I can remember much moral panic a few years back amongst education researchers of a particular bent who were worried that students (who were mostly too young to know better) thought that the stratospheric ozone hole was contributing to global warming and (hence) climate change. There was much pontificating about the state of the nation's schools, and the inadequacy of the teaching force. Turns out that the students were right – in a back-handed sort of way.
The Economist certainly claims that it is the Montreal Protocol (the diplomatic miracle that did for the Ozone Hole, of course) which has had the most impact on limiting greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere. Some 135Bn tonnes have not entered the atmosphere since 1989 because of the protocol, it seems. This is two orders of magnitude greater than the next most effective interventions. China's one-child policy came 4th in the list (1% of the effect of the protocol). The EU's emission standards for cars, which have so changed the European motor industry for the good, by comparison, have contributed next to nothing.
The Economist says that the data are a reminder that greenhouse gases are powerfully influenced by factors far beyond the scope of climate-change policies. I think that the detail (and the many caveats) in the argument are worth a read.
Respond