Talk:Montreal Protocol

Developing countries

I have been told that the protocol allows 'developing countries' to continue producing the banned CFCs. I'm wondering what countries are defined as 'developing' for this purpose. Any ideas?

-- Yes. "Developing countries" is used here as a technical short-hand for those countries the Parties refer to as "Article 5 countries." Article 5 countries have limited production of ozone-depleting substances, and are in some sense self-defined, but generally fall beneath certain thresholds for low income and development. The list of countries corresponds very closely to the general understanding.

Developing countries must also phase out the listed ozone-depleting substances, but they are on a longer time-frame for the phaseout.

Take a look at link UNEP's Article 5 Parties. Most countries on the list would be regarded as developing by most people, but the are some that many people would regard as developed. The IMF regards Singapore as an advanced economy and the World Bank classifies Antigua & Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Brunei Darussalam, Equatorial Guinea, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Trinidad and Tobago and the United Arab Emirates as high income countries. David Sturt (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Binding?

Is this a "binding" agreement? If so, what are the signatories required to do? What has been the U.S. response to the treaty? What has the EPA done to enforce the treaty? -- User:Ed Poor

-- Yes. The treaty is binding for Parties. Parties have a wide range of responsibilities, the most important of which is the phasing out of the production and use of certain ozone-depleting substances. The U.S. EPA has promulgated a wide range of regulations to enforce the treaty, largely pursuant to its authority under the U.S. Clean Air Act.

Movinh the reasons

I am planning to move all the reasons for the protocol to this page. I will leave behind on the relevant pages links to the following argument:

1. CFC emissions reduce statospheric ozone
2. Reduced ozoze increases surface UV
3. Increased surface UV increase skin cancer

I will put all the evidence which supports this hypothesis here, as well as evidence that fails to support the hypothesis. Readers can make up their own mind as to whether the facts support the hypothesis.

The relevant pages (CFC, Ozone depletion, Ultraviolet) are just fine and don't need to be changed. You can easily add the rationale behind the protocol to this article by pointing to the other articles. If somebody wants to know why UV causes cancer, they certainly would not (and should not!) look under "Montreal protocol". AxelBoldt

-- I agree. Links are more appropriate. This page would be most useful to readers if it stays focused on the Protocol itself.

CFC Ban

The article CFC ban is listed to be merged with this article. It seems to be all here except the following: Other bans have been made or proposed based on incomplete or disputed science (see precautionary principle). I'm not sure this material belongs here. I'm going to make CFC ban a redirect to here. If anyone thinks the above line (and its list of articles) belongs here they can merge it in (see the history of that article if interested). RJFJR 03:51, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

When?

When was the Protocol negotiated? How long did it take? Any interesting diplomacy to discuss? RJFJR 03:44, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Strawberry fields forever ozone depleting in america

This is the same america that did Agent Orange:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/11/28/pesticide.politics.ap/index.html

HCFCs

I will try to add something in the text about HCFCs, please correct me if I was to bold ;-) --Bbold 17:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Contributor 209.219.75.98 added a link to a 1998 document from the Competitive Enterprise Institute that is, IMO, biased, tendentious, and inaccurate on several points. Since the Montreal Protocol is ultimately a matter of politics rather than science, it is not inappropriate to have links to dissenting views, but I have added a couple of links to more mainstream views in order to provide some balance. (Note that even people like Bjorn Lomberg nowadays regard ozone depletion as a case where strong environmental regulations were appropriate.) --Rparson 00:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Scientific Background

Changed "recent" to "contemporary" in the first paragraph. "Recent" is always related to the present and so didn't seem to make sense.Schaddm 04:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Vienna Amendment

Pardon my forward comment, but I am unaware of a Vienna Amendment signed in 1995, only the Vienna Convention which was initiated in 1985. Is this correct? The basis for my comment is a research paper produced by the national environmental ministry in South Africa. Please provide clarity. Y Naiker 08:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

hay naku bakit niyo yan pinag uusapan  h8huhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh

mabuti la na ung mga HCFC HFC HC AT CFC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.96.37 (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday, Wednesday, the fifth,

Paul Ralph Ehrlich, George Shultz, Amy Goodman, < http://auroraforum.stanford.edu/events.php?id=47 >, discussed Montréal Protocol, Kyoto Protocol, global warming, Iraq,... et cetera, @ Stanford.

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 15:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

name

it's odd that this article gives no indication of why it is called the Montreal protocol. I'm assuming it was negotiated there? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I still see no evidence that CFC's can get "up" into the ozone layer to cause damage. These molecules are very dense. I've see a quick puff of R-12 snuff a smoldeering cigarette butt 10 feet away in about 30 seconds. This substanse creeps along the ground, even high heat cannot make it get higher in the atmosphere than hydrogen could. 68.231.189.202 (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

CFC Inhalers / Evohalers

Just wondering about the section referring to inhalers being critical use and still allowed; I heard that evohalers or something of the kind were being produced, and thus old style inhalers were being phased out. http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=195940 + http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=2222599 - I know personally I'm using a salbutumol evohaler atm, so just thought I'd look for quick sources and post a note, may correct if I have more time or a more informed response.~CortalYX^Talk? 23:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

UN Member State Ratification

The article says that 195/196 UN member states have ratified the Protocol. However, there are only 192 member states (according to United Nations). Should it say 191 of 192? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.208.186 (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Usage of "State"

State is the most correct word to use referring to the entities that have ratified the Montreal Protocol. However, it may be confusing to some US readers, who tend to use 'state' mostly for referring to parts of the USA. Is there a policy or consensus on the usage of 'state' vs. 'country' vs. 'nation'? EricWesBrown (Talk) 23:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

0.3 kg ?????? looks like a data error

"The main objective of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol is to assist developing country parties to the Montreal Protocol whose annual per capita consumption and production of ozone depleting substances (ODS) is less than 0.3 kg to comply with the control measures of the Protocol." -----------this is why references would be useful... appears to be a mistake that calls into question the whole sentence..........

Avram Primack (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Missing what was banned and when

Article has only the barest description of what got banned and what got used to replace it. Also, no description of the aspects of the treaty that make it equitable or why it needed to be equitable. Someone should add this material, as most of the value of the article could be in this material. What is there is very formalized and cryptic.

Avram Primack (talk) 05:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This reference does not exist at the listed address

"Source - http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/montreal/01.ht" Since the reference does not exist, the section has no verifiable source. It should have. Avram Primack (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)