MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4210666156 · doi:10.2307/3868340

The Treaty That Worked

2004· review· en· W4210666156 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Douglass F. Rohrman

Notice bibliographique

RevueFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment · 2004
Typereview
Langueen
DomainePhysics and Astronomy
ThématiqueSpace exploration and regulation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMontreal ProtocolOzone layerAtmosphere (unit)Ozone depletionEnvironmental scienceOzoneTreatyMeteorologyPolitical scienceLawGeography

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

One week this summer, the air conditioners in both my car and my home needed recharging. This cost more than it did 20 years ago, thanks to an international treaty that actually seems to have worked. In 1987, President Reagan signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, saying “In this historic agreement, the international community undertakes cooperative measures to protect a vital global resource”. The Montreal Protocol worked the way environmental laws are meant to, alleviating a dangerous issue while driving innovation and new technology. Thirty years ago, atmospheric scientists, led by the British Antarctic Survey, began to express alarm that the Earth's ozone layer was being destroyed by chloroflourocarbons (CFCs) released into the atmosphere. The ozone layer protects life on this planet by absorbing some of the UV rays from the sun. CFCs migrate to the upper atmosphere where UV rays cause them to release chlorine, which then repeatedly breaks down ozone molecules. Depletion of stratospheric ozone emerged as a practical concern in the 1960s and 70s. In the mid 1970s, ozone depletion due to CFCs in aerosol spray cans became a major political issue and, in 1978, the US banned the nonessential use of CFCs as aerosol propellants. In the mid 1980s, scientists found a hole in the ozone layer, confirming their suspicions that stratospheric ozone was being depleted. As of January 1, 1996, the manufacture of CFCs was completely eliminated in the US, except for certain limited uses. The US EPA has issued regulations under the Clean Air Act to implement the Montreal Protocol and phase out the production of several ozone-depleting substances, based on allocated caps on production and importation. The EPA uses a classification system for identifying chemicals for regulatory controls, dividing the substances covered by the Montreal Protocol into CFCs and HCFCs (hydrochlorofluorocarbons). The law also allows trading of allowable levels of production and importation among businesses, providing some flexibility. Strict records of acquisition and use are part of a vigilant compliance monitoring program at the EPA. Enforcement against those importing and selling unlawful CFCs has been vigorous. Congress has also imposed excise taxes on the sale of offending substances. Freon has been the special target of EPA and the Internal Revenue Service. Last May, a man was convicted in a Florida federal court of smuggling enormous quantities of freon, and sentenced to 17 years in prison and a $20 million fine, plus a $6.6 million fine for evasion of Federal excise taxes on the sale of ozone-depleting refrigerants to customers in South Florida. Last year, a large baking company paid a $5.25 million civil penalty for failure to fix major refrigerant leaks at its facilities. While the Montreal Protocol mandated an end to the production and consumption of the major CFCs, halons, hydrobromofluorocarbons, and methyl bromide by 1996, substantial emissions of some of these substances continue in the US. Implementation of the Protocol is dependent on national regulation. The EPA has focused on eliminating production of Class I (CFCs) ozone-depleting substances by the treaty's phase-out dates. One loophole is the use of previously produced stocks of these substances. Also, certain uses were not banned, and releases to the atmosphere continue to this day. Facilities reporting releases of Class I substances may have been legally using previously produced stocks or operating under essential-use exemptions – or operating illegally. Despite these problems, the CFC production phase-out has been an important turning point in the recovery of the ozone layer. Currently, the EPA estimates that the ozone layer is depleted by 3% in the Northern Hemisphere middle latitudes and by 6% at Southern Hemisphere middle latitudes. If no action had been taken to limit CFCs, ozone depletion in these areas would probably have reached 20% or more. What the regulated community found, after initial, panicked cries, was that CFCs weren't so essential after all. Two major industries made needed innovations. Research was prompted into alternative methods for cleaning electronic assemblies and precision parts. It was found that the need for CFCs during cleaning could be drastically reduced or even eliminated, without compromising quality or raising costs inordinately. The CFC phase-out also stimulated the development of new refrigerants and a new generation of energy-efficient air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment. A couple of months ago, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that “Recent findings indicate that the rate of ozone layer depletion in the stratosphere is declining, and we are now seeing the first signs of the recovery of the ozone layer”. We cynics owe three cheers for the Treaty that worked…or at least, is working. Sometimes it takes something really scary to get our attention. Still, don't get over-confident, or feel too sorry for that guy in jail; I just checked my internet bookmark on the ozone hole – it still looks big to me. Douglass F Rohrman

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,161
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,539

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,018
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0130,006
Communication savante0,0150,011
Science ouverte0,0020,008
Intégrité de la recherche0,0150,027
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,1610,074

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,227
Écart entre enseignants0,216 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2004
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueFrontiers in Ecology and the EnvironmentMême sujetSpace exploration and regulationTravaux en français237 207