987 Montreal Protocol also helped to further the development of international law regarding the atmosphere. The primary green house gas, CO2, was not addressed until the 1992 Rio Convention, and by most accounts this first attempt at curtailing the anthropogenic enhancement of the green house effect was an abject failure.
No commitments were made regarding the reduction of CO2 emissions and only vague skeletal frameworks were set up regarding emission stabilization. On the positive side, out of the Rio convention emerged; a statement of a long-term goal to limit anthropogenic interference with the climate system, established processes for responding the Global Climate Change, and principles by which future action could be guided. Perhaps most importantly, the Rio Convention served to highlight the political and economic issues, which continue to thwart attempts to reduce the anthropogenic impact upon the planet.
In 1997, climate change was once again wrestled by the world community in Kyoto, Japan. Nominal progress was made when 38 developed nations agreed to reduce emissions of CO2, CH4, NO2, and three substitutes for CFCs by 5. 2% of 1990 baseline levels, with the U. S. agreeing to a 7% reduction after pushing the compliance date from 2000 to between 2008 and 2012. Concessions within the principles set forth were made regarding the needs of OPEC nations and flexibility was extended to counties attempting a market economy.
At present, the Kyoto Protocol has 84 signatories, though only 7 ratifications (all of whom are small states, which are particularly susceptible to the effects of Global Climate Change). The Kyoto Protocol requires ratification by 55 Parties accounting for 55% of 1990 emissions to enter into force. Even with ratification, environmentalists complain that the convention has no real teeth, there are no enforcement guidelines included, and that a 5. 2% reduction has no real hope of denting the billions of tons of anthropogenic emissions already accumulating in the atmosphere.
As all of the climate change conventions have built upon each other, it should be no surprise that the 1998 Buenos Aires convention laid the most concrete and developed principles to date. The issue of enforcement was tackled and Parties agreed to establish a process to negotiate a legal regime to ensure that Parties meet their agreements under the Kyoto Protocol, and penalties for non-compliance. Also, the Parties agreed to establish a committee to discuss the phase-out of hydoflourocarbons, a replacement for O3 destroying CFCs, some of which have 1300 to 3000 times the infrared radiation trapping potential of CO2.
Undoubtedly, the real progress of this convention was made with the adoption of the Buenos Aires Plan of Action. The Plan of Action is a declaration of the Parties determination to strengthen the implementation of the Convention, and prepare for future entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol. The Plan contains Parties resolution to demonstrate substantial progress on the financial mechanism, development and transfer of technology, and the implementation of FCCC Articles 4. 8 and 4. , which recognize the common but differentiated responsibilities of Parties while promoting the exchange of scientific and technical advances, and promoting education, training and public awareness of the climate change issue. Furthermore, Parties resolved to promote sustainable development and to protect and enhance sinks and reservoirs of green house gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol. Finally it was reiterated that Parties would aim at reducing overall emissions by at least 5% below 1990 levels by the commitment period between 2008 and 2012.
Through the nearly 30 years since Global Climate Change reared its head as the greatest threat to life on Earth since Nuclear Holocaust it has progressed through the gamut of international legal standings. Today we are moving from soft law to consent, in the future we will move from consent to consensus, and with consensus we will be able to prove that maintaining the integrity of the environment merits opinio juris. Once we have our legal system working behind us, we will be able to enforce our regulations to protect the environment. Case Study of a Developed Country: Germany
Though the countries in the European Community and the United States are all considered developed, their approaches and opinions towards ozone depletion vary widely. “The negotiating parties appeared to be divided into three camps, basically unchanged from the lineup some 20 months earlier at the 1985 Vienna conference,” (Benedick 68). The first group consisted of the United States, Canada, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. This group was known as the Toronto Group. Also ratifying the Vienna Convention was the Soviet Union (Benedick, 68). This group was pushing for strict controls, contrary to the European Community. Even at this late date the EC Commission still insisted that chlorofluorocarbons in aerosols could not readily be replaced ‘without serious loss of quality’ and that ‘no fully satisfactory fluorocarbon alternatives would become readily available in the foreseeable future'” (Benedick, 69). The third group was a group of developing countries who though at first were uncommitted, turned toward tight controls (Benedick, 69). “All EC countries together accounted for 38% (of CFC production), with the Federal Republic of Germany the largest producer,” (Benedick, 26).
With that amount of production within the EC, Germany would be most likely to support the big business attitude against restrictions. However, Germany was strongly opposed to the position that the European Community had forged, (Benedick, 69). Germany’s opposition led to the eventual turn around of the other nations in the European Community’s position. More importantly however, Germany has furthered transfer of technology called for by the Montreal Protocol. By 1988, companies in Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom voluntarily agreed to begin phasing out CFCs as propellants.
And the UK House of Lords recommended a mandatory Community wide ban on CFCs in aerosols (Benedick, 107). This turn about was led by business realizations about public awareness. The public was becoming more environmentally conscious, and wanted to protect the ozone layer. It became in the interest of these businesses to ban CFCs in aerosols to keep the consumer happy. Germany had also demonstrated through practice that this conversion to CFC substitutes was possible. As the production leader of CFCs in Europe, its conversion was a strong model for the other nations. Germany has led the world in the ratification of ozone treaties.
It has ratified not only the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol, but also the amendments to these Protocols. It has ratified the London, Copenhagen, and also the Montreal Amendment. It is one of only ten countries to ratify the Montreal Amendment. In order for that amendment to come into force, twenty nations must ratify it, since it is passed its January first deadline (UNEP). Germany is by far a world leader in ozone protection. The Montreal Protocol calls for the developed countries to make it their responsibility to help the developing nations phase out the use of CFCs and help them produce viable alternatives.
In Article Five of the Protocol it is stated, The parties under take to facilitate access to environmentally safe alternative substances and technology for Parties that are developing countries and assist them to make expeditious use of such alternatives,? (D’Amato/Engel, Appen. 165). Furthermore, in Article Nine, transfer of appropriate technologies, alternatives to damaging substances, cost and benefit analysis, and environmental awareness is called for (D’Amato/Engel, Appen. 166). Through an organization called the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit, or the German Technical Cooperation, these goals are being reached.
The German Technical Cooperation, or GTZ, is owned by the German government and implements technical cooperation activities of the government, (GTZ). The GTZ helps countries in Central Europe, Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Though the GTZ helps in many areas including health, education, and infrastructure, the Urban and Industrial Environment Project aims at, recording and monitoring industrial and urban pollution. Environmental technology consultancy services are also made available to small and medium sized enterprises to help them avoid or reduce emissions, (GTZ). This follows the goals of the Montreal Protocol.
In further compliance with the Protocol, the GTZ states, We must develop and introduce appropriate technology. This strictly follows the guidelines that the Montreal Protocol instated. The GTZ also offered many examples of its ozone friendly assistance. One example was a news story the GTZ presented called, “Like a Phoenix from the Ashes” from 16 September 1997. The article discussed the GTZ bringing about the disuse of R 134a, the original substitute for CFCs in refrigerators. The substitute R 134a caused the greenhouse effect, and GTZ helped to end the use of both CFCs and R 134a in developing countries (GTZ).
Their original transfer of technology had not been appropriate, so they corrected themselves. Though developed countries often host widely varying opinions on the environment and its destruction, ozone treaties came about rather quickly in the realm of international law. Germany has been an excellent example of a nation that has set its goal on ozone protection. Through its leading opposition against the European Community’s position, its swift ratification of ozone treaties, and appropriate government organizations to follow through with the Montreal Protocol, Germany should be a model for other nation’s fight to save the ozone.
Developing Country Case Study: China “Let the person who tied the ring on the neck of the tiger, take it off”’ (qtd. In D’Amato and Engel 393). The perspective of the developing countries is based on the assumption that developed countries “fouled the nest” and it was now in their hands to take care of it ([Internet] Trisko). According to Article 4 of the Rio de Janeiro United Nations Framework convention on Climate Change it is stated that all parties have “… common but differentiated responsibilities. ” (qt. In D’Amato and Engel 180).
The South views Global Climate Change as a development problem where as the North view it as an environmental problem. The South insisted on allowing their greenhouse gases to grow as a by-product of industrialization to stimulate economic growth until the levels reach current developing country levels (D’Amato and Engels 378). The UN Earth Summit in Rio, which established voluntary norms of reduction, along with the follow up, the Berlin Mandate, both exclude developing countries from the projected levels of CO2 reduction ([Internet] Trisko).
Even though, estimates show that 85% of the projected increase in future CO2 parts per million will come from “…countries and regions exempt from the proposed treaty. ” ([Internet] Trisko) The Kyoto conference examined these arguments and also continued in the tradition of the Rio Summet and the Berlin Mandates to exclude specific mandates on developing countries. An extra day was spent at the Kyoto conference discussing the arguments of the developed vs. developing countries. China and the G77 wanted to exclude emission trading.
The Chinese delegate at the conference, Zhong Shukong, claiming it to be in violation with ‘human rights’ to trade emissions ([Internet] Extra). The US was strongly opposed to China’s position and stated the necessity of trading rights for nations to meet the proposed standards ([Internet] Extra). Another issue discussed on the extra day of the Kyoto conference was the request by the US and other developed countries to include a paragraph on the commitment of developing countries to global CO2 levels ([Internet] Extra). The head delegate of the Kyoto conference denied both proposals.
His decision was primarily based on Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, which puts the responsibility of the cleanup in the hands of the polluter. This principle is also applied to ozone depletion. “Since 98 % of CFC-11 is produced and used by developed countries, letting them solve this problem and show developing countries how to avoid falling into a similar problem in the future. ” (D’Amato 393). It is not, however taking into account future production levels of developing countries. China became the 37th country to sign the Kyoto protocol on in May 1998 ([Internet] China).
It calls on 38 industrialized nations to reduce their “greenhouse” gases by specified amounts including US at 7%, the EU at 8% and Japan at 6% ([Internet] China). President Clinton has been advised by the Senate to avoid signing the Protocol until reparations are made to include developing countries in the % reductions ([Internet] China). As a result of the reduction of only industrialized countries, three results will occur: economic dislocations of American jobs to third world countries, unilateral emissions reductions and no substantial impact on world CO2 levels ([Internet] Trisko).
The US has recognized the Kyoto protocol winner as China, in that China is projected to have mass migration of multinationals into the country from developed countries. This will stimulate the Chinese economy at the expense of an increase in unemployment in the US ([Internet] Trisko). China is a country that is filled with hundreds of out-dated coal burning plants. These plants not only contribute to the CO2 levels around the world but increase acid rain over bodies of water in China and surrounding areas. They also have many severe impacts on many buildings, bicycles and automobiles ([Internet] China).
Ideas have been presented within China to promote technology and finance transfers on technology ([Internet] China). Other ideas proposed by individuals within China are to include emission credits and to have more NGO power over regulations ([Internet] China). China is one of the most vocal members of the South. It is also the world’s second largest producer of CO2s ([Internet] Trisko). It is estimated that by 2025 the tons of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere just by China will be more than the combined current totals of the US, Japan and Canada ([Internet] Trisko).
Two principle agents cause this estimate. The first is the reduced emission levels of developed countries due to the Kyoto protocol. Many developed countries have agreed to the Kyoto protocol that calls for 38 industrialized nations to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels between 2008-2012 ([Internet] China). The second factor is the growing Chinese economy. Even with China’s fairly effective government regulated population control programs, there are still over a 1 billion people living in China today.
Individual consumption of fossil fuels as well as China’s huge coal industry is contributing greatly to the increase in global warming. In 1997-1998 the World Bank gave China loans totaling 1. 3 billion dollars. These loans included $330 million for two large coal-fired plants in the Hunan providence ([Internet] Wysham). These loans contribute to the proposal of China exceeding the US within the next two decades as the number one emitter of CO2 ([Internet] Wysham). The Hunan project was pushed through the World Bank board at ? the time needed to review the environmental impact of it ([Internet] Wysham).
The plant also exceeded World Bank guidelines for pollution but was granted a waiver by the Board on that guideline ([Internet Wysham). Since the first Earth Summit meeting on global warming the World Bank has spent nearly $12 billion toward oil, gas and coal projects contributing to 36 billion tons of CO2 ([Internet] Wysham). Estimates show approximately 9 out of 10 World Bank loans go to multinational companies within developing nations such as Amoco, Mobile and Exxon ([Internet] Wysham). Last year the World Bank spent 3. 84 million on fossil fuel development in developing countries ([Internet] Wysham).
Little progress has been made compromising the developed and developing nation’s stances on a global scale. China and India have been standing their ground for the Developing countries’ demands. Their objections to imposed standards and their requests for the transfer of technology and finances have been well noted throughout global warming policies. On a smaller scale, however, achievements have been made. A small step occurred on November 26, 1998 when China signed an environmental agreement with Japan to agree on the following points of common interest. Works Cited
Benedick, Richard Elliot. Ozone Diplomacy: New Directions in Safeguarding the Planet. Cambridge: Harvard University,1991. Caron, David. “The Ozone Protection Regime. ” International Environmental Law Anthology. Ed. Anthony D’Amato and Kristen Engels. Cincinnati: Anderson, 1996. 362. “China Signs Global Warming Treaty. ” ABC NEWS. Archive Science. 30 May 1998. Online. Altavista. http://archive. abcnews. go. com/sections/sections/science/DailyNews/globalwarming980530. html D’Amato, Anthony, and Engel, Kirsten, Eds. International Environmental Law Anthology. Cincinnati: Anderson, 1996.
EIC. Online. http:///www. eic. or. jp/eanet/e/jeq/r003-04. html#3 “Extra Day at the Kyoto Conference”. Online. http://www. web. apc. org/~nben/envnews/media/97/clash. htm Field, B. C. (1997) Environmental Economics. USA: The McGraw-Hill. French, Hilary F. “The Lessons of Montreal. ” World Watch Sep-Oct. 1997: 2. German Technical Cooperation. Eschborn: 16 Mar 1999. Online. Yahoo. 27 Mar 1999. Kellner, Tomas. “Cool Operators. ” The Sciences Sep-Oct. 1998: 19-24. Kloor, Keith. “The Hole the World is Watching. ” The Sciences Jan. 1999: 8. “Montreal Protocol Summary. Environment Canada Online. Internet. ;lt;http://www. ec. gc. ca/ozone/Mont-opp/montsumm. htm;gt; United Nations Environmental Program. Ozone Secretariat. Nairobi: 15 Mar 1999. Online. Yahoo. 27 Mar 1999. “Ozone Treaties. ” The Ozone Secretariat Online. Internet. April 5, 1999. ;lt;http://www. unep. ch/ozone/treaties. htm;gt;. “Ozone Treaty must tackle CFC Smuggling. ” Nature Sept. 1997: 219. “Phew, the ozone layer may be saved. ” The Economist 13 Sept. 1997: 48. “Report on the ninth meeting of parties to the Montreal Protocol. ” Ozone Action Online. Internet.
April 5, 1999. ;lt;http://www. ozone. org/montreal. html;gt;. Retallack, Simon. “God Protect us from those Who Protect the Skies. ” The Ecologist Sep-Oct. 1997: 188-191. Russo, M. V. , (1999) Environmental Management Readings and Cases Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin. “The Montreal Protocol. ” The Ozone Secretariat Online. Internet. April 5, 1999. ;lt;http://www. unep. ch/ozone/montreal. htm;gt;. “The Vienna Convention. ” The Ozone Secretariat online. Internet. April 5, 1999. ;lt;http://www. unep. ch/ozone/vienna. htm;gt;. Tripp, James T. B. “The Total CFC-Phase-Out. International Environmental Law Anthology. Ed. Anthony D’Amato and Kristen Engel. Cincinnati: Anderson, 1996. 370. Trisko, Eugene M. & Brunett, Sterling H. “Brief Analysis 239: The Global Warming Game China 1 US Workers 0. ” NPCA Policy. 20 Aug. 1997. http://www. ncpa. org/ba239. html United Nations Environment Programme. (1997) The Climate Change Convention. New York, New York. United Nations Department of Public Information. United Nations, Press Release. (1999, March 16) 84 Countries Now Signed on to Kyoto Protocol. [on-line] http://www. unfccc. de/fccc/conv/presskp. html.
Vorlat, Katrien. “The Chemistry of the Atmosphere. ” International Environmental Law Anthology. Ed. Anthony D’Amato and Kristen Engel. Cincinnati: Anderson, 1996. Warrik, J. (1998, November 15) 160 Nations Endorse Pact on GlobalWarming Compliance; Accord Speeds Up Timetable for ‘Action Plan’ on Environment. Washinton Post. [on-line]http://newslibrary. krmediastream. com/cgi- bin/document/wp_auth? DBLIST=wp98&DOCNUM=61971. Wysham, Daphne. “On Eve of Clinton Visit World Bank Grants China $330 Million for High Polluting Coal Project. ” 25 June 1998. http://www. igc. org/coc/bwi081. html