nswers. Indeed, models in the early eighties suggested that CFCs would cause less severe ozone depletion than Molina and Rowland had initially hypothesized. Fortunately, the scientific collaboration initiated years earlier began to bear fruit. Two months after the Vienna agreement was reached, a scientific bombshell provided a much-needed jolt to protocol negotiations just then getting under way. The findings took the world by surprise: no such precipitous decline had been predicted by any atmosphere models. Ten years after the historic Montreal signing ceremony, the response to the protocol around the world has been substantial indeed. The protocol granted countries flexibility in designing programs to meet the Montreal targets, and many different approaches have been tried. Despite these successes, worrisome stumbling blocks in the protocol’s implementation have also emerged. For one thing, the economic and political chaos in the former Soviet union and in some parts of Eastern Europe has slowed progress in eliminating CFCs. Consumption of ODSs is reportedly already falling in a number of developing countries such as Brazil and Columbia.At a time when global environmental trends appear so daunting, and progress toward reversing them seems so slow, it is reassuring to remember that in responding to the threat of ozone depletion, the international community has largely proved itself up to the task. In a coincidence of timing, 1997 is not only the tenth anniversary of the Montreal Protocol it is also the year in which diplomats hope to complete negotiations on a Kyoto Protocol to the climate change convention. For one, the Montreal Protocol pioneered a new relationship between scientists and policymakers.Meanwhile, once at the negotiating table, industry has decided to stay. In the Climate change negotiations, a number of U.S. based industries such as coal and oil were concerned they would suffer from the changes. Fortun...
