| Comparative analysis of ozone and greenhouse negotiations yields a conceptual approach that highlights their common underlying structural dynamics, while revealing the factors behind the relative success of ozone negotiations. Both negotiations involved analogous bargaining units---an activist coalition favoring an efficacious agreement, a blocking coalition opposed to anything but a cosmetic agreement, and an equity coalition willing to free-ride on any agreement that did not address the attendant North-South issues satisfactorily.; In each case, forging consensus around a viable agreement required the activist coalition to employ grassroots, scientific, entrepreneurial and structural leadership to remove three analogous roadblocks to ratification: (1) scientific uncertainty, (2) interest assessment, and (3) equity concerns. Determining the pivotal leadership combination and its optimal strategy is simplified by understanding the nature, magnitude and sequence of these roadblock issues. The relative success of ozone negotiations is explained by: (1) superior activist leadership; and (2) the diminished magnitude of the roadblocks involved.; Initially, activist leadership confronts the scientific uncertainty roadblock by convincing all essential parties these are genuine threats deserving serious responses. This required a strategy of marshaling scientific evidence, political pressure and public support for precautionary action. The alarming discovery of the Antarctic ozone "hole" lowered the scientific certainty threshold necessary to overcome this roadblock. The less dramatic increase of empirical evidence and modeling accuracy---and the well-orchestrated opposition of industry-backed scientific skeptics---retarded the removal of this roadblock for greenhouse negotiations. |
