From Public to Private Global Environmental Governance: Lessons from the Montreal Protocol's Stalled Methyl Bromide Phase-Out

Brian J Gareau and E Melanie DuPuis
Additional contact information
Brian J Gareau: Department of Sociology, McGuinn Hall 426, Boston College, 140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467-3807, USA
E Melanie DuPuis: Department of Sociology, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA

Environment and Planning A, 2009, vol. 41, issue 10, 2305-2323

Abstract: The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, a multilateral environmental agreement, has successfully eliminated the use of most ozone-depleting chlorofluoro-carbons. As a result, a number of observers have pointed to the possibility of transferring successes—and even linking regulations—between the Montreal Protocol and Kyoto Protocol, the international but stalled climate-change agreement. We argue that there is need for caution on this issue. The Montreal and Kyoto protocols are the outcomes of vastly different political contexts, from public civil society approaches to what we call ‘the private turn’: the current loss of faith in state sovereignty, the rejection of multilateralism, and an embrace of private knowledge about economic damage over public knowledge about the protection of citizens and natural resources. From this broader perspective we show that the differences between the Montreal and Kyoto protocols are therefore more than ‘command-and-control’ versus ‘market-based’ solutions. These differences also reflect an even deeper divide over what ‘counts’ as knowledge in political decision-making processes. We illustrate these points through a case study of the current knowledge controversies around the phase-out of methyl bromide under the Montreal Protocol. We explain how the methyl bromide phase-out has stalled because the phase-out approach is incompatible with the current political regime, thus supporting the argument that neoliberal forms of governance cannot solve global environmental problems. This case, therefore, shows us that the challenges we face are more than atmospheric: to save the Earth we must create new ways to govern ourselves.

Date: 2009
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/a41218 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:envira:v:41:y:2009:i:10:p:2305-2323

DOI: 10.1068/a41218

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Environment and Planning A
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().