• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Evm assigement
 

Evm assigement

on

  • 733 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
733
Views on SlideShare
733
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Evm assigement Evm assigement Document Transcript

    • RAI BUSINESS SCHOOL Meadows Rai Foundation Assignment:-01 0f Environment Management Submitted To: - Submitted By:-Mrs. Manisha PANKAJ KUMARSenior Faculty, RBS MBA 4th Sem
    • Q.1. what is global warming? Discuss its affect and how tocombats global warming?INTRODUCTIONGlobal Warming, increase in the average temperature of the atmosphere, oceans,and landmasses of Earth. The planet has warmed (and cooled) many times duringthe 4.65 billion years of its history. At present Earth appears to be facing a rapidwarming, which most scientists believe results, at least in part, from humanactivities. The chief cause of this warming is thought to be the burning of fossil fuels,such as coal, oil, and natural gas, which releases into the atmosphere carbon dioxideand other substances known as greenhouse gases. As the atmosphere becomesricher in these gases, it becomes a better insulator, retaining more of the heatprovided to the planet by the Sun.The average surface temperature of Earth is about 15°C (59°F). Over the lastcentury, this average has risen by about 0.6 Celsius degree (1 Fahrenheit degree).Scientists predict further warming of 1.4 to 5.8 Celsius degrees (2.5 to 10.4Fahrenheit degrees) by the year 2100. This temperature rise is expected to meltpolar ice caps and glaciers as well as warm the oceans, all of which will expandocean volume and raise sea level by an estimated 9 to 100 cm (4 to 40 in), floodingsome coastal regions and even entire islands. Some regions in warmer climates willreceive more rainfall than before, but soils will dry out faster between storms. Thissoil desiccation may damage food crops, disrupting food supplies in some parts ofthe world. Plant and animal species will shift their ranges toward the poles or tohigher elevations seeking cooler temperatures, and species that cannot do so maybecome extinct. The potential consequences of global warming are so great thatmany of the worlds leading scientists have called for international cooperation andimmediate action to counteract the problem.THE GREENHOUSE EFFECTThe energy that lights and warms Earth comes from the Sun. Most of the energy thatfloods onto our planet is short-wave radiation, including visible light. When thisenergy strikes the surface of Earth, the energy changes from light to heat and warmsEarth. Earth’s surface, in turn, releases some of this heat as long-wave infraredradiation.Much of this long-wave infrared radiation makes it all the way back out to space, buta portion remains trapped in Earth’s atmosphere. Certain gases in the atmosphere,including water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane, provide the trap. Absorbing andreflecting infrared waves radiated by Earth, these gases conserve heat as the glassin a greenhouse does and are thus known as greenhouse gases. As the concentration
    • of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases, more heat energy remainstrapped below. All life on Earth relies on this greenhouse effect—without it, theplanet would be colder by about 33 Celsius degrees (59 Fahrenheit degrees), and icewould cover Earth from pole to pole. However, a growing excess of greenhousegases in Earth’s atmosphere threatens to tip the balance in the other direction—toward continual warming. MEASURING GLOBAL WARMINGAs early as 1896 scientists suggested that burning fossil fuels might change thecomposition of the atmosphere and that an increase in global average temperaturemight result. The first part of this hypothesis was confirmed in 1957, whenresearchers working in the global research program called the InternationalGeophysical Year sampled the atmosphere from the top of the Hawaiian volcanoMauna Loa. Their instruments indicated that carbon dioxide concentration was indeedrising. Since then, the composition of the atmosphere has been carefully tracked.The data collected show undeniably that the concentrations of greenhouse gases inthe atmosphere are increasing.Scientists have long suspected that the global climate, the long-term averagepattern of temperature, was also growing warmer, but they were unable to provideconclusive proof. Temperatures vary widely all the time and from place to place. Ittakes many years of climate observations to establish a trend. Records going back tothe late 1800s did seem to show a warming trend, but these statistics were spottyand untrustworthy. Early weather stations often were located near cities, wheretemperature measurements were affected by the heat emitted from buildings andvehicles and stored by building materials and pavements. Since 1957, however, datahave been gathered from more reliable weather stations, located far away fromcities, and from satellites. These data have provided new, more accuratemeasurements, especially for the 70 percent of the planetary surface that is oceanwater (see Satellite, Artificial). These more accurate records indicate that a surfacewarming trend exists and that, moreover, it has become more pronounced. Lookingback from the end of the 20th century, records show that the ten warmest years ofthe century all occurred after 1980, and the three hottest years occurred after 1990,with 1998 being the warmest year of all.Greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing. Temperatures are rising. But does thegas increase necessarily cause the warming, and will these two phenomena continueto occur together? In 1988 the United Nations Environment Program and the WorldMeteorological Organization established a panel of 200 leading scientists to considerthe evidence. In its Third Assessment Report, released in 2001, thisIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that global airtemperature had increased 0.6 Celsius degree (1 Fahrenheit degree) since 1861. The
    • panel agreed that the warming was caused primarily by human activities that addgreenhouse gases to the atmosphere. The IPCC predicted in 2001 that the averageglobal temperature would rise by another 1.4 to 5.8 Celsius degrees (2.5 to 10.4Fahrenheit degrees) by the year 2100.The IPCC panel cautioned that even if greenhouse gas concentrations in theatmosphere ceased growing by the year 2100, the climate would continue to warmfor a period after that as a result of past emissions. Carbon dioxide remains in theatmosphere for a century or more before nature can dispose of it. If greenhouse gasemissions continue to increase, experts predict that carbon dioxide concentrations inthe atmosphere could rise to more than three times preindustrial levels early in the22nd century, resulting in dramatic climate changes. Large climate changes of thetype predicted are not unprecedented; indeed, they have occurred many times in thehistory of Earth. However, human beings would face this latest climate swing with ahuge population at risk. EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMINGScientists use elaborate computer models of temperature, precipitation patterns, andatmosphere circulation to study global warming. Based on these models, scientistshave made several predictions about how global warming will affect weather, sealevels, coastlines, agriculture, wildlife, and human health.A WeatherScientists predict that during global warming, the northern regions of the NorthernHemisphere will heat up more than other areas of the planet, northern and mountainglaciers will shrink, and less ice will float on northern oceans. Regions that nowexperience light winter snows may receive no snow at all. In temperate mountains,snowlines will be higher and snowpacks will melt earlier. Growing seasons will belonger in some areas. Winter and nighttime temperatures will tend to rise more thansummer and daytime ones.The warmed world will be generally more humid as a result of more waterevaporating from the oceans. Scientists are not sure whether a more humidatmosphere will encourage or discourage further warming. On the one hand, watervapor is a greenhouse gas, and its increased presence should add to the insulatingeffect. On the other hand, more vapor in the atmosphere will produce more clouds,which reflect sunlight back into space, which should slow the warming process (seeWater Cycle).Greater humidity will increase rainfall, on average, about 1 percent for eachFahrenheit degree of warming. (Rainfall over the continents has already increased by
    • about 1 percent in the last 100 years.) Storms are expected to be more frequent andmore intense. However, water will also evaporate more rapidly from soil, causing itto dry out faster between rains. Some regions might actually become drier thanbefore. Winds will blow harder and perhaps in different patterns. Hurricanes, whichgain their force from the evaporation of water, are likely to be more severe. Againstthe background of warming, some very cold periods will still occur. Weather patternsare expected to be less predictable and more extreme.B Sea LevelsAs the atmosphere warms, the surface layer of the ocean warms as well, expandingin volume and thus raising sea level. Warming will also melt much glacier ice,especially around Greenland, further swelling the sea. Sea levels worldwide rose 10to 25 cm (4 to 10 in) during the 20th century, and IPCC scientists predict a furtherrise of 9 to 88 cm (4 to 35 in) in the 21st century.Sea-level changes will complicate life in many coastal regions. A 100-cm (40-in) risecould submerge 6 percent of The Netherlands, 17.5 percent of Bangladesh, and mostor all of many islands. Erosion of cliffs, beaches, and dunes will increase. Stormsurges, in which winds locally pile up water and raise the sea, will become morefrequent and damaging. As the sea invades the mouths of rivers, flooding fromrunoff will also increase upstream. Wealthier countries will spend huge amounts ofmoney to protect their shorelines, while poor countries may simply evacuate low-lying coastal regions.Even a modest rise in sea level will greatly change coastal ecosystems. A 50-cm (20-in) rise will submerge about half of the present coastal wetlands of the United States.New marshes will form in many places, but not where urban areas and developedlandscapes block the way. This sea-level rise will cover much of the FloridaEverglades.C AgricultureA warmed globe will probably produce as much food as before, but not necessarily inthe same places. Southern Canada, for example, may benefit from more rainfall anda longer growing season. At the same time, the semiarid tropical farmlands in someparts of Africa may become further impoverished. Desert farm regions that bring inirrigation water from distant mountains may suffer if the winter snowpack, whichfunctions as a natural reservoir, melts before the peak growing months. Crops andwoodlands may also be afflicted by more insects and plant diseases.D Animals and Plants
    • Animals and plants will find it difficult to escape from or adjust to the effects ofwarming because humans occupy so much land. Under global warming, animals willtend to migrate toward the poles and up mountainsides toward higher elevations,and plants will shift their ranges, seeking new areas as old habitats grow too warm.In many places, however, human development will prevent this shift. Species thatfind cities or farmlands blocking their way north or south may die out. Some types offorests, unable to propagate toward the poles fast enough, may disappear.E Human HealthIn a warmer world, scientists predict that more people will get sick or die from heatstress, due less to hotter days than to warmer nights (giving the sufferers lessrelief). Diseases now found in the tropics, transmitted by mosquitoes and otheranimal hosts, will widen their range as these animal hosts move into regionsformerly too cold for them. Today 45 percent of the world’s people live where theymight get bitten by a mosquito carrying the parasite that causes malaria; thatpercentage may increase to 60 percent if temperatures rise. Other tropical diseasesmay spread similarly, including dengue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitis.Scientists also predict rising incidence of allergies and respiratory diseases aswarmer air grows more charged with pollutants, mold spores, and pollens.DEBATES OVER GLOBAL WARMINGScientists do not all agree about the nature and impact of global warming. A fewobservers still question whether temperatures have actually been rising at all. Othersacknowledge past change but argue that it is much too early to be makingpredictions for the future. Such critics may also deny that the evidence for thehuman contribution to warming is conclusive, arguing that a purely natural cycle maybe driving temperatures upward. The same dissenters tend to emphasize the factthat continued warming could have benefits in some regions.Scientists who question the global warming trend point to three puzzling differencesbetween the predictions of the global warming models and the actual behavior of theclimate. First, the warming trend stopped for three decades in the middle of the 20thcentury; there was even some cooling before the climb resumed in the 1970s.Second, the total amount of warming during the 20th century was only about halfwhat computer models predicted. Third, the troposphere, the lower region of theatmosphere, did not warm as fast as the models forecast. However, global warmingproponents believe that two of the three discrepancies have now been explained.The lack of warming at midcentury is now attributed largely to air pollution thatspews particulate matter, especially sulfates, into the upper atmosphere. Theseparticulates, also known as aerosols, reflect some incoming sunlight out into space.
    • Continued warming has now overcome this effect, in part because pollution controlefforts have made the air cleaner.The unexpectedly small amount of total warming since 1900 is now attributed to theoceans absorbing vast amounts of the extra heat. Scientists long suspected that thiswas happening but lacked the data to prove it. In 2000 the U.S. National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) offered a new analysis of water temperaturereadings made by observers around the world over 50 years. Records showed adistinct warming trend: World ocean temperatures in 1998 were higher than the 50-year average by 0.2 Celsius degree (0.3 Fahrenheit degree), a small but verysignificant amount.The third discrepancy is the most puzzling. Satellites detect less warming in thetroposphere than the computer models of global climate predict. According to somecritics, the atmospheric readings are right, and the higher temperatures recorded atEarth’s surface are not to be trusted. In January 2000 a panel appointed by theNational Academy of Sciences to weigh this argument reaffirmed that surfacewarming could not be doubted. However, the lower-than-predicted tropospheremeasurements have not been entirely explained. EFFORTS TO CONTROL GLOBAL WARMINGThe total consumption of fossil fuels is increasing by about 1 percent per year. Nosteps currently being taken or under serious discussion will likely prevent globalwarming in the near future. The challenge today is managing the probable effectswhile taking steps to prevent detrimental climate changes in the future.Damage can be curbed locally in various ways. Coastlines can be armored with dikesand barriers to block encroachments of the sea. Alternatively, governments canassist coastal populations in moving to higher ground. Some countries, such as theUnited States, still have the chance to help plant and animal species survive bypreserving habitat corridors, strips of relatively undeveloped land running north andsouth. Species can gradually shift their ranges along these corridors, moving towardcooler habitats.There are two major approaches to slowing the buildup of greenhouse gases. Thefirst is to keep carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere by storing the gas or its carboncomponent somewhere else, a strategy called carbon sequestration. The secondmajor approach is to reduce the production of greenhouse gases.A Carbon Sequestration
    • The simplest way to sequester carbon is to preserve trees and to plant more. Trees,especially young and fast-growing ones, soak up a great deal of carbon dioxide,break it down in photosynthesis, and store the carbon in new wood. Worldwide,forests are being cut down at an alarming rate, particularly in the tropics. In manyareas, there is little regrowth as land loses fertility or is changed to other uses, suchas farming or building housing developments. Reforestation could offset these lossesand counter part of the greenhouse buildup.Many companies and governments in the United States, Norway, Brazil, Malaysia,Russia, and Australia have initiated reforestation projects. In Guatemala, the AESCorporation, a U.S.-based electrical company, has joined forces with the WorldResources Institute and the relief agency CARE to create community woodlots and toteach local residents about tree-farming practices. The trees planted are expected toabsorb up to 58 million tons of carbon dioxide over 40 years.Carbon dioxide gas can also be sequestered directly. Carbon dioxide has traditionallybeen injected into oil wells to force more petroleum out of the ground or seafloor.Now it is being injected simply to isolate it underground in oil fields, coal beds, oraquifers. At one natural gas drilling platform off the coast of Norway, carbon dioxidebrought to the surface with the natural gas is captured and reinjected into an aquiferfrom which it cannot escape. The same process can be used to store carbon dioxidereleased by a power plant, factory, or any large stationary source. Deep oceanwaters could also absorb a great deal of carbon dioxide. The feasibility andenvironmental effects of both these options are now under study by internationalteams.In an encouraging trend, energy use around the world has slowly shifted away fromfuels that release a great deal of carbon dioxide toward fuels that release somewhatless of this heat-trapping gas. Wood was the first major source of energy used byhumans. With the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, coal becamethe dominant energy source. By the mid-19th century oil had replaced coal indominance, fueling the internal combustion engines that were eventually used inautomobiles. By the 20th century, natural gas began to be used worldwide forheating and lighting. In this progression, combustion of natural gas releases lesscarbon dioxide than oil, which in turn releases less of the gas than do either coal orwood.Nuclear energy, though controversial for reasons of safety and the high costs ofnuclear waste disposal, releases no carbon dioxide at all. Solar power, wind power,and hydrogen fuel cells also emit no greenhouse gases. Someday these alternativeenergy sources may prove to be practical, low-pollution energy sources, althoughprogress today is slow.
    • B National and Local ProgramsThe developed countries are all working to reduce greenhouse emissions. SeveralEuropean countries impose heavy taxes on energy usage, designed partly to curbsuch emissions. Norway taxes industries according to the amount of carbon dioxidethey emit. In The Netherlands, government and industry have negotiatedagreements aimed at increasing energy efficiency, promoting alternative energysources, and cutting down greenhouse gas output.In the United States, the Department of Energy, the Environmental ProtectionAgency, product manufacturers, local utilities, and retailers have collaborated toimplement the Energy Star program. This voluntary program rates appliances forenergy use and gives some money back to consumers who buy efficient machines.The Canadian government has established the FleetWise program to cut carbondioxide emissions from federal vehicles by reducing the number of vehicles it ownsand by training drivers to use them more efficiently. By 2004, 75 percent ofCanadian federal vehicles are to run on alternative fuels, such as methanol andethanol.Many local governments are also working against greenhouse emissions byconserving energy in buildings, modernizing their vehicles, and advising the public.Individuals, too, can take steps. The same choices that reduce other kinds ofpollution work against global warming. Every time a consumer buys an energy-efficient appliance; adds insulation to a house; recycles paper, metal, and glass;chooses to live near work; or commutes by public transportation, he or she isfighting global warming.C International AgreementsInternational cooperation is required for the successful reduction of greenhousegases. In 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 150 countries pledgedto confront the problem of greenhouse gases and agreed to meet again to translatethese good intentions into a binding treaty.In 1997 in Japan, 160 nations drafted a much stronger agreement known as theKyōto Protocol. This treaty, which has not yet been implemented, calls for the 38industrialized countries that now release the most greenhouse gases to cut theiremissions to levels 5 percent below those of 1990. This reduction is to be achievedno later than 2012. Initially, the United States voluntarily accepted a more ambitioustarget, promising to reduce emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels; the EuropeanUnion, which had wanted a much tougher treaty, committed to 8 percent; andJapan, to 6 percent. The remaining 122 nations, mostly developing nations, were notasked to commit to a reduction in gas emissions.
    • But in 2001 newly elected U.S. president George W. Bush renounced the treatysaying that such carbon dioxide reductions in the United States would be too costly.He also objected that developing nations would not be bound by similar carbondioxide reducing obligations. The Kyōto Protocol could not go into effect unlessindustrial nations accounting for 55 percent of 1990 greenhouse gas emissionsratified it. That requirement was met in 2004 when the cabinet of Russian presidentVladimir Putin approved the treaty, paving the way for it to go into effect in 2005.After 1997 representatives to the Kyōto Protocol met regularly to negotiate aconsensus about certain unresolved issues , such as the rules, methods, andpenalties that should be enforced in each country to slow greenhouse emissions. Thenegotiators designed a system in which nations with successful cleanup programscould profit by selling unused pollution rights to other nations. For example, nationsthat find further improvement difficult, such as The Netherlands, could buy pollutioncredits on the market, or perhaps earn them by helping reduce greenhouse gasemissions in less developed countries, where more can be achieved at less expense.Russia, in particular, stood to benefit from this system. In 1990 the Russianeconomy was in a shambles, and its greenhouse gas emissions were huge. Sincethen Russia has already cut its emissions by more than 5 percent below 1990 levelsand is in a position to sell emission credits to other industrialized countries,particularly those in the European Union (EU).Q.2. Discuss NGO Participation in Montreal Protocol.Ans: - The Montreal Protocol on Substances that deplete the Ozone Layer is one ofthe worlds most effective examples of environmental cooperation. However, thedestruction of the ozone layer is also one of the greatest threats to life on earth thathas arisen from human activity and new actions are urgently required by Parties tothe Protocol if they are to continue with their commitment to avoid ecologicaldisaster.The Protocol itself is historically important not only because its controls on theproduction of ozone-depleting substances, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), arecentral to averting continued destruction of the ozone layer but also because it wasamong the first international environmental agreements to embody thePrecautionary Principle (where action is taken in advance of unequivocal proof of aproblem because the effects may be so severe).In 1985, when scientists from the British Antarctic Survey discovered the ozone holeover the southern hemisphere, both the cause and its potential effects were stillsubject to considerable debate. It was only after 1987, once the Protocol had comeinto force, that scientific assessments conclusively demonstrated the link betweenCFCs and ozone depletion. At this point, most of the worlds largest chloro-chemical
    • manufacturers came to accept the necessity for change, scenting marvellous newbusiness opportunities in the market for alternatives.The Protocol, in deference to this emphasis on precautionary action, has proved tobe a very flexible international agreement. Control schedules on CFCs and otherozone depleting substances (ODS) have been progressively tightened as furtherevidence about the global importance of the problem has been gathered. Indeed,production of CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform have nowstopped for the domestic market in developed countries though these chemicals arestill manufactured for export and for essential uses. Thanks to this production phase-out, stratospheric chlorine levels and ozone damage are expected to decline after thenext few years once CFCs released in the 1980s have made their way into the upperatmosphere. The ozone layer is predicted to be back to normal by the middle of thenext century. But the next few years, when stratospheric chlorine will be at itsmaximum, will be critical as Northern Hemisphere depletion continues to accelerate.Furthermore, concerns that global warming may augment the processes of ozonedestruction may be borne out, creating a race to phase out ODS before globalwarming makes the current situation worse.In acknowledgement of the additional problems arising from their economic status,developing countries have been allowed a time lag on phasing out the use of CFCs -they are not due to stop production of CFCs until 2010. Concurrent with this deferredphase-out, developed countries have provided funding and technical assistance toassist with the ODS phase-out. Whilst this two-track system has been very valuablein getting the widest possible support for the protocol in the internationalcommunity, it has also raised new challenges.Enter the CFC smuggler. Because material is still freely available and cheap indeveloping countries and is becoming increasingly expensive in developed countriesas stockpiles run down, there is a fortune to be made by unscrupulous traders andcriminals from diverting material from the former to the latter. The problem hasbeen accentuated by the economic and political problems in Russia, which is notcurrently in compliance with the Montreal Protocol and still manufactures CFCs for itsexport and domestic markets.In the US, it has been estimated that approximately 10,000 tonnes of CFC have beensmuggled in 1995 and 1996. In Miami, where the illegal trade was centred, illegalCFCs were second in street value only to crack cocaine. The environmental costs areeven greater as the incentive to swap to ozone benign alternative technologies isundermined, supplies for legitimate developing world customers are diverted andCFCs continue to be released into the atmosphere. In 1994, the US EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) estimated that the cost of cleansing the US of CFCs throughto the year 2075 would be approximately US$34 billion but would be offset by the
    • US$32 trillion cost in damages that would be avoided through preventing skincancer, crop destruction and the like.In other parts of the world, authorities have been more reluctant to admit there is aproblem though the footprint of illicit activities can be seen in markets across theworld. For example, in Europe, CFCs are still freely available and prices remaindisturbingly low even though the production of CFCs was stopped a year ahead ofthe rest of the world. Indeed, in Spain, where there are no sanctions againstunlicensed imports of CFCs, the price actually fell by 20% last summer. Since thephase-out, Europes established industry networks of producers, distributors andcustomers have witnessed the overnight appearance of many outside operators:ghostly brokers with no historical interest in the market, offering large quantities of"unsourced" CFCs for sale on a no-questions-asked basis.The Protocol is undoubtedly flexible enough to meet these new problems, given thepolitical will to do so, even though trade in ODS was a minor consideration at thetime the Protocol was signed. The Protocol gives ample mechanisms and licensingcontrols for Parties to crack down on this unscrupulous trade.Without doubt, the Parties most potent and effective weapon against the illegaltrade and the damage it is causing will be to ban the sale of all CFCs in thedeveloped world. The benefits for the ozone layer and for the enforcement of theProtocol provide a compelling argument for the Parties to take this bold measure attheir 10th meeting - doing so will continue to ensure the vision and success of theMontreal Protocol.New chemicals have also been targeted for control as their potential threat has beenbetter understood. This year, the tenth anniversary of the Protocol, the major issuefor discussion is going to be about methyl bromide.Methyl bromide is a very toxic chemical which is used as a pesticide and a fumigantfor agricultural produce. Currently, it is not scheduled to be phased-out until 2010 inthe developed world with no date as yet accepted for developing countries. Althoughmethyl bromide emissions account for approximately 5-10% of global stratosphericozone depletion, because the gas enters the stratosphere so quickly, it is verydamaging to ozone at the critical time when chlorine levels and ozone depletion areat their maximum. Indeed, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) remarkedin 1994, that eliminating methyl bromide use was the single largest remaining stepthat could be taken to reduce ozone losses and speed the recovery of the ozonelayer.Unlike the CFC phase-out when large industrial producers realised the environmentalnecessity and moreover the business advantage that introducing alternative
    • chemicals would bring to them, methyl bromide producers will fight their groundevery step of the way. Not being producers of alternatives to methyl bromide, toprevent the loss of vast revenues, they will suggest plummeting crop yields andsoaring pest damage to their customers causing great concern particularly in Africancountries where key crop exports are dependant on methyl bromide.However, the 1995 report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee, aninternational, United Nations committee of 45 scientists, manufacturers, users,government representatives and non-governmental organizations, informed theParties to the Montreal Protocol that there were technically feasible alternatives"either currently available or at an advanced stage of development" for at least 90%of world methyl bromide use.It is also in developing countries that the most positive benefits of a methyl bromidephase-out will be felt. The most cost effective alternatives to methyl bromide in thedeveloping world (such as biological control, integrated pest management,composting, solarisation, steam treatment as well as soil substrate manipulation) arelabour-intensive and will provide significant new opportunities for rural employment.Money will pass into the local community rather than to multi-national chemicalcompanies. Also, because methyl bromide is such an obnoxious toxin, causingdizziness, vomiting, nervous paralysis, death and birth defects, farm worker healthand safety as well as groundwater and the local environment, all too often put asidein developing countries, are likely to be greatly improved once methyl bromide usestops.This is a valuable lesson from the whole Montreal Protocol process and will be part ofits legacy for future environmental agreements that the necessity of change for theglobal good can also effectively be turned to the benefit of the individual and thecommunity. We must also remember that CFCs are still being produced and traded inlarge quantities across the world, that illegal trade may be undermining the phase-out in developed countries, that global warming may exacerbate ozone depletion andthat some of the most potent ozone depleting chemicals have yet to be properlyregulated or, as in the case of methyl bromide, yet to have an appropriate phase-outdate assigned for the majority of the worlds countries. So far, the Montreal Protocolhas been a fine example of an orderly transition from global deterioration to moresustainable technology and industries and has proved itself to be flexible andequitable. But the price for this legacy to remain intact is continued vigilance.