Last Updated:
February 28, 2007

GCRIO Program Overview

Library 
Our extensive collection of documents.

Privacy Policy

Archives of the
Global Climate Change Digest
A Guide to Information on Greenhouse Gases and Ozone Depletion
Published July 1988 through June 1999

FROM VOLUME 2, NUMBER 6, JUNE 1989

NEWS...
MONTREAL PROTOCOL REVIEW

Item #d89jun1

The representatives of about 80 nations met in Helsinki, Finland in early May 1989 and signed a declaration of intent to strengthen the current terms of the Montreal Protocol, agreeing to ban entirely (rather than cut to 50 percent) production of five CFCs and three halon gases. The agreement is not binding, and would only take effect if suitable substitutes are found. Scientists and environmental representatives presented evidence that at least two additional compounds, carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform, must also be restricted. This move is now backed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which recently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on these two chemicals (Federal Register, vol. 54, p. 15228, Apr. 17, 1989; or Environ. Rptr., pp. 2677-79, Apr. 21). See the following articles and the report section in this issue.

"Nations Back Tougher CFC Measures but Decline Setting up Climate Fund," Intl. Environ. Rptr., pp. 225-226, May 1989. A controversial international funding plan for phasing out chemicals in developing countries was rejected.

"International Environmental Community Calls for Strengthened Montreal Protocol," ibid., p. 228. Seventy-four environmental groups released a statement calling for: accelerated elimination of ozone-depleting chemicals by year 2000, and provisions for bringing new CFCs under the Protocol; accelerated compliance by developing nations, aided by technical and financial assistance from developed nations financed in part by fees from windfall profits of CFC manufacturers.

"Substitute CFCs Will Stoke Global Warming," D. MacKenzie, New Scientist, pp. 25-26, May 13, 1989. Discusses concern voiced at Helsinki over substitutes, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and financial disadvantages posed for developing countries such as China.

"U.S. Seeks Tighter Rules on Ozone Protection," P. Zurer, Chem. Eng. News, pp. 8-9, May 1, 1989. About EPA's proposed regulation of carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform.

"CFC Prices Soar as Capacity Is Cut," D. Hunter, Chem. Week, pp. 14-15, Apr. 26, 1989.

"Is EPA Dragging Its Feet on CFCs?" C.B. MacKerron, ibid., p. 13. Concerns a recent General Accounting Office study (see REPORTS/GENERAL AND POLICY, this Global Climate Change Digest issue--June 1989).