Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement
[1] 2 3 Next »

Monday, January 01, 2007

Remembering the Montreal Protocol

As its 20th anniversary approaches, what can the landmark agreement on controlling CFCs teach those who want to control greenhouse gases?

By David Rotman

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon
Chemists Mario Molina (above left) and Sherwood Rowland, shown in 1976, calculated that CFCs used in aerosols, refrigeration, and air conditioning were destroying the ozone layer.
Credit: Associated Press

Until the early 1970s, it could be said that, like politics, all chemistry was local. That changed in dramatic fashion with a series of discoveries concerning the global effects of a family of chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs. These compounds had played a key role in the midcentury chemical revolution, allowing such innovations as safe refrigeration, cheap aerosol deodorants, and widespread air conditioning. First commercialized by ­DuPont in the early 1930s under the trade name Freon, CFCs appeared to be the perfect industrial chemical: nontoxic, nonflam­mable, and odorless. But in 1973, a pair of chemists at the University of California, Irvine--Sherwood Rowland and his postdoctoral fellow Mario Molina--began to explore the fate of the CFC gases that were being emitted into the atmosphere. Molina began the investigation of CFCs in October of that year, and by Christmas, the researchers had their answer: the CFCs were breaking down in the atmospheric ozone layer, which begins 15 kilometers above the earth, ends roughly 30 kilometers later, and absorbs much of the sun's deadly ultraviolet radiation.

The researchers found that the CFCs wafted up through the lower atmosphere intact, too stable to react with the swirling brew of chemicals around them. But once they reached the mid-­stratosphere, above most of the protective layer of ozone, the intense solar radiation broke the CFC molecules apart, releasing chlorine. Two simple reactions gave Rowland and Molina concern: Cl + O3 = ClO + O2, and ClO + O = Cl + O2. That is, chlorine (Cl) reacted with ozone (O3), generating chlorine monoxide (ClO), which in turn reacted with an oxygen atom to release another chlorine; the net result was that the chlorine was destroying ozone without depleting itself. "When we found the chain reactions" occurring in the ozone layer, remembered Rowland this fall, the fate of CFCs "suddenly went from a scientific curiosity to an environmental worry."

The next decade was a contentious one for ­Rowland and Molina, as many in the general public, the chemical industry, and even the scientific community expressed skepticism that a nontoxic gas sprayed out of a can (in the early 1970s, recalls Rowland, roughly two-thirds of CFCs were used as propellants in aerosol products, such as deodorants) could have a significant impact on the composition of the atmosphere--much less on the viability of life on earth. "If you came off the street, it seemed ludicrous that underarm deodorants might have an effect in a global way," Rowland says.

In 1978 the United States banned the use of CFCs in most spray-can applications. But in the early 1980s, models of the atmospheric chemistry involving CFCs became more and more complex, and various questions arose over the science.

In 1985, Rowland and Molina were vindicated. British scientists using ground-based instruments spotted a gaping "hole" in the ozone layer above the Antarctic. Subsequently, NASA reported that there was a thinning of the ozone layer over the populated areas of the Northern Hemisphere. These findings proved that Rowland and Molina's chemistry had been correct. They also provided startling evidence that industrial chemicals, emitted largely over the industrialized population centers of North America and Europe, could change the atmosphere on a global scale.

[1] 2 3 Next »
January/February 2007

Would you like to read more articles from the January/February 2007 issue?

This article is from the January/February 2007 Issue of Technology Review. To read other articles from this issue simply register for My.TechnologyReview.com. It's free.

Subscribe today and save up to 41% »

Comments

  • Montreal Protocol
    ellarm on 01/21/2007 at 5:06 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Romantic ideas about protocols underestimate the real cost of such an endeavor. Currently, due to legislation in Canada Asthma and COPD sufferers may have to go without therapy that makes their life bearable, because their inhaler had CFCs.
    With Global warming, brilliant scientist produce very poor suggestions. Bio-energy such as Ethanol, and bio-diesel often have generally greater energy costs than energy outputs. No one seems concerned about the conversion of agricultural land to energy production. As it is more farm fields are dotted with wind turbines and environmentally friendly houses than our population needs.
    I am surprised that so few are interested in the environmental impact of millions of lead or lithium batteries full of other toxic chemicals in electric cars.
    I am in favor of real energy breakthroughs, and the effort to replace petroleum products used for heat and transportation. Not to slow down the impact of a possible century long weather event. (Where I live, global warming comes up mostly as good news!) The real issue is keeping enough supply for materials and chemical production needed to keep building all of the high tech fixes to the worlds problems, that apparently are caused by "Big Oil".
    If you must recall the Montreal Protocol be complete in your review. Not all results were intended, beneficial, or directly related to the over-hyped hole in the Ozone.

    Regards,
    ellarm
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Unintended Effects?
    Layne on 03/01/2007 at 2:51 AM
    Posts:
    2
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
    http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2006-08-20-ozone-global-warming_x.htm

    "In fact, the volume of greenhouse gases created as a result of the Montreal agreement's phaseout of CFCs is two times to three times the amount of global-warming carbon dioxide the Kyoto agreement is supposed to eliminate."

    If Montreal is remembered in the Tech Review as an unqualified success, it's one more justification for the popular view that scientists have little or no ability to gauge the total/net effect of public policy change.

    The world is not a lab.
    Rate this comment: 12345
Advertisement

Current Issue

Technology Review January/February 2009
Lifeline for Renewable Power
Without a radically expanded and smarter electrical grid, wind and solar will remain niche power sources.
•  Subscribe
Save 41%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News

Magazine Services

Career Resources

MIT Technology Insider

Stories and breaking news from inside MIT about the latest research, innovations, and startups--in a convenient monthly e-newsletter. Subscribe today
Advertisement

Follow us on Twitter

Twitter

Get Technology Review updates via the web, cellphone, or Instant Messager – Follow techreview on Twitter!

Advertisement

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
Advertisement
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology