HFCs AND THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL: ANOTHER MORAL DILEMMA

The Montreal Protocol is the precedent setting international accord for responding to a global crisis. Clearly, the ozone crisis would continue to loom even larger without the Protocol. However, in at least two aspects the Protocol has set a dangerous precedent. One, as discussed above, is the amount of power and influence the Protocol has given to the very industry whose products created the ozone crisis in the first place. Two, the Protocol sanctions and promotes the wide scale use of HFCs, especially HFC-134a, as 'safe' alternatives to CFCs.

HFCs are potent global warming gases, and as such, exacerbate global 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-134a leakage from automobiles sold in Japan in 1995 will contribute to global warming the CO₂ equivalent of ten power plants.

Since HFCs do not contribute to ozone depletion, the Protocol does not have the mandate to legally control them. Still, the Protocol encourages their wide scale use and therefore shares in the moral responsibility for their ultimate impact upon the environment. As such, the Protocol is sweeping the ozone crisis under the carpet of climate change.

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.

Given these environmental concerns, HFCs should at least be referred to as 'transitional substances' so that a clear signal is sent to developing countries that this technology shall have a short shelf life. Furthermore, the Parties to the Protocol should acknowledge the negative environmental impacts of HFCs and strongly recommend that the production and consumption of HFCs be regulated through the Climate Convention.

In the case of HFC-134a in domestic refrigeration, the Montreal Protocol may be encouraging the use of a technology to replace CFCs, which could prove to be fundamentally inappropriate for many developing countries. Recent information from developing countries points 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.

Should these concerns materialize themselves on a large scale, the Montreal Protocol and the Multilateral Fund could well face valid criticisms from developing countries for having sanctioned the use of a technology without sufficient research, testing and information. This could undermine international confidence in future North-South technology transfer programs.

CHILL CANS
The recent plans of a US and UK based company to market HFC-134a cooled "Chill Cans" for beverages should send chills up everyone's spine. The cans work by simply releasing HFC 134a at the push of a button. As the company boasts on the Internet:

"The Chill Can[TM] contains your favorite beverage and chills it ANYTIME, ANYWHERE. Can't get to a refrigerated vending machinge on a HOT day? Just pop open a Chill Can[TM] on the beach, on the golf course, or during any outdoor activity where refrigerated beverages are not available. Simply turn the Chill Can[TM] over, press the button on the can bottom, and in about 90 seconds your beverage temperature drops by 30 ûF! Turn the Chill Can[TM] back upright, pop the top and enjoy a cool refreshing drink anywhere! Never hassle with bulky ice chests again!"

Furthermore, the company claims: "The Chill Can[TM] is good for the environment! It's completely recyclable and ususe ozone friendly, non-toxic materials. Furthermore, it reduces the ozone depleting emissions from leaky old refrigerators and dirty portable generators in developing countries."

The company projects the sales of upwards of 80 million cans a year around the world. Paradoxically, the chemical industry has expressed reservations about this use of HFC-134a due to its impact on the environment. It is obviously bad PR for the chemical.