GREENPEACE POSITION ON ODS 'REPLACEMENT' SUBSTANCE HFC-134a

While recognizing that the Parties to the Montreal Protocol are not mandated to legally regulate the production and consumption of potent global warming substances such as HFC-134a, Greenpeace maintains that the Parties do have the responsibility and the means to encourage industries in Article 5 countries to convert to available alternative technologies which are environmentally safer and more sustainable.

It is unwise, and in fact self-destructive, to solve the ozone crisis by contributing to another environmental disaster, such as global warming leading to climate change. 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. And a recent study by Atlantic Consultants of the UK reveals that the HFC-134a leakage from the air-conditioning of autos sold in 1995 in Western Europe alone will generate the CO₂ equivalent of five new power plants, while the HFC-13a leakage from automobiles sold in Japan in 1995 will contribute to global warming of ten power plants, or the equivalent of 16 million tonnes of CO₂.

In addition, there are concerns, as touched upon in the Executive Summary of the 1996 UNEP Scientific Assessment, that upon decomposition HFC-134a forms trifluoroacetic acid (TFA, a very persistent toxin which is virtually unmetabolizable by most plants and animals. Inadvertently, the Montreal Protocol may thus be contributing to the further toxification of our already poisoned environment. The Montreal Protocol, along with the chemical industry, is thus in violation of the precautionary principle.

It is apparent that HFC-134a technology is being foisted upon domestic refrigeration industries in Article 5 countries without adequate information. Recent information from developing countries point to severe technological problems associated with HFC-134a in the area of servicing. These problems are associated with the synthetic ester oil lubricant that HFC-134a requires. Ester oil is extremely sensitive to contamination from water vapour and other impurities. It makes home servicing very difficult at best circumstances, and even more so under most conditions prevalent in developing countries.

In fact, HFC-134a may well prove to be a technological nightmare for the service sector of Article 5 countries. This may compel refrigerator manufacturers that have not yet converted to remain with CFCs, and convincing those that have converted to switch back to CFCs. Given the above concerns, Greenpeace calls upon the Parties to the Montreal Protocol to:

1) Designate HFCs as 'transitional substances' so that a clear signal is sent to developing countries that this technology shall have a short shelf life.

2) Acknowledge the negative environmental impacts of HFCs, and strongly recommend that the production and consumption of HFCs be regulated through the Climate Convention.

3) Direct the Executive Committee of the Multilateral Fund to give preferential treatment for funding ODS replacement technologies which neither contribute to further ozone depletion nor contribute significantly to global warming;

4) Initiate an independent in-depth investigation of HFC-134a technology, which would examine the experience of developing countries with this technology and include an evaluation of representative cases of HFC-134a projects executed so far by the Multilateral Fund and its Implementing Agencies. Such investigation should also focus on the needs and realities of the formal and informal service sectors in developing countries.

5) Encourage companies that have received project approval from the Multilateral Fund to use HFC-134a, but have not yet started the implementation process, to switch to environmentally safer, longer term alternatives, for example, hydrocarbons.