Climate talks should model after ozone pact: Our view

Back in the 1970s, scientists began warning about a serious environmental hazard. Certain chemicals used in refrigerants and aerosols cans were destroying Earth's protective layer of ozone, which shields people and plants from dangerous solar radiation.

At first, the industries that made and used the chemicals — known as chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs — disputed the science and resisted calls for restrictions. Politicians who worried about the "ozone hole" in the atmosphere over Antarctica were mocked for having their heads in the clouds.

As time went on, however, the scientific evidence grew stronger. An international movement sprang up to restrict the production and use of CFCs and similar chemicals. And in September 1987, countries around the world signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer.

Fast forward 27 years. Last week, scientists issued their first comprehensive update on global ozone in four years. They reported that the ozone layer is beginning to heal and is on track toward full recovery by the middle of the century — largely because of the phaseout of CFCs required by the Montreal pact.

According to the scientific assessment, the protocol will have prevented 2 million cases of skin cancer a year by 2030.

Chemist Mario Molina, who first raised alarm about the ozone depletion problem in 1974 and later shared the Nobel Prize in chemistry for his work, called the gains "a victory for diplomacy and for science and for the fact that we were able to work together."

The ozone layer success story has obvious relevance to today's debate over human-induced climate change. As President Obama told world leaders at Tuesday's United Nations summit, "No nation can meet this global threat alone."

Of course, major differences exist between the ozone problem and the greenhouse gas problem. The science of climate change is more complex and controversial. So are the politics, domestically and internationally.

Fossil fuel interests have far more political and economic clout than the producers of CFCs ever had. CFCs were easier to replace with substitutes (some of which contribute to climate change). Phasing out coal and other carbon-rich fuels will be a far more difficult task, one that involves asking stakeholders to leave trillions of dollars of assets in the ground.

But the bottom line is the same: Collective international action, even at a time of global tensions, can head off environmental catastrophe. And the sooner action is taken, the better, because the atmosphere can take decades to recover.

Tuesday's U.N. session was designed to lay the groundwork for talks next year aimed at reaching a new global treaty to tackle climate change. That signing is scheduled for Paris. Given the track record of the 1987 protocol, another large French-speaking city, in Canada, might be a more appropriate venue.

USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.