Ex
GUEST EDITORIAL
Sunscreen In September 19J37,31 nations will meet in Montreal to sign an agreement to freeze, and then to reduce, the rate of production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)gases that have been linked both to the destruction of stratospheric ozone and to future changes in climate. Such an international environmental agreement would be an historic step toward controlling a major threat to the atmosphere, the global climate, and human health. Managing threats to the global environment poses tremendous challenges because of the limited success of past international environmental agreements and inequities in the standards of living among nations. The mono, sic utere TUO uf alienwn m n he& (“use your property so as not to injure your neighbors”)-often considered to be a guiding principle of international law-has had little practical influence on states’ actions. Even the 1972 United Nations Stockholm Conference Declaration4at each nation has the “responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other states or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction”-is rarely and imperfectly translated into international agreements. In the case of controlling CFCs, however, the situation is ripe for an agreement. The scientificevidence of the atmospheric effects of CFCs is compelling, economic alternatives and substitutes are available for the most damaging of these gases, and the environmental and societal costs incurred by the destruction of ozone and from climatic changes could be overwhelming. Yet ideological forces in the U.S. government are trying to prevent the United States from signing the final protocol despite strong support from certain sectors of the government, the scientific community, environmental groups, and even segments of the chemical industry. Last-minute opposition was signaled by Secretary of the Interior Donald Hodel and the president’s science advisor, William R. Graham, Jr., who are concerned that such an accord would violate President Reagan’s philosophy of minimal government regulation. This opposition has arisen despite previous administration agreement on the strong negotiating position of the United States during the talks.
Hodel’s suggestion that wearing hats, sunglasses, and sunscreen could mitigate the effects of increased ultraviolet radiation is too ludicrous to deserve much comment. To their credit, EPA and the Department of State-which are responsible for the environmental negotiations in Geneva and Vienna-appear to be strongly resisting any change in the agreement, which would be a landmark in international cooperation on global environmental problems. More is at stake here than just the CFC agreement. The reputation of the United States as a reliable negotiating partner-in arms control, environmental management, or other area.-has been seriously tarnished because of a series of agreements initially approved by the United States and then violated or abandoned. If the United States-a major producer of CFCs-were to reverse its previously strong support of the CFC protccot and back out at this point, the possibility of an effective agreement would be greatly reduced and the United States’ reputation for reliability would suffer further embarrassment. In the long term, the world faces a series of environmental threats of a magnitude never before experienced, including the possibility of massive global climatic changes. The origins and consequences of these threats are international, and there is little hope that the worst impacts can be prevented unless international environmental mechanisms are developed for addressing them. An agreement to limit or reduce emissions of CFCs would be a giant step in the right direction.
Peter H. Gleick is a MarArthur Foundntion Fellow in International Security and a visiting research scholar at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a member of the Climate and ffiterpanel of the American Associationfor the Advoncement of Science and is active in arsessing the diverse environmental impacts of global climatic changes. Previously he was deputy arsisranr for energy and environment to Edmund C. Brown, Jx , governor of California.
Envlron. Sci. Technol.. MI.21. No. 8. 1987 715
