The Road to a Climate Change Agreement Runs Through Montreal

by Richard J. Smith

August 2010

The 1987 Montreal Protocol to address ozone layer depletion was a pivotal agreement in the history of global environmental negotiations. It established a process that remains an important precedent for dealing with global environmental problems, including global warming. What made the negotiation of that agreement such an iconic event, and what useful lessons does it hold for climate change negotiators?

Richard Smith cites a number offactors that were critical to the success of the Montreal Protocol. For example: (1) the United States played a leadership role from the beginning, including banning the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in most aerosols and appointing a chief negotiator with responsibility for developing the U.S. position well before the negotiations began; (2) from the outset all countries that were parties to the agreement, both developed and developing countries, made specific commitments to reduce the production and use of ozone-depleting substances; and (3) the protocol set up a procedure for regularly reviewing and revising its provisions at follow-up meetings, thus accommodating new information rapidly and efficiently. A central lesson that climate change negotiators should learn from the Montreal Protocol is that it set a process in motion, which ultimately led to all parties to the agreement making the necessary commitments to arrest and eventually reverse the deterioration of the stratospheric ozone layer.

Clearly, climate change negotiators face a more complex and far-reaching challenge today. The phaseout of ozone-depleting chemicals and related infrastructure involved major industries such as refrigeration, electronics, fire fighting, and aerosols and cost billions of dollars. But reducing greenhouse gas emissions will require fundamentally rethinking the present carbon-based societies and taking steps that will affect virtually every aspect of economic activity. Despite this significant difference in the impact on the economic structure of the countries concerned, however, there are similarities between the two challenges, and climate change negotiators would be well advised to reflect on the Montreal Protocol and the lessons that can be learned from it.

View full document [pdf]


Policy Brief 15-21: World on the Move: The Changing Global Income Distribution and Its Implications for Consumption Patterns and Public Policies November 2015

Op-ed: To Curb Carbon Emissions, Focus on New Consumers on the Move November 27, 2015

Policy Brief 13-10: Four Changes to Trade Rules to Facilitate Climate Change Action April 2013

Book: NAFTA and Climate Change September 2011

Book: Carbon Abatement Costs and Climate Change Finance July 2011

Policy Brief 11-10: America’s Energy Security Options June 2011

Speech: Valuation of Damages from Climate Change January 2011

Policy Brief 10-12: Assessing the American Power Act: The Economic, Employment, Energy Security, and Environmental Impact of Senator Kerry and Senator Lieberman’s Discussion Draft May 2010

Policy Brief 10-5: Copenhagen, the Accord, and the Way Forward March 2010

Policy Brief 10-4: After the Flop in Copenhagen March 2010

Book: Global Warming and the World Trading System March 2009

Op-ed: Cooling the Planet Without Chilling Trade November 13, 2009

Policy Brief 09-17: The Economics of Energy Efficiency in Buildings August 2009

Policy Brief 09-3: A Green Recovery? Assessing US Economic Stimulus and the Prospects for International Coordination February 10, 2009

Book: Leveling the Carbon Playing Field: International Competition and US Climate Policy Design May 2008

Book: Global Warming and Agriculture: Impact Estimates by Country July 2007

© 2016 Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics. 1750 Massachusetts Avenue, NW.
Washington, DC 20036. Tel: 202-328-9000 Fax: 202-659-3225 / 202-328-5432
Site development and hosting by Digital Division