Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

The Montreal Protocol protects the terrestrial carbon sink


The control of the production of ozone-depleting substances through the Montreal Protocol means that the stratospheric ozone layer is recovering1 and that consequent increases in harmful surface ultraviolet radiation are being avoided2,3. The Montreal Protocol has co-benefits for climate change mitigation, because ozone-depleting substances are potent greenhouse gases4,5,6,7. The avoided ultraviolet radiation and climate change also have co-benefits for plants and their capacity to store carbon through photosynthesis8, but this has not previously been investigated. Here, using a modelling framework that couples ozone depletion, climate change, damage to plants by ultraviolet radiation and the carbon cycle, we explore the benefits of avoided increases in ultraviolet radiation and changes in climate on the terrestrial biosphere and its capacity as a carbon sink. Considering a range of strengths for the effect of ultraviolet radiation on plant growth8,9,10,11,12, we estimate that there could have been 325–690 billion tonnes less carbon held in plants and soils by the end of this century (2080–2099) without the Montreal Protocol (as compared to climate projections with controls on ozone-depleting substances). This change could have resulted in an additional 115–235 parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which might have led to additional warming of global-mean surface temperature by 0.50–1.0 degrees. Our findings suggest that the Montreal Protocol may also be helping to mitigate climate change through avoided decreases in the land carbon sink.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: The ozone, climate and biologically active UV levels of different futures.
Fig. 2: Effects on the productivity and stores of the terrestrial carbon cycle.
Fig. 3: The effect of UV-driven changes in vegetation on atmospheric CO2 and surface temperature.

Data availability

All relevant JULES and NIWA–UKCA model output and input data have been archived (

Code availability

The JULES code for these simulations is available on the Met Office Science Repository System (MOSRS;; registration required) in revision 15798. Simulations were run using the Rose suite u-bb620, also available through MOSRS. The NIWA–UKCA CCM is based on the HadGEM3 climate model, which is available under licence. Please contact O.M. ( for details.


  1. 1.

    World Meteorological Organization. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018. Report No. 58 (Global Ozone and Research Monitoring Project, 2018).

  2. 2.

    van Dijk, A. et al. Skin cancer risks avoided by the Montreal Protocol—worldwide modeling integrating coupled climate‐chemistry models with a risk model for UV. Photochem. Photobiol. 89, 234–246 (2013).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    McKenzie, R. et al. Success of Montreal Protocol demonstrated by comparing high-quality UV measurements with ‘World Avoided’ calculations from two chemistry-climate models. Sci. Rep. 9, 12332 (2019).

    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Ramanathan, V. Greenhouse effect due to chlorofluorocarbons: climatic implications. Science 190, 50–52 (1975).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Morgenstern, O. et al. The world avoided by the Montreal Protocol. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L16811 (2008).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Newman, P. A. et al. What would have happened to the ozone layer if chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) had not been regulated? Atmos. Chem. Phys. 9, 2113–2128 (2009).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Garcia, R. R., Kinnison, D. E. & Marsh, D. R. ‘World avoided’ simulations with the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model. J. Geophys. Res. 117, D23303 (2012).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Ballaré, C. L., Caldwell, M. M., Flint, S. D., Robinson, S. A. & Bornman, J. F. Effects of solar ultraviolet radiation on terrestrial ecosystems. Patterns, mechanisms, and interactions with climate change. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 10, 226–241 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Newsham, K. K. & Robinson, S. A. Responses of plants in polar regions to UVB exposure: a meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 15, 2574–2589 (2009).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Li, F.-R., Peng, S.-L., Chen, B.-M. & Hou, Y.-P. A meta-analysis of the responses of woody and herbaceous plants to elevated ultraviolet-B radiation. Acta Oecol. 36, 1–9 (2010).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Searles, P. S., Flint, S. D. & Caldwell, M. M. A meta-analysis of plant field studies simulating stratospheric ozone depletion. Oecologia 127, 1–10 (2001).

    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Fu, G. & Shen, Z.-X. Effects of enhanced UV-B radiation on plant physiology and growth on the Tibetan Plateau: a meta-analysis. Acta Physiol. Plant. 39, 85 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Lucas, R. M. et al. Human health in relation to exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation under changing stratospheric ozone and climate. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 18, 641–680 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Bornman, J. F. et al. Linkages between stratospheric ozone, UV radiation and climate change and their implications for terrestrial ecosystems. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 18, 681–716 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Williamson, C. E. et al. The interactive effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, and climate change on aquatic ecosystems. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 18, 717–746 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Molina, M. J. & Rowland, F. S. Stratospheric sink for chlorofluoromethanes: chlorine atom-catalysed destruction of ozone. Nature 249, 810–812 (1974).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Solomon, S., Garcia, R. R., Rowland, F. S. & Wuebbles, D. J. On the depletion of Antarctic ozone. Nature 321, 755–758 (1986).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Solomon, S. Stratospheric ozone depletion: a review of concepts and history. Rev. Geophys. 37, 275–316 (1999).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Velders, G. J. M., Andersen, S. O., Daniel, J. S., Fahey, D. W. & McFarland, M. The importance of the Montreal Protocol in protecting climate. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 4814–4819 (2007).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Prather, M., Midgley, P., Rowland, F. S. & Stolarski, R. The ozone layer: the road not taken. Nature 381, 551–554 (1996).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Wu, Y., Polvani, L. M. & Seager, R. The importance of the Montreal Protocol in protecting Earth’s hydroclimate. J. Clim. 26, 4049–4068 (2013).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Polvani, L. M., Camargo, S. J. & Garcia, R. R. The importance of the Montreal Protocol in mitigating the potential intensity of tropical cyclones. J. Clim. 29, 2275–2289 (2016).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Previdi, M. & Polvani, L. M. Impact of the Montreal Protocol on Antarctic surface mass balance and implications for global sea level rise. J. Clim. 30, 7247–7253 (2017).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Chipperfield, M. P. et al. Quantifying the ozone and ultraviolet benefits already achieved by the Montreal Protocol. Nat. Commun. 6, 7233 (2015).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Newman, P. A. & McKenzie, R. UV impacts avoided by the Montreal Protocol. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 10, 1152–1160 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Neugart, S. & Schreiner, M. UVB and UVA as eustressors in horticultural and agricultural crops. Sci. Hortic. 234, 370–381 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Fiscus, E. L. & Booker, F. L. Is increased UV-B a threat to crop photosynthesis and productivity? Photosynth. Res. 43, 81–92 (1995).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Morgenstern, O. et al. Review of the global models used within phase 1 of the Chemistry–Climate Model Initiative (CCMI). Geosci. Model Dev. 10, 639–671 (2017).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Best, M. J. et al. The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description–part 1: energy and water fluxes. Geosci. Model Dev. 4, 677–699 (2011).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Clark, D. B. et al. The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description–part 2: carbon fluxes and vegetation dynamics. Geosci. Model Dev. 4, 701–722 (2011).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    van Vuuren, D. P. et al. The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim. Change 109, 5–31 (2011).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Barlow, J. et al. The future of hyperdiverse tropical ecosystems. Nature 559, 517–526 (2018).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Collins, M. et al. in Climate Change 2013-The Physical Science Basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 1029–1136 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  34. 34.

    Cox, P. M., Betts, R. A., Jones, C. D., Spall, S. A. & Totterdell, I. J. Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model. Nature 408, 184–187 (2000); erratum 408, 750 (2000).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Heimann, M. & Reichstein, M. Terrestrial ecosystem carbon dynamics and climate feedbacks. Nature 451, 289–292 (2008).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Caldwell, M. M. in Photophysiology, Current Topics in Photobiology and Photochemistry Vol. VI (ed. Giese, A. C.) 131–177 (Academic Press, 1971).

  37. 37.

    Caldwell, M. M., Camp, L. B., Warner, C. W. & Flint, S. D. in Stratospheric Ozone Reduction, Solar Ultraviolet Radiation and Plant Life Vol. 8 (eds Worrest, R. C. & Caldwell, M. M.) 87–111 (Springer, 1986).

  38. 38.

    Calbó, J., Pagès, D. & González, J. Empirical studies of cloud effects on UV radiation: a review. Rev. Geophys. 43, RG2002 (2005).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Arora, V. K. et al. Carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP5 Earth system models. J. Clim. 26, 5289–5314 (2013).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Williamson, C. E. et al. Solar ultraviolet radiation in a changing climate. Nat. Clim. Chang. 4, 434–441 (2014).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Rigby, M. et al. Increase in CFC-11 emissions from eastern China based on atmospheric observations. Nature 569, 546–550 (2019).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Tilmes, S., Garcia, R. R., Kinnison, D. E., Gettelman, A. & Rasch, P. J. Impact of geoengineered aerosols on the troposphere and stratosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 114, D12305 (2009).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    NASA. Ozone Watch (2019).

  44. 44.

    Morgenstern, O. et al. Evaluation of the new UKCA climate-composition model – part 1: the stratosphere. Geosci. Model Dev. 2, 43–57 (2009).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Hewitt, H. T. et al. Design and implementation of the infrastructure of HadGEM3: the next-generation Met Office climate modelling system. Geosci. Model Dev. 4, 223–253 (2011).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    World Meteorological Organization. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2010. Report No. 52 (Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project, 2011).

  47. 47.

    Morgenstern, O. et al. Ozone sensitivity to varying greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances in CCMI-1 simulations. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 18, 1091–1114 (2018).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Edwards, J. M. & Slingo, A. Studies with a flexible new radiation code. I: choosing a configuration for a large-scale model. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 122, 689–719 (1996).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Forster, P. M. et al. Evaluation of radiation scheme performance within chemistry climate models. J. Geophys. Res. 116, D10302 (2011).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Lauer, A. & Hamilton, K. Simulating clouds with global climate models: a comparison of CMIP5 results with CMIP3 and satellite data. J. Clim. 26, 3823–3845 (2013).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Dee, D. P. et al. The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 137, 553–597 (2011).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Flint, S. D. & Caldwell, M. M. A biological spectral weighting function for ozone depletion research with higher plants. Physiol. Plant. 117, 137–144 (2003).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Kotilainen, T., Lindfors, A., Tegelberg, R. & Aphalo, P. J. How realistically does outdoor UV-B supplementation with lamps reflect ozone depletion: an assessment of enhancement errors. Photochem. Photobiol. 87, 174–183 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Flint, S. D., Ryel, R. J. & Caldwell, M. M. Ecosystem UV-B experiments in terrestrial communities: a review of recent findings and methodologies. Agric. For. Meteorol. 120, 177–189 (2003).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Poulter, B. et al. Plant functional type classification for earth system models: results from the European Space Agency’s Land Cover Climate Change Initiative. Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 2315–2328 (2015).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Harper, A. B. et al. Improved representation of plant functional types and physiology in the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES v4.2) using plant trait information. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 2415–2440 (2016).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Harper, A. B. et al. Vegetation distribution and terrestrial carbon cycle in a carbon cycle configuration of JULES4.6 with new plant functional types. Geosci. Model Dev. 11, 2857–2873 (2018).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Huntingford, C. & Cox, P. M. An analogue model to derive additional climate change scenarios from existing GCM simulations. Clim. Dyn. 16, 575–586 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Meinshausen, M. et al. The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300. Clim. Change 109, 213–241 (2011).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Huntingford, C. et al. Using a GCM analogue model to investigate the potential for Amazonian forest dieback. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 78, 177–185 (2004).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Friedlingstein, P. et al. Climate–carbon cycle feedback analysis: results from the C4MIP model intercomparison. J. Clim. 19, 3337–3353 (2006).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

Download references


P.J.Y. was supported by the UK Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (grant EP/R01860X/1), the Natural Environment Research Council (grant NE/R004927/1) and the Faculty of Science and Technology at Lancaster University. A.B.H. acknowledges funding from the UK Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (Fellowship EP/N030141/1) and the Natural Environment Research Council (grant NE/P019951/1). C.H. acknowledges a UK National Capability grant given to the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. O.M. was supported by the NZ Government’s Strategic Science Investment Fund (SSIF) through the NIWA programme CACV. L.D.O. is supported by the NASA Modeling, Analysis, and Prediction programme. S.M. and R.R.G. are supported by the National Center for Atmospheric Research, which is a major facility sponsored by the US National Science Foundation under cooperative agreement number 1852977. We acknowledge the contribution of New Zealand’s national high-performance computing facilities to the results of this research, provided by the NZ eScience Infrastructure (NeSI) and funded jointly by NeSI’s collaborator institutions and through the NZ Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment’s Research Infrastructure Programme.

Author information




P.J.Y. conceived the initial study on the basis of conversations with N.D.P. P.J.Y., A.B.H. and C.H. designed and constructed the modelling framework and the simulations, performed the analysis and, with N.D.P., wrote the manuscript. O.M., P.A.N., L.D.O., S.M. and R.R.G. provided model simulation data to run the framework and input to the parameterizations used, and contributed to writing the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul J. Young.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature thanks Pedro J. Aphalo, Benjamin Felzer, Veerabhadran Ramanathan and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 Effects on NPP for different latitude bands.

ac, NPP time series data from JULES, as per Fig. 2a, but for 30°–60° N (a), 30° S–30° N (b) and 55°–30° S (c).

Extended Data Table 1 Effect of UV on CO2 and global-mean air temperature for different scenarios
Extended Data Table 2 The UVplant meta-analyses that informed our simulations

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Young, P.J., Harper, A.B., Huntingford, C. et al. The Montreal Protocol protects the terrestrial carbon sink. Nature 596, 384–388 (2021).

Download citation


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing