INDUSTRIALISTS are pressing the US government to ditch an important part of the Montreal Protocol, the global treaty on repairing the ozone layer. They want to be exempted from a ban on a pesticide called methyl bromide on the grounds that they have no acceptable alternative.
In 1994, governments that signed the 1987 Montreal Protocol agreed to extend the ban on CFCs, the main destroyer of the ozone layer, to cover another ozone-eating chemical, methyl bromide. The US currently uses about 27 million kilograms of methyl bromide each year, mostly to fumigate soils and kill insects in grain mills and silos. That鈥檚 about 40 per cent of total worldwide use.
The ban will come into force in rich nations at the start of 2005, with developing nations following suit in 2015. But after the US government鈥檚 decision not to sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, representatives of the country鈥檚 biggest grain mills are now encouraging the Bush administration to row back on the Montreal Protocol too. Last week, they said they want to carry on using the chemical after 2005.
Advertisement
The UN is willing to consider proposals from governments for exemptions to the methyl bromide ban where there is 鈥渁 lack of technically and economically feasible alternatives鈥�. The US Department of Agriculture is encouraging industry to apply quickly if they want one of these 鈥渃ritical use exemptions鈥�. Research from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), they say, makes 鈥渁pparent the realities and importance鈥� of these exemptions.
The North American Millers鈥� Association is calling for such an exemption, on the grounds that they have no appropriate replacement. And, controversially, they claimed last week that UN scientists believe a ban on the chemical wouldn鈥檛 help heal the ozone layer anyway.
When challenged by New Scientist, the association could not actually name a UN expert who holds that view. And Michael Graber, deputy executive secretary for the Montreal Protocol, based at the UN Environment Programme in Nairobi, told New Scientist he is not aware of any UN experts ever saying that.
A UNEP assessment of the ozone layer published in August directly contradicts the claim, saying an immediate ban on methyl bromide would reduce the damage to the ozone layer by 4 per cent. The effect would be almost instant and would, it says, be a major benefit during the next decade or so when the ozone layer is particularly vulnerable.
Bernard J. Rothwell III, chairman of the millers鈥� association, claims the ban would cost his industry $60 million a year. Most existing alternatives are expensive and no single technique works for everything. It takes 24 to 48 hours to fumigate a silo with methyl bromide, for example, versus a minimum of five days for an alternative called phosphine. That time difference costs money. 鈥淯nder UN rules, our agricultural competitors get to keep using methyl bromide, so banning it here hurts US agriculture,鈥� Rothwell says.
In his application for an exemption, Rothwell says that the US milling industry 鈥渘eeds additional time鈥� to develop cost-effective alternatives. The proposal will be vetted by the EPA. As New Scientist went to press, the agency would not comment on whether the millers鈥� case is likely to be accepted.