GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL : STATEMENT TO THE 8th MEETING OF THE PARTIES TO THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL

Mr. President, delegates, NGO colleagues:

I thank you, and I thank the people of Costa Rica, for this opportunity to address you on behalf of the millions of supporters of Greenpeace from around the world.

Just a little over a year ago, the day the world celebrated the 50th Anniversary of the United Nations, I was on board a 47 foot sailboat with five other people. We were positioned twelve miles outside of Moruroa atoll, where the French government, despite world wide outrage, was proceeding with preparations for the third of a series of six nuclear explosions.

Our purpose was simply to be there in order to bear witness to the evil that was about to happen, and to speak to the world from that tragic place which had the misfortune to be the sight of one of the greatest destructive acts that humans can perpetrate upon the planet.

From there, we sent our greetings to the United Nations, the organization that represents the highest ideals of humanity - ideals of peace, social justice, human rights , cooperation between people and environmental responsibility.

In our message to New York, we quoted the great French author Victor Hugo, who observed with great clarity that "There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come." and we stated that the idea of a nuclear free South Pacific, and indeed a world free of the horrors of nuclear explosions, has arrived.

As we waited, day after day for the nuclear explosion, it became apparent to me that while the stated purpose of our voyage was to oppose Franceís nuclear activity and to stop the bomb, there is a much more profound challenge facing all of us. That challenge is to transform the mentality that can rationalize the explosion of a nuclear weapon in the belly of our Mother Earth; the mentality that rationalizes the myriad of ways by which humanity is systematically destroying the life sustaining forces of nature; the mentality, which has in essence set human civilization on a collision course with nature, and has alienated us from the web of life upon which our very existence depends.

The current ozone crisis, which will be with us for many generations to come, should serve to constantly remind us that we must learn to meet human needs in a way that minimizes our impact upon the environment. It is not only a matter of human survival, but that of the survival of all of life that is at stake.

The ozone crisis confronts us with interdependent moral imperatives, environmental imperatives and concrete technological, political and economic issues.

Mr. President, the replenishment of the Multilateral Fund is not only an environmental necessity, but also a moral imperative. In simple terms, it is a question of human priorities and fairness.

The only plausible way to reduce the risk of ozone layer depletion is to eliminate the global emissions of ozone depleting substances as rapidly as is technologically possible.

Many speakers at this conference have emphasized that the effective functioning of Multilateral Fund is crucial to the overall successful achievement of the goals Montreal Protocol.

And yet there is a great discrepancy between the level of rhetorical support the Multilateral Fund receives, and the level it receives in real financial terms.

Since 1991, the richer countries have contributed just over 500 million dollars to the Multilateral Fund . The total annual contributions from the industrialized nations that contribute to the Fund has been approximately $170 million.These same countries represent approximately 15% of the world's population, consume 80 to 85% of the world's resources and services, have consumed nearly 85% of all ozone destroying substances over the years, and produced and sold nearly 30 billion dollars worth of ozone depleting substances during the past ten years, since the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole.

To put these figures into vivid global context:

• The United States alone has spent over 3.4 trillion dollars on preparing for nuclear war since the Second World War and continues to do so at a rate of nearly 30 million dollars a day

• -France recently spent between 500 million and 1 billion dollars on blowing up six nuclear bombs

• One B2 stealth bomber costs approximately $2 billion dollars

Mr. President, given the severity of the ozone crisis, Greenpeace urges the Parties to radically accelerate the phase out date of all ozone depleting substances in all countries.

The Multilateral Fund must be supported with adequate resources to enable developing countries to phase out all ozone depleting substances as rapidly as is technologically possible. Furthermore, the Fund must be managed so that there are no surpluses left at the end of the three year business cycle. A 70 to 90 million dollar surplus, as is currently the case, represents 70 to 90 million dollars worth of ozone depletion in missed opportunities to protect the ozone layer.

Mr. President, in his speech to this Meeting of the Parties, the President of Costa Rica touched upon the very important "polluter pay principle". The Multilateral Fund embraces that principle, but only partially so. To date, only the tax payers of Article 2 countries have contributed to the Fund. Meanwhile, the real polluters, the multinational chemical corporations who created the ozone crisis in the first place with their careless disregard of the early warning signs, have yet to pay a penny to help repair the damage their products have inflicted upon the ozone layer. In fact, Mr. President, they have yet to even say "We are sorry. We made a horrible mistake". Shouldnít these companies at least match the amount of money in the Multilateral Fund that the tax payers are paying to clean up their mess.

If these companies would at least match the amount of money in the Multilateral Fund that the tax payers are paying, it would be possible to enable all Article 5 countries to phase out CFCs by the year 2006. This is based on a 1995 TEAP estimation, which calculated that the Fund would need to be doubled in order to accomplish such an accelerated phase out goal.

Mr. President, these corporations have created a chemically dependent planet, and their sole strategy during the ozone crisis has been to maintain their global monopoly over the marketplace, to secure their global profits, and to prevent competing technologies which are environmentally safer from achieving market acceptance. This strategy is exemplified in the chemical industry's vigorous promotion, with total disregard for the precautionary principle, of their HCFC and HFC products.

Mr. President, we are very concerned about the unregulated use of HFCs in general and HFC 134a in particular, and we believe that the Montreal Protocol has at least a moral responsibility in this regard.

Our primary concern is that HFCs are very potent global warming gases. In the case of 134a, we are also concerned about their toxicological impacts from production by-products, and from their atmospheric decomposition, as indicated in the 1996 Science Panel's report .

Mr. President, we are further concerned that HFC-134a, in domestic refrigeration will prove to be a technological nightmare for the service sector of Article 5 countries, and that the support for this technology by the Multilateral Fund may yet come back haunt the Montreal Protocol in the future. HCFCs and HFCs in domestic refrigeration are environmentally and technically obsolete technologies-- a waste of money. The chemical industry along with their corporate clients, the multinational refrigerator manufacturers, are doing a great disservice by promoting, and at times, imposing, these technologies upon developing countries.

Recent estimates of the potential impact of HFCs upon the atmosphere indicate that by the year 2040, the total global HFC market could be around 1.35 million tonnes a year, which would be the equivalent to 15% of current fossil fuel emissions.

Mr. President, we applaud the words of the Mr. Svend Auken, Denmark's Minister for the Environment and Energy, who stated in his speech at the International Conference on the Use of Natural Refrigerants in Aarhus, Denmark, on September 4, 1996:

"Two of the global environmental problems which cause me the greatest concern are the greenhouse effect and the threat to the ozone layer....But we cannot solve one problem at the expense of another.... Concentrating exclusively on reducing CO2 emissions to prevent a rise on the greenhouse effect is not enough. We must also limit the emission of other greenhouse effect gases. HFC's are some of them....HFCs and other greenhouse effect gases must be regulated under the Climate ConventionÖ.It is therefore my sincere hope that in ten years' time, not a single fridge, freezer or cooling plant is being built in Denmark that requires HFCs or other greenhouse effect gases...."

In a related development, we applaud the October 3, 1996 draft decision of the Eco-Labeling Regulation Committee of the European Commission which recommends that the 'Eco-Label' should only be applied to refrigerators that have: (a) completely eliminated ozone depleting substances in use or manufacture of insulating materials and the operation of the cooling system; and (b) use refrigerants and foaming agents that have less than or equal to 15 GWP (global warming potential) over a 100 year time line. The Committee's recommendation rules out all refrigerators using HCFCs or HFC 134-a. Fortunately, there are cost effective and environmentally safer alternatives, for example hydrocarbon refrigerators.

Mr. President, we are further encouraged that the Greenfreeze, hydrocarbon technology in domestic refrigeration continues make headway into Article 5 countries such as Argentina, Algeria, and China, as well as into some of the countries with economies in transition. We are also encouraged by the recent announcement of a consortium of Danish companies that they have produced a prototype for a hydrocarbon compressor that could reduce electricity uses in refrigerators by 40%.

Mr. President, I would like to conclude by repeating Victor Hugo's words: "There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come." I believe that the idea of humanity walking more gently upon the planet, the idea of humanity meeting human needs with technologies that are environmentally safest, the idea of humanity no longer polluting our lands, waters and air has arrived.

Thank you Mr. President and delegates for your time and attention.