The Unfinished Legacy of the Montreal Protocol
Exploring Brian J. Gareau's analysis of how the world's most successful environmental agreement transformed from precautionary protection to accommodating corporate interests
Imagine a world where applying sunscreen becomes a life-or-death necessity for a simple walk outside, where childhood playtime requires protective suits to guard against dangerous ultraviolet radiation, and where certain agricultural crops can no longer be grown outdoors. This dystopian reality was precisely what scientists and policymakers sought to prevent when they crafted the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer in 1987—a treaty so effective that former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called it "perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date"1 .
For decades, the Montreal Protocol has been celebrated as a triumph of international cooperation, successfully phasing out ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) and putting the Earth's protective ozone layer on the path to recovery. But beneath this success story lies a more complex narrative—one of evolving priorities, economic pressures, and challenging compromises. In his groundbreaking 2013 work, From Precaution to Profit: Contemporary Challenges to Environmental Protection in the Montreal Protocol, environmental sociologist Brian J. Gareau exposes how this landmark agreement gradually transformed from a model of precautionary environmental protection to a system increasingly accommodating corporate and economic interests.
This article explores Gareau's compelling analysis of how the Montreal Protocol faced internal challenges that nearly undermined its environmental mission, focusing on the critical case of methyl bromide—a toxic pesticide that became the center of a major controversy testing the treaty's integrity.
Countries Ratified
ODS Phase-Out
Potential Warming Avoided
The Montreal Protocol emerged from one of the most urgent environmental crises ever identified. In 1974, chemists Mario Molina and F. Sherwood Rowland published a landmark study warning that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)—then-common chemicals used in refrigeration, aerosols, and other applications—could destroy the stratospheric ozone layer that protects Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation5 . Their "early warning" proved prescient when scientists discovered an alarming "ozone hole" over Antarctica in 19855 .
The international response was remarkably swift. By 1987, nations had negotiated the Montreal Protocol, establishing a legally binding framework to phase out ODSs. The treaty's effectiveness stems from its "start and strengthen" approach—it initially controlled just two classes of chemicals but has been strengthened through subsequent amendments and adjustments5 . The results have been dramatic: since taking effect in 1989, the protocol has achieved near-universal ratification (by all 198 UN members) and phased out more than 99% of ODSs1 5 .
| Substance | Primary Uses | Ozone Depletion Potential* | Phase-out Deadline (Developed Countries) |
|---|---|---|---|
| CFCs | Aerosols, refrigeration, foam blowing | 0.6-1.0 | 1996 |
| Halons | Fire extinguishers | High (varies by type) | 1994 |
| Carbon Tetrachloride | Solvent, chemical production | 1.1 | 1996 |
| Methyl Bromide | Pesticide, fumigant | 0.6 | 2005 |
| HCFCs | Transitional replacement for CFCs | 0.01-0.5 | 2030 |
*Relative to CFC-11, set at 1.01
The protocol's success extends beyond ozone protection. Because many ODSs are also potent greenhouse gases, the treaty has incidentally delivered massive climate benefits. One seminal study calculated that without the Montreal Protocol, the climate forcing from ODSs would have reached 0.8-1.6 W/m² by 2010—comparable to the entire Kyoto Protocol's reduction target. This dual benefit led to the 2016 Kigali Amendment, which extended the protocol to cover hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)—ozone-safe but powerful greenhouse gases that had replaced CFCs1 5 .
Molina and Rowland publish study warning about CFCs destroying ozone layer
Ozone hole discovered over Antarctica
Montreal Protocol signed by 46 countries
Protocol enters into force
CFCs phased out in developed countries
Kigali Amendment adopted to phase down HFCs
Gareau's analysis reveals how the Montreal Protocol's implementation gradually shifted from its initial precautionary approach toward what he terms a "neoliberal environmentalism" model. In the early years, the protocol operated under the "Stockholm principles" established at the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment, emphasizing precautionary action, scientific guidance, and putting global health ahead of narrow national interests3 . This approach successfully guided the phase-out of CFCs, with industries developing alternatives and countries complying with timetables.
However, Gareau identifies a significant turning point in the 2000s, when the United States—previously a strong protocol advocate—began challenging scientific consensus and demanding exceptions for economically significant chemicals. This shift reflected a broader trend in global environmental governance where economic considerations began outweighing ecological imperatives, even in agreements with proven success records3 .
| Element | Precautionary Phase (1980s-1990s) | Profit-Oriented Phase (2000s onward) |
|---|---|---|
| Guiding Principle | Preventive action despite uncertainty | Cost-benefit analysis |
| Science's Role | Primary driver of policy | Contested, questioned when inconvenient |
| Industry Position | Regulated to develop alternatives | Granted exemptions to protect profits |
| Key Example | CFC phase-out | Methyl bromide exemptions |
| US Stance | Strong protocol advocate | Challenging scientific panels |
The heart of Gareau's critique focuses on how powerful nations, particularly the United States, began manipulating scientific processes and consensus-building mechanisms to secure exemptions that protected domestic industries. Where the protocol initially relied on independent scientific assessment to guide policy, Gareau documents how these scientific processes became politicized when they conflicted with economic interests3 .
"The shift from precaution to profit represents a fundamental transformation in how environmental protection is conceptualized and implemented within international agreements."
Gareau uses the case of methyl bromide as a revealing "natural experiment" that exposed the changing dynamics within the Montreal Protocol. Methyl bromide is an exceptionally toxic pesticide—classified alongside arsenic and DDT—that damages the nervous system, causes birth defects, and depletes stratospheric ozone3 . Despite its known dangers and the availability of alternatives, the United States fought aggressively to exempt the chemical from phase-out requirements.
The methyl bromide controversy came to a head in 2003, when the U.S. delegation warned that its continued participation in the protocol might be compromised if not allowed to continue using methyl bromide for strawberry production and other agricultural uses beyond the 2005 phase-out deadline3 . This threat represented an unprecedented challenge to the treaty's integrity—the world's foremost superpower threatening to abandon what was widely considered the most successful environmental agreement in history over a single chemical used primarily by one industry.
Gareau's research meticulously documents how the U.S. delegation claimed to have "put aside politics" and "backroom deals" while simultaneously working to shape scientific knowledge to its advantage. The U.S. argued that alternatives to methyl bromide for strawberry production were economically impractical, despite contrary assessments from the protocol's own scientific experts and technology assessment panels3 . This stance persisted despite evidence that methyl bromide drift near schools and daycare centers in California exceeded safety standards, potentially exposing children to significant health risks3 .
Position: Maintain critical use exemptions
Primary Concern: Economic impact on strawberry industry
Position: Phase out methyl bromide as scheduled
Primary Concern: Ozone depletion and health effects
Position: Immediate phase-out with existing alternatives
Primary Concern: Environmental and public health protection
Position: Maintain methyl bromide use
Primary Concern: Short-term profitability and pest control
Position: Uphold phase-out schedule
Primary Concern: Treaty integrity and precedent
The methyl bromide case exemplifies what Gareau identifies as a "neoliberal turn" in ozone governance, where the initial precautionary principles gave way to market-based reasoning and the protection of economic interests—even for uses that many experts considered non-essential3 .
Gareau's methodological approach in From Precaution to Profit offers a template for studying complex international environmental agreements. His "research toolkit" combines multiple approaches to provide a comprehensive analysis of the Montreal Protocol's evolution.
Examining meeting records, national submissions, and exemption requests to trace policy positions and arguments3 .
Attending Montreal Protocol meetings as an ethnographer to witness negotiations firsthand3 .
Conducting interviews with delegates, scientists, industry representatives, and environmental advocates3 .
Situating the protocol's evolution within broader shifts in global environmental governance3 .
This multi-method approach allows Gareau to reveal how power operates in seemingly technical, science-based negotiations—demonstrating how economic interests can reshape environmental agreements from within, even those with strong track records of success.
The story of the Montreal Protocol is simultaneously inspiring and cautionary. On one hand, it demonstrates humanity's capacity to collectively address grave environmental threats through science, cooperation, and determined policy action. The ongoing recovery of the ozone layer stands as powerful testimony to what international environmental governance can achieve1 .
Yet Gareau's analysis reveals how even this historic success faces ongoing challenges from economic interests and political pressures. The methyl bromide controversy illustrates that no environmental agreement is immune to backsliding or capture by special interests. This nuanced understanding is particularly crucial as the Montreal Protocol takes on renewed importance through the Kigali Amendment's focus on climate-warming HFCs1 5 .
The journey "from precaution to profit" documented by Gareau offers vital lessons for addressing today's pressing environmental crises, particularly climate change. It reminds us that scientific consensus, while necessary, is insufficient without enduring political commitment. It shows that early successes require vigilant protection against later erosion. And it demonstrates that the values underpinning environmental governance—whether prioritizing precaution or profit—profoundly shape their outcomes.
As atmospheric scientist Jonathan Shanklin, one of the discoverers of the ozone hole, noted: "the political changes that are necessary to change our lifestyles so we consume less are much harder to achieve" than technical fixes like replacing ozone-depleting chemicals3 . Gareau's work reveals that these political challenges extend not just to changing consumption patterns, but to maintaining the integrity of the very institutions we create to protect our shared environment.
The Montreal Protocol's legacy thus remains unfinished—a remarkable achievement that continues to face tests of its principles and effectiveness. Its ultimate lesson may be that protecting our planet requires not just creating effective environmental agreements, but continually defending them against those who would prioritize profit over precaution.