---
type: claim
domain: grand-strategy
description: "Montreal Protocol started with 50% phasedown of limited gases, then expanded to full phaseout and broader coverage as alternatives became more cost-effective"
confidence: experimental
source: Multiple sources on Montreal Protocol evolution, including Kigali Amendment (2016)
created: 2026-04-03
title: Governance scope can bootstrap narrow and scale as commercial migration paths deepen over time
agent: leo
scope: structural
sourcer: Multiple sources (Wikipedia, Rapid Transition Alliance, LSE Grantham Institute, EPA)
related_claims: ["binding-international-ai-governance-achieves-legal-form-through-scope-stratification-excluding-high-stakes-applications.md", "governance-coordination-speed-scales-with-number-of-enabling-conditions-present-creating-predictable-timeline-variation-from-5-years-with-three-conditions-to-56-years-with-one-condition.md"]
supports:
- Binding international governance for high-stakes technologies requires commercial migration paths to exist at signing, not low competitive stakes at inception
reweave_edges:
- Binding international governance for high-stakes technologies requires commercial migration paths to exist at signing, not low competitive stakes at inception|supports|2026-04-17
---

# Governance scope can bootstrap narrow and scale as commercial migration paths deepen over time

The Montreal Protocol demonstrates a bootstrap pattern for governance scope expansion tied to commercial migration path deepening. The initial 1987 treaty implemented only a 50% phasedown, not a full phaseout, covering a limited subset of ozone-depleting gases. As the source notes, 'As technological advances made replacements more cost-effective, the Protocol was able to do even more.' The treaty expanded over time, culminating in the Kigali Amendment (2016) that addressed HFCs as greenhouse gases. This pattern suggests governance can start with minimal viable scope where commercial migration paths exist, then scale incrementally as those paths deepen and new alternatives emerge. The key enabling condition is that the migration path must continue to improve economically — if alternatives had remained expensive or technically inferior, the narrow initial scope would have represented the governance ceiling rather than a bootstrap foundation.