"Maybe some time next century there
will be better answers than HCFCs and HFCs"
- Mike Harris, ICI (currently a World Bank Montreal
Protocol advisor)
When the chemical industry endorsed the Montreal Protocol they thought they
had a no lose situation. As CFCS were phased out, HCFCs and HFCs would be
phased in. With the help of the Protocol's Fund, the industry was eagerly
anticipating moving into new markets in Southern countries. Rather than paying
for the problems they caused, these polluters faced the prospect of profiting
from their damage to the ozone layer. Environmental groups were both relieved
and alarmed. Relieved that CFCS would be phased out (although they haven't yet
been), but alarmed because of the fact that neither HCFCs nor HFCs are even
close to being environmentally benign. It should have surprised no one that
chlorine based industries came up with chlorine based alternatives. Almost
immediately, a search for "not in-kind alternatives" (NIKAs) began. For some
applications, such as aerosols and electronics cleaning, environmentally benign
alternatives were readily available. In refrigeration and foam blowing though
(the two sectors with the most growth potential in the developing world) HCFCs
and HFCs seemed to dominate the market. In March of 1993, as the first
"Greenfreeze" - a hydrocarbon based refrigerator - was produced in Germany, all
that changed.
Isobutane and cyclopentane, two readily available hydrocarbon products, are
now clearly established as NIKA technologies for refrigeration and foam
blowing, respectively. They are the standard technology in Europe today, and
have gained worldwide market share.
Despite this, it took years for the Protocol's implementing
agencies (the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme, and the United Nations
Industrial Development Organization) to recognize this shift and begin to fund
these technologies. The Bank and UNDP in particular, continue to rely on
chemical company "experts" for advice on their technology choices. Last year,
the Executive Committee of the Fund noted "a presumption against HCFC projects"
and yet this year UNDP has continued to submit HCFC projects - without adequate
justification or estimates of the cost of a second conversion away from HCFCs.
Both steps are now supposedly required in order for HCFC projects to be
approved. At the Fund's July meeting, these requirements were conveniently
overlooked.
The Protocol uses public money meant for environmental protection to phase out
CFC use. The fact that the majority of this money has gone towards other
environmentally damaging technologies is a scandal, and a clear violation of
the spirit, if not the letter of the Protocol.
