In the early 1970s, the world woke up to the scientific evidence that our planet was in danger of significant and irreparable damage to the earth’s stratospheric ozone layer, the shield that insulates it against harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation. The research found that man-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used in the production of refrigerators, were reducing and converting ozone molecules in the atmosphere. This potential danger eventually gained the attention of the international community, leading to the adoption of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer of 1985 and the subsequent Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer of 1987, setting a legally binding mandate for the phasing out of ozone-depleting substances (ODS).
But for the prompt intervention of the international community and the deployment of the necessary legislative framework to address the threat, millions of people around the world would have been condemned to lifelong skin cancers and eye cataracts as a result of increased UV radiation. While some may argue that hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which replaced CFC have led to a rise in greenhouse gases, the UNDP has consistently reported that the protection of the ozone layer through that global effort has helped in slowing down climate change, improved global health, and increased economic benefits. Today, the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer of 1985 and the subsequent Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer of 1987 are widely agreed to be the most successful pieces of international agreements.
The simple answer would be that it gained overwhelming acceptance because of the threat to our planet which needed to be urgently prevented. Of course, there are records of initial pushbacks on the scientific findings by some industry players, the discovery of an “ozone hole” in the Antarctic by British scientists in 1985 heightened public outcry, eventually leading to lessened political and economic considerations on the issue. Corporations that dealt in chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) also opted for a safer planetary option over profit maximization (Hunter et al.). All parties appeared to have something at stake, our planet. The result of the global response remains undeniable.
Today, the challenges that our world faces are more significant; from environmental to social and economic concerns. Unfortunately, while we seem to be aware of the problems, our response has not shown a collective readiness to face the issues squarely, made worse by our division on many fronts, sustainability issues not the least. This calls for an urgent change in our approach. While a strong focus on science and finance is crucial in addressing global and local sustainability challenges, we must not leave the legal frameworks necessary to support sustainability efforts in the back seat.
Unfortunately, current legislative frameworks at international, regional, and national levels are either too weak or inadequate to address current and future sustainability challenges. For instance, Article 9 of the Paris Agreement remains ineffective in galvanizing the finance needed to address climate transition. Despite the well-researched environmental and social impacts of the fashion industry, including CO2 emissions, water consumption and pollution, waste, and exploited labor, the industry remains largely unregulated. Also, while critical minerals are projected to be the next big thing addressing the energy and emissions crisis, there are now potential environmental, labor, human rights, and geopolitical risks, which require a proactive and effective legal response that would ensure a fair and sustainable extraction of these strategic minerals.
These are only some of the industries that require urgent international unified regulations in the context of sustainability. Huge investments in just transition plans or R&D alone will not suffice. It is time we put law where it belongs; at the heart of sustainability. The good news is that it is not too late; if the law did it before, it can do it again.