The common factor between ODSs and GHGs (and other types of pollution) 
is that their reduction both require capital, know-how and experience 
passed from developed to developing nations for the aims to be achieved. 
Under the Montreal Protocol, over $2.1 billion has been granted to 143 
developing countries to help them phase out ODSs. This has allowed 
236,000 OD tonnes from consumption and 157,000 OD tonnes from 
manufacture to be saved. Each of the 5520 projects has also received 
technical, as well as financial aid.

Strangely enough, the Montreal Protocol has, to date, had a greater 
beneficial change to greenhouse gas emissions than the Kyoto Protocol 
(CFCs are also strong GHGs), to an estimated tune of about 11.7 Gt CO2 
equivalent/year. Comparatively little technical or financial aid has 
been offered to developing countries, which are actively increasing 
their CO2 emissions, rather than decreasing.

As you rightly point out, reducing GHG emissions is largely a political 
matter. Two important developed countries have, up until recently, 
refused to acknowledge that there is a problem and have said that, if 
indeed there is one, it is the developing nations that are major 
contributors, especially China and India. But those two countries have 
done bugger-all to help China and India face the problem by transferring 
technology (perhaps because they have none, themselves). OTOH, Japan and 
the EU have been struggling to do so -- and falling behind on their own 
targets. IMO, it requires another multilateral funding to aid the 
technological transfer, maybe filled from fines imposed on developed 
countries that fall behind on preset targets.

Another lesson we can learn from Montreal is to ban imports of products 
involving GHG emissions (including transport) from countries which are 
not signatory to the post-Kyoto treaty or have not ratified it. This was 
a very effective form of blackmail and is one reason why 191 out of 193 
UN member-nations have signed up to Montreal. (I think the Holy See is 
one of the non-signatories but has observer status; to be cynical, they 
should observe Kyoto, as a lot of hot air comes from the Vatican!!!)

I agree that Montreal and Kyoto are an ocean apart, but that does not 
mean that we cannot learn lessons, one from the other.

Brian

Joe Fjelstad wrote:
>  
>  
> Thanks for taking time to share your review, Brian. The website seems to be  
> loaded with information. It is a daunting task to try and keep informed on  
> all that is happening. I sense that information overload can create an  
> atmosphere of both confusion and hopelessness. 
>  
> The "12 lessons" chapter sounds interesting/challenging. The  differences 
> between controlling CFCs and CO2 seem rather large to me. Also, in  my 
> experience, courage of the sort that is being called for, is not something  that seems 
> to be in great abundance among the elected few that rule the various  roosts 
> around the globe.    
>  
> That aside, thanks again for bringing to the forum's attention. It is  
> appreciated   
>  
> Best regards, 
> Joe 
> 
>  
>  
> In a message dated 11/1/2007 2:58:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time,  
> [log in to unmask] writes:
> 
> I've  submitted the following review to 3 journals in our industry:
> 
> Book  review
> 
> Title: Technology Transfer for the Ozone Layer â?? Lessons for  Climate Change
> Authors/editors: Stephen O. Andersen, K. Madhava Sarma and  Kristen N. 
> Taddonio
> Publishers: Earthscan, London,  www.earthscan.co.uk
> ISBN: 978-1-84407-473-0
> Pages: 418 + xxvii; chapters  14 + 7 appendices; figures 23 ; tables 15 ; 
> hardback.
> 
> As far as I  am aware, this book is unique. On the front cover, there is 
> a quotation  from Nobel Prize laureate, Mario Molina, â??This book is the 
> story of why we  can all be optimistic about the future if we are willing 
> to be brave and  dedicated world citizens." Professor Molina discovered 
> the relationship  between CFCs and the ozone layer.  In fact, the 
> subtitle says it all;  it recounts how the experience gained in handling 
> ozone-depletion can be  applied to mitigating the effects of climate change.
> 
> How does this  work? The Montreal Protocol has undoubtedly been the most 
> successful of  all international measures concerning the environment. The 
> achievement has  been won through the five stages of technology transfer, 
> assessment,  agreement, implementation, evaluation and adjustment, and 
> replication. The  adoption of clean technology involved the attitude to 
> environmental and  economic risks, the social pressures of community, 
> market and regulations,  and behavioural control of technological and 
> organisational capabilities.  Similar thinking can be applied to other 
> problems, notably climate  change.
> 
> The first five chapters describe the mechanisms of technology  transfer, 
> the background of ozone and climate agreements and how the  technology 
> was changed in developed countries. From chapter 6 onwards,  there is a 
> detailed account of how the technology was transferred in each  of the 
> major sectors using ozone-depleting substances: foams,  refrigeration, 
> air-conditioning, aerosol products, fire protection,  solvents, and pest 
> control. Chapter 12 describes the barriers to  technology transfer faced 
> by developing countries and this is followed by  a chapter on awareness 
> and capacity building. All these chapters are  illustrated by detailed 
> case studies of practical examples from the  Montreal Protocol mechanisms.
> 
> Chapter 14 is the all-important one  giving 12 lessons on how the 
> information gained in the phase-out of  ozone-depleting substances may be 
> applied to reducing the emissions of  greenhouse gases within the 
> framework of the Kyoto Protocol and other  legislation. The first lesson 
> is entitled â??Act now", and how important  this is! Of course, this is 
> what Professor Molina implies by being willing  to be brave and dedicated 
> world citizens. We know that many nations are  falling behind in their 
> commitments to the Kyoto Protocol and it will  require courage for these 
> and other countries to make the dent that is  necessary in the quantities 
> of greenhouse gases that are emitted.
> 
> A  number of appendices provide additional background information 
> including  some project completion reports.
> 
> Of course, this Journal is associated  with the electronics industry; a 
> large part of chapter 10, on the  technology transfer to phase out ODSs 
> in solvents, describes various  aspects of our role in this. There are 
> many pages recounting the  alternatives to ozone-depleting solvents in 
> the electronics industry (plus  several more for other industries) and 
> there are more pages describing the  technology choices made in 
> developing countries with some examples, both  successful and less so. 
> Some emphasis is made on the difficulties that  small and medium 
> enterprises encountered in both developed and developing  countries. 
> Overall, the electronics industry solvents sector provides a  good 
> picture leading to the lessons that can be learnt in technology  transfer 
> to combat the problems that will be encountered in reducing  emissions of 
> greenhouse gases, without touching on energy consumption by  our products.
> 
> Is this book worth the read? Personally, I would reply to  this question 
> with an unqualified yes, simply because it gives a fresh  look at the 
> problems involved in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, by  transferring 
> technology from developed to developing countries. It is well  written 
> and easy to read. The authors and other contributors are all  well-known 
> experts in their respective fields, making the work very  authoritative.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
>