6. CONCLUSION

The world has limited resources, and as the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) 1992 Technology and Economic Assessment Panel stated, "the development of technologies which do not use either controlled or transitional substances can be inhibited because the prospect of technology using transitional substances discourages investment in technology that would only be profitable if transitional substances were not acceptable."* Simply stated, this means that the production and promotion of HCFCs and HFCs hinders the transition to safer alternatives.

Clearly, environmentally safer alternatives to fluorocarbons exist for virtually every application of ozone depleting substances. It is possible to meet human needs and protect the ozone layer and the global climate at the same time.

The world desperately needs positive action on the part of governments to immediately phase-out all ozone depleting and climate damaging substances such as HCFCs and HFCs and to remove regulatory barriers which hinder the development and wide scale use of environmentally safer alternatives.

The world also needs the vision, inovation and leadership of industry in the further development of environmentally sound technologies. Some branches of industry, and some companies that have seized the opportunities presented by environmental necessities, have made major steps in the right direction. On the whole, however, we still have a long way to go.

Industry needs vigorous stimulus from governments to rapidly convert to ozone and climate friendly technologies. A strong political signal, significantly speeding up the phase-out of all ozone depleting substances, is immediately needed from the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.

* TEAP Report 1992: Montreal Protocol On Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer: "1991 Assessment: Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP)" [return]