International Air PollutionOutlinePowerPoint PresentationSlide 4Slide 5Acid Rain in EuropeConvention: LRTAP.Slide 8LRTAP Convention, 1979.Implementing LRTAP: ProtocolsB) Pollutant-specific ProtocolsSlide 12Acid Rain Regime a success?Accounting for success?OZONE DEPLETION [Vienna convention (1985 )and Montreal Protocol, 1987]Solving/Responding to the Ozone ProblemSlide 17Montreal Protocol, 1987.How they managed to secure an agreementSlide 20Montreal Protocol Success?Post-Montreal Protocol developemntsInternational Air PollutionInternational Air PollutionOutlineOutlineIntroductionIntroductionconceptsconceptsAcid Rain in EuropeAcid Rain in Europethe the Problem:Problem:Convention: LRTAPConvention: LRTAPImplementing LRTAPImplementing LRTAPEvaluating successEvaluating successOzone DepletionOzone DepletionInitiatives in responding to the ozone problemInitiatives in responding to the ozone problemNegotiationsNegotiationsMontreal Protocol, 1987.Montreal Protocol, 1987.IntroductionIntroductionScopeScopeAcid rain in EuropeAcid rain in EuropeOzone depletionOzone depletionClimate changeClimate changeThe challenge:The challenge:Formation of an international environmental Formation of an international environmental governance regime in the absence of an governance regime in the absence of an international government.international government.- Hypothesize- Hypothesize that a country will (not) participate depending that a country will (not) participate depending on:on:a) its calculation of factors such as: a) its calculation of factors such as: 1. Metrics [interaction] of ecological vulnerability and abatement 1. Metrics [interaction] of ecological vulnerability and abatement costs costs 2. Preferred emission reduction strategies [question of design of 2. Preferred emission reduction strategies [question of design of proposed regime]proposed regime]3. Sense of honor? 3. Sense of honor? 4. National interests4. National interests5. Problem validity = epistemic controversy regarding cause and 5. Problem validity = epistemic controversy regarding cause and mitigation [sometimes invoked opportunistically]mitigation [sometimes invoked opportunistically]and,and,b) the higher the density of interaction of these factors in the b) the higher the density of interaction of these factors in the negative direction, the more difficult it will be for a country to negative direction, the more difficult it will be for a country to get on board.get on board.Strategy by designers of a regimeStrategy by designers of a regime- Specify how signatories must act, - Specify how signatories must act, -incentive structures-incentive structuresKey conceptsKey concepts((Framework) ConventionFramework) Convention- Establishes general principles, norms and goals.- Establishes general principles, norms and goals. ProtocolProtocolagree on more specific targets than the generalagree on more specific targets than the generalprovisions of the parent convention.provisions of the parent convention.Signing and,Signing and, ratificationratification [binding within national jurisdiction] [binding within national jurisdiction]Acid Rain in EuropeAcid Rain in EuropeProblem:Problem:Transboundary transport of pollutants and their effectsTransboundary transport of pollutants and their effects- How international?- How international?Europe:Europe:- Britain’s impact on Scandinavian countries. - Britain’s impact on Scandinavian countries. -1977 OECD study showed that the problem was 1977 OECD study showed that the problem was transboundary.transboundary.•North America: Disproportionate flow of NOx from North America: Disproportionate flow of NOx from U.S. to Canada;U.S. to Canada;- ecosystem damage in Canada.- ecosystem damage in Canada.-Resultant concern motivated international drive to forge a -Resultant concern motivated international drive to forge a convention, hence LRTAP.convention, hence LRTAP.Convention: LRTAP.Convention: LRTAP. Leaders:Leaders: a) Scandinaviana) Scandinavian- initiated debate thro’ ECE- initiated debate thro’ ECE; US and Canada members]; US and Canada members]- Result: 1972 OECD commissioned a study; findings - Result: 1972 OECD commissioned a study; findings published in 1977published in 1977b) France and Italyb) France and Italy- no problem contracting because were in hydro and - no problem contracting because were in hydro and nuclear energy.nuclear energy.LaggardsLaggards: Britain, Poland, and U.S.: Britain, Poland, and U.S.a) Britain-a) Britain- - international and costly abatement measures not - international and costly abatement measures not favoredfavored. . - - 90% energy was fossil fuels, clear cost/benefit issue90% energy was fossil fuels, clear cost/benefit issue- action would benefit others - action would benefit others- - Britain argued: Britain argued: - science on source inconclusive; more research.- science on source inconclusive; more research.- no binding commitments, just general statements.- no binding commitments, just general statements.b) Germanyb) Germany- initially, but later changed- initially, but later changeddiscovery of black forest in the 1980s + Green Party discovery of black forest in the 1980s + Green Party effects.effects.Ambitious sulfur reduction target (50% in 10 years)Ambitious sulfur reduction target (50% in 10 years)Emission limits for large industrial utilitiesEmission limits for large industrial utilitiesRequirement to adopt Best Available TechnologyRequirement to adopt Best Available TechnologyLRTAP Convention, 1979.LRTAP Convention, 1979.-Parties – European states [32 +E.U., now almost 50], U.S. -Parties – European states [32 +E.U., now almost 50], U.S. and Canada.and Canada.-Aim: - -Aim: - [["endeavor to [["endeavor to limitlimit and, and, as far as possibleas far as possible, gradually reduce and prevent , gradually reduce and prevent air pollution, including long-range transboundary air pollution . . . [using] air pollution, including long-range transboundary air pollution . . . [using] the best available technology which is economically feasible …." the best available technology which is economically feasible …." ProvisionsProvisions include: monitoring and research. include: monitoring and research.e.g. Regulationse.g. RegulationsEmission ceilings/caps [country-specific]Emission ceilings/caps [country-specific]Best