MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210666156 · doi:10.2307/3868340

The Treaty That Worked

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

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace exploration and regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal ProtocolOzone layerAtmosphere (unit)Ozone depletionEnvironmental scienceOzoneTreatyMeteorologyPolitical scienceLawGeography

Abstract

fetched live from 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

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.006
Scholarly communication0.0150.011
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0150.027
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1610.074

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Ecology and the EnvironmentSame topicSpace exploration and regulationFrench-language works237,207