1.1 Corporate Irresponsibility

In the early 1970's scientists discovered that a class of chlorine containing industrial chemicals called halocarbons were harmful to the ozone layer. The most commonly used halocarbons are chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). CFCs are stable, non-toxic and inflammable compounds. These qualities have made them very attractive for industrial use. They have numerous industrial applications as refrigerants, foam blowing agents, electrical circuit-board solvents and aerosol propellants.

Unfortunately, they are also the major contributors to the depletion of the ozone layer, and consequently need to be eliminated.

The two main points of contention surrounding ODS phase-outs are: (a) which alternative substances and technologies are the best substitutes, on the short and long term, for CFCs and the goods and services they provide; and (b) what is the most feasible phase-out schedule for all ozone depleting substances.

Chemical corporations, that created the ozone crisis in the first place, promote the false-perception that at the present time only their products, hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), are available as viable alternatives to CFCs. Led by such giants as Du Pont, ICI and Elf Atochem, they are striving to maintain a multi-billion dollar global monopoly they have enjoyed with CFCs during the past six decades.

"When you have $3 billion of CFCs sold worldwide
and 70 per cent of that is about to be regulated out of
existence, there is a tremendous market potential."
--Joseph Glas, DuPont Freon Division Director
(M. Gladwell, "Du Pont Plans to Make CFC Alternative",
Washington Post, September 23, 1988.

The chemical industry conducts an extensive international lobby, and expends vast resources, promoting its products. For example, on December 1, 1992 the London Financial Times reported that Du Pont had invested $450 million in HCFC and HFC production, and expects to hit the $1 billion mark in 1995, with an expected recovery period for the investment of no less than ten years. The company claims to require another ten to twenty years of HCFC and HFC production to profit above and beyond recouping their investment.

But both HCFCs and HFCs are environmentally harmful. HCFCs continue to destroy the ozone layer, albeit somewhat less than CFCs, and both HCFCs and HFCs are potent global warming gases. Because HCFCs destroy ozone, they can only be considered as "transitional substances", meaning that they will have to be replaced by environmentally more acceptable substances in the near future. This takes two steps to accomplish what could be done in one with environmentally safer alternatives. It also doubles the costs. Double costs are incurred in retrofitting equipment, changing production lines, and training of personnel.

It is estimated that global HCFC and HFC production will be 219,000 tonnes and 365, 000 tonnes respectively by the year 2005. We already face an alarming rate of global warming due to human activity. The world must not now take the risk of allowing the wide-scale use of new generations of global warming gases.

For example, over a twenty year time-span, the global warming potential (GWP) of HFC-134a is estimated to be 3,200 times that of carbon dioxide (CO2). Presented more graphically, the global warming impact of a worldwide annual production of at least 200,000 tonnes of HFC-134a equals roughly the CO2 emissions of an industrialized nation the size of France or the UK.

Furthermore, the manufacture of HFCs is directly linked to the production of organochlorines, a class of chemicals that are persistent and toxic, and have been targeted for phase out. Throughout the manufacturing process, toxic intermediary and by-products are released into the environment . Approximately 10per cent of the total HFC-134a production weight is toxic waste, which pollutes our air, soil and water.

Professor Gustav Lorentzen (Norway), in a paper entitled "The Use of Natural Refrigerants, A Complete Solution to the CFC/HCFC Predicament" writes: "It has already been suggested that HFC-134a may be decomposed by sunlight in the troposphere and form acid and poisonous substances. If this should turn out to be true, we may have to face yet another catastrophe, even worse than the CFC experience." *

Fortunately, better alternatives already exist.

* Lorentzen, (Prof. dr.techn. ,Trondheim, Norway)., [paper references : Banks, R.E. "Skepticism about R-134a justified" Refrig. Air. Condit., Sept. 1993, p.16] ) [return]