Aung Thet Paing (Aaron)

2A9004 10thDecember, 2010

Exxon Corporation: Trouble at Valdez

1. How do you evaluate initial Lawrence Rawl’s response to the incident?

In my opinion, Lawrence Rawl’s response was bad to the public at the time of big
incidence. Lawrence Rawl only appear after a week later of incidence and telling that he
was technically obsolete and he couldn’t help with the spill and the ship off the rocks.

2. What was industry response to the incident after it happened?

For 40 years, after their invention, CFCs were thought completely benign. Then, in the
early 1970s, concern arose that they could lead to destruction of ozone in the stratosphere,
resulting in increased levels of UV radiation at the earth’s surface and thereby causing
increases in skin cancer, cataracts, and immune disorders as well as damage to crops and
ecosystems.

3. What was public and press reaction to the incident after it happened?

The first landmark of the ozone science was the May 1985 publication of the “ozone
hole” paper by members of the British Antarctic Survey. They found the Ozone loss in
the atmosphere since 1982.

4. What were the future implications of the incident?

The success of the ozone negotiation is somehow applicable to the climate change
negotiation. But, basically, ozone negotiation is more specific than the climate change
which is a bit wider issue. So, some methods and experiences of ozone negotiation can be
used in the climate change but it has more players in the negotiation process and it will
take more time to resolve the complicated situations.