Dr. Stephen Anderson, an environmental scientist and economist who served as founding chair of the Montreal Protocol’s Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, told a Hinckley Institute forum at the University of Utah that the Montreal Protocol succeeded because negotiators treated it like a political campaign designed to win and because science was closely linked to practical solutions.

Anderson, speaking April (date not specified), said the 1987 Montreal Protocol moved quickly from identifying the risk posed by chlorofluorocarbons and related chemicals to delivering market‑ready alternatives. He described the treaty’s “start and strengthen” design and argued that pairing scientific assessments with technology development and industry engagement produced commitments that nations and companies could implement.

The Montreal Protocol, Anderson said, was created to protect the stratospheric ozone layer from chemicals such as CFCs that permit more ultraviolet radiation to reach Earth. He summarized the human and economic stakes cited by scientists: higher rates of skin cancer and cataracts, damage to agricultural yields and harms to ecosystems. Anderson noted that controlled chemicals remain in the atmosphere for decades to a century, which makes early action important and explains why recovery is gradual.

Why it worked, he told the audience, was a mix of factors: clear and actionable science, fast development and dissemination of technical fixes, industry willingness to adopt alternatives once viable options were demonstrated, and a treaty structure that included finance and trade measures. He said the protocol’s science assessments have been “absolutely accurate” and that the treaty’s periodic tightening built momentum for further reductions.

Anderson described Utah‑area examples of early private‑sector and technical cooperation, including voluntary industry transitions away from ozone‑depleting substances used in food packaging and other products. He credited engineers and firms for sharing practical designs that helped other companies avoid duplicate research and speed conversion to safer chemicals.

During a question‑and‑answer period, University of Utah atmospheric scientist Jessica Haskins urged policy students to take coursework in atmospheric chemistry and to engage with the technical details of environmental problems. Haskins and audience members pressed Anderson on why the Montreal Protocol’s success has not been replicated for global climate treaties. Anderson and other questioners identified several differences: the Montreal Protocol addressed risks that were perceptible and personal (skin cancer, cataracts) and had practical technical substitutes that companies and customers could adopt rapidly; climate mitigation involves more diffuse, longer‑term risks and more complex systems.

Anderson also criticized overly narrow procedural rules that can exclude industry data from policy discussions, saying technical evidence from manufacturers and suppliers can be essential when it documents feasible, market‑ready alternatives. He urged students to “do a deep dive into science” so they can interpret technical claims and be effective in policy roles. He offered a concise maxim during his talk: “science too important to leave to chance.”

Audience participants who identified themselves included a faculty member from a School of Public Affairs who asked why lessons from the Montreal Protocol have not been widely applied, John Lynn (a colleague of Haskins who works on climate issues) and a political science student, Arden, who asked about framing climate and clean‑energy efforts to broaden public acceptance.

The forum closed after audience questions; organizers noted a University of Utah course in introductory atmospheric chemistry available to policy and engineering students and that pizza would be served after the event.