Go to original
Wednesday 29 April 2009
by: John Heilprin
United
Nations - The Obama administration, in a major environmental policy
shift, is leaning toward asking 195 nations that ratified the U.N.
ozone treaty to enact mandatory reductions in hydrofluorocarbons,
according to U.S. officials and documents obtained by The Associated
Press.
"We're considering this as an option," Environmental
Protection Agency spokeswoman Adora Andy said Wednesday, emphasizing
that while a final decision has not been made it was accurate to
describe this as the administration's "preferred option."
The change - the first U.S.-proposed mandatory global cut
in greenhouse gases - would transform the ozone treaty into a strong
tool for fighting global warming.
"Now it's going to be a climate treaty, with no
ozone-depleting materials, if this goes forward," an EPA technical
expert said Wednesday, speaking on condition of anonymity because a
final decision is pending.
The expert said the 21-year-old ozone treaty known as the
Montreal Protocol created virtually the entire market for
hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, so including them in the treaty would take
care of a problem of its own making.
It's uncertain how that would work in conjunction with the
Kyoto Protocol, the world's climate treaty, which now regulates HFCs
and was rejected by the Bush administration. Negotiations to replace
Kyoto, which expires in 2012, are to be concluded in December in
Denmark.
The Montreal Protocol is widely viewed as one of the most
successful environmental treaties because it essentially eliminated the
use of chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, blamed for damaging the ozone
layer over Antarctica.
Because they do not affect the ozone layer, HFCs broadly
replaced CFCs as coolants in everything from refrigerators, air
conditioners and fire extinguishers to aerosol sprays, medical devices
and semiconductors.
But experts say the solution to one problem is now worsening another.
As a result, the U.S. is calling HFCs "a significant and
growing source of emissions" that could be eliminated more quickly in
several ways, including amending the ozone treaty or creating "a
legally distinct agreement" linked to the Montreal Protocol, says a
March 27 State Department briefing paper presented at one of two recent
meetings on the topic.
State Department officials told participants at one of last
month's meetings that the United States wants to amend the Montreal
Protocol to phase out the use of HFCs, a change praised by
environmentalists. But there appear to be some interagency snags.
Though the State Department secured backing from the
Pentagon and other agencies for amending the Montreal Protocol, some
opposition remains within the administration, U.S. officials say. It is
not clear if the proposal to eliminate HFCs will be submitted by next
week, in time to be considered at a meeting in November by parties to
the Montreal Protocol.
Proponents say eliminating HFCs would have an impact within
our lifetimes. HFCs do most of their damage in their first 30 years in
the atmosphere, unlike carbon dioxide which spreads its impact over a
longer period of time.
"Retiring HFCs is our best hope of avoiding a near-term
tipping point for irreversible climate change. It's an opportunity the
world simply cannot afford to miss, and every year we delay action on
HFCs reduces the benefit," said Alexander von Bismarck, executive
director of the Environmental Investigation Agency, a nonprofit
watchdog group in Washington that first pitched the idea two years ago.
Globally, a huge market has sprung up around the use of
HFCs, a man-made chemical, as a result of their promotion under the
Montreal Protocol. Several billion dollars have been spent through an
affiliated fund to prod countries to stop making and using CFCs and
other ozone-damaging chemicals and to instead use cheap and effective
chemicals like HFCs.
Scientists say eliminating use of HFCs would spare the
world an amount of greenhouse gases up to about a third of all CO2
emissions about two to four decades from now. Manufacturers in both
Europe and the U.S. have begun to replace HFCs with so-called natural
refrigerants such as hydrocarbons, ammonia or carbon dioxide.
HFCs can be up to 10,000 times more powerful than carbon
dioxide as climate-warming chemicals, according to U.S. government
data.
Currently they account for only about 2 percent of all
greenhouse-gas emissions, but the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change warned in 2005 that use of HFCs was growing at 8.8
percent per year.
More recent studies concur and show that HFCs are on a path
to reach about 11 billion tons of greenhouse gases, which would
constitute up to a third of all greenhouse gas emissions by sometime
within 2030 and 2040 under some CO2-reduction scenarios.
House Democrats also are adding to the pressure on HFCs.
In an April 3 letter to President Barack Obama, California
Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee,
and Massachusetts Rep. Edward Markey, chairman of the energy and
environment subcommittee, urged the White House to offer an amendment
to the Montreal Protocol this year.
"Although we strongly support a comprehensive international
agreement on climate change, we believe that adding HFCs to the
existing Montreal Protocol would be a sensible, cost-effective method
of addressing a small but growing piece of the problem," they wrote.
Waxman and Markey also have drafted legislation laying out a broad outline for phasing out HFCs in the United States.
Worldwide, phasing out HFCs under the Montreal Protocol
could prevent 90 billion tons of greenhouse gases by 2040, by including
nations like India and China that were not part of the Kyoto treaty.
Nations such as Argentina, the Federated States of
Micronesia, Mauritius and Mexico have recently pushed for climate
protections under the Montreal Protocol, arguing every possible tool
must be used to combat climate change.
The EPA in April determined that hydrofluorocarbons were
one of six greenhouse gases endangering human health and welfare, a
ruling that could eventually lead to mandatory reductions in the U.S.
under the Clean Air Act.
"This is a strong sign of new American leadership in atmospheric protection," said von Bismarck.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. h o t g l o b e has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is h o t g l o b e endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|