 |
|
|
'We don't need scientific certainty in order to take action' |
|
By Diego Cevallos*
The consequences of failing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on curbing climate change could be very serious, Mario Molina, Nobel laureate in chemistry, says in a dialogue with Tierramérica.
MEXICO CITY - Scientific certainty is not needed to justify compliance with the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, says Mexican scientist Mario Molina, winner of the 1995 Nobel Prize for Chemistry, criticizing the reasons the United States and Russia cite for not ratifying the treaty.
Molino, one of the discoverers of the toxic effects of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) on the atmospheric ozone layer, said the implementation of the Protocol is essential, as was the Montreal Protocol (on reducing ozone-depleting substances) in its time.
But he warns that the international community needs to establish integral, broad-based accords because environmental problems are interrelated, as is the case of climate change and the thinning of the ozone layer.
- Unlike the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which you and other scientists contributed to through your discoveries, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol has not entered into force, in large part due to the refusal of the United States and Russia to ratify it. What lies ahead for the climate change agreement?
- The Kyoto problem is more complicated because it is related to the use of energy, and it is more difficult to replace fossil fuels (the combustion of which contributes to global warming) than it was to find a substitute for ozone-destroying CFCs. Furthermore, the issue is complicated by the fact that there is less certainly about the climate change phenomenon. But to use that argument to delay ratification of Kyoto is wrong. We don't need scientific certainty in order to take action. Even if there is a one in 10 chance that nothing serious would happen if we didn't implement the protocol, we must act, because we have only one planet, and the consequences of not taking action could be very serious.
- Is the Kyoto Protocol or other climate change agreement necessary to help restore the ozone layer?
- We now have scientific proof that if the Kyoto Protocol is not enacted it will delay the recovery of the ozone layer. The relationship between climate change and the ozone layer exists, although it is somewhat uncertain, because the behavior of the atmosphere is very complex, and does not depend only on temperatures, but also on the amount of water vapor and a series of other subtle factors. It is difficult to establish exactly how these problems are connected, but we do know that they are.
- So you would support a complementary approach to the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols?
- Yes, the idea would be to have international agreements that tackle the problems together, because now in practice they are handled separately, and success is therefore more difficult. Climate change has many causes, and the most notorious is carbon dioxide, which is produced by the combustion of fossil fuels, but also by the burning of biomass. However, there are other connections. For example, the CFCs, in addition to destroying ozone, are greenhouse gases (which retain atmospheric heat and lead to global warming), and suspended particulates in the atmosphere influence the behavior of clouds and climate. It is clear that humanity is altering the environment in an extreme way.
- Recent studies show that the depletion of the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere is slowing, but that the same is not occurring in the lower atmosphere, where 80 percent of ozone is located. What do these results mean?
- Progress in regards to ozone has been very clear. Now we can measure that in the upper atmosphere there is less accumulation of compounds harmful to the ozone layer. The problem is that these compounds persist for many decades, and what we see today, especially in the lower atmosphere are effects of gases emitted years ago. We will not see the effects of the Montreal Protocol until around the middle of this century, because all of the harmful chemicals we produced in the past century are going to remain for many decades.
- The attitude of Washington and U.S. industries does not seem to be geared towards compliance with international treaties on the environment, or developing alternative energies. Do you think that will change?
- I am not optimistic. It is essential that the industrialized countries make much greater investments today in developing new technologies. They should implement a series of measures aimed at using fossil fuels with greater efficiency and the introduction of technologies that are close at hand. Furthermore, they know that they should share these advances with developing countries that don't have the resources for research, and which for now are copying the development of the rich countries.
* Diego Cevallos is an IPS correspondent.
|
