Bush and a war zone called ozone

Irrespective of many international conventions on the environment the narrow vision approach taken by countries like the United States is damaging environmental security. In this backdrop, European countries and a few developing countries took a tough stand against the US request in Nairobi.

The Montreal Protocol is the international treaty on ozone-destroying chemicals that came into existence in 1989. Under this protocol, developed nations are required to cut their production of methyl bromide by 70 per cent in 2003 and eliminate it by 2005.

The US has so far complied by cutting its production to 30 per cent of 1991 levels. In Nairobi, the American delegation requested an exemption from the requirement that it phase out use of methyl bromide — a pesticide used to control insects, worms and weeds — by 2005.

The US had asked for permission to increase production of the chemical, against the ‘‘ethics’’ of the treaty. The reason: protecting the interests of small family farms in the US. They are yet to find viable alternatives to methyl bromide.

Interestingly, only a month ago US researchers found the rate at which the ozone layer was being destroyed had markedly slowed down. Scientists have produced the first conclusive evidence indicating the ozone layer is being restored to original condition. However, it is likely to take a minimum 50 years for complete restoration.

It is believed that this recovery has been possible due to the international ban on damaging chemicals.

The ozone layer has been getting depleted due to the release of manmade chemicals containing chlorine, such as CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons), and compounds containing bromine. This ozone layer, which filters sunlight and prevents the adverse effects of ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, has a connection with the greenhouse effect. It contributes largely towards preserving life on the planet.

Understanding the importance of ozone depletion and of the Montreal Protocol towards preserving the ozone layer, member countries rightly rejected the US request.

The George W. Bush government’s general attitude to environmental security too must have shaped the negative opinion. In 2001, President Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol on tackling climate change. This too would have committed the US to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Very recently the US Senate rejected the Global Warming Bill demanding more efforts to curb carbon dioxide emissions from industrial power plants.

Environmental groups are concerned if the US does not abide by the Montreal Protocol, poorer countries may also decide to ignore it. But the US seems more worried about the health of its economy and short-term political gains.

(The author is a defence analyst)