Global Climate Change Digest: Main Page | Introduction | Archives | Calendar | Copy Policy | Abbreviations | Guide to Publishers

GCRIO Home ->arrow Library ->arrowArchives of the Global Climate Change Digest ->arrow June 1989 ->arrow MONTREAL PROTOCOL REVIEW Search

U.S. Global Change Research Information Office logo and link to home

Last Updated:
February 28, 2007

GCRIO Program Overview



Our extensive collection of documents.


Get Acrobat Reader

Privacy Policy

Global Climate Change DigestArchives of the
Global Climate Change Digest

A Guide to Information on Greenhouse Gases and Ozone Depletion
Published July 1988 through June 1999



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).

  • Guide to Publishers
  • Index of Abbreviations

  • Hosted by U.S. Global Change Research Information Office. Copyright by Center for Environmental Information, Inc. For more information contact U.S. Global Change Research Information Office, Suite 250, 1717 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20006. Tel: +1 202 223 6262. Fax: +1 202 223 3065. Email: Web: Webmaster:
    U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Intranet Logo and link to Home