|
|
|
MIPIGGS Newsletter MIPIGGS Calls On Governments Not To Accept UN F-Gas Report MIPIGGs is writing to the UK, Danish, Austrian and Swiss Governments asking them not to accept a new report by a joint group of the IPCC and TEAP, which it says could lead them to allow a 'vast' increase in HFC emissions. The report fails to set out policy options, hugely underplays the scope for Not In Kind alternatives and shows 'pie-in-the-sky optimism' over what containment can achieve, says MIPIGGs. It asks Ministers "in the interests of safeguarding the climate, to ensure that this report does not become the basis for decision-making on HFCs in your countries, the EU or more widely". MIPIGGs lists ten key concerns based on the Executive Summary of the report IPCC/TEAP SPECIAL REPORT: SAFEGUARDING THE OZONE LAYER AND THE GLOBAL CLIMATE SYSTEM:ISSUES RELATED TO HYDROFLUOROCARBONS AND PERFLUOROCARBONS, SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS (http://www.ipcc.ch/press/SPM.pdf). The full report is not yet available and IPCC says it will be published by Cambridge University Press in the summer of 2005. Analyst Eric Johnson of Atlantic Consulting who has published on the containment issue says: "My main criticism of the F-gas report is that it fails to address its own remit. According to its scoping paper (attached, see p 3, Part B), one might have expected to see comparisons of policy options, eg bans vs containment vs taxes vs whatever. Surely this is what policy-makers might want, ie a comparison of policies. What should we do? That is the question." He adds: "Unfortunately, the report does not bother to answer the question. The Summary for Policy Makers - the most important part of the report - does not do this (and neither does the rest). It leaps to containment as the answer, with no obvious logic, and then makes various statements about the effects of containment. Notwithstanding that these statements could well be incredible, they mean little without comparison to other policy options." MIPIGGs Comments On The IPCC/TEAP Report Based On The Executive Summary 1. This report is a huge missed opportunity that will probably make climate change worse not better because it will lead governments to allow HFC emissions to increase vastly, when they could be largely eliminated. 2. By mixing up HFCs, CFCs and HCFCs in its discussion and diagrams the Executive Summary will confuse many politicians and officials who often don't appreciate the differences, and disguises the fact that HFCs are an emerging, growing problem while the other gases are already in industrial decline. The HFC threat is being cloaked in the ODS agenda. 3. It hugely and consistently underplays the scope for avoiding and reducing HFCs through NIK (Not In Kind) alternatives. This is despite the fact that in the original decision to commission the study in 2003 the IPCC said it was responding to 'The need for a scientific/technical , policy neutral, comprehensive and user-friendly and complete information package'. 4. It fails to set out clear policy options for decision makers. 5. Given that HFCs are, as it notes, increasing at 13 - 15% (or more) a year in the atmosphere, its reliance on supposed success in containment in reducing future HFC emissions is pie in the sky optimism, not borne out by experience. In reality containment is a failed policy. 6. On p2 it says the 2015 threshold used throughout the report is chosen because "reliable literature on replacement options" exists up to but not after that time. This makes no sense in a report designed to protect climate, as there are already proven NIK technologies for almost every HFC use, so there's no scientific or technical excuse for assuming that HFCs have to be used in the 2005 - 2015 period. It compounds this error by saying that it ignores SRES scenarios showing increasing HFC emissions (on BaU) after 2015 despite their showing 'significant growth'. This is an historic mistake because it will mislead politicians into thinking that HFCs are not a serious threat. 7. In its BaU scenario it forsees a threefold increase in the large emissions of HFCs from refrigeration but this could be avoided by use of NIK such as NH3 and HC or CO2 or in some cases water systems. 8. Its section 4 on options to reduce use and emissions of F-gases is seriously inadequate and its greatest weakness. Government reviewers should have picked this up as it contains elementary errors. For example its description of NIK technologies is relegated to a footnote (17) and even then, focuses on the minor replacement uses of MDIs, deodorant aerosols and foam/mineral wool insulation (largely done in the UK for example), and completely fails to mention the massive potential to use HC, CO2 or NH3 to avoid F-gases in refrigeration or air conditioning. This section reads like a policy text from the F-gas industry. Containment is put first as an option and NIK last. Three of the five options all involve continued use of F-gases. 9. On page 12 S4 it says there are 'relatively few transparent comparisons' of alternatives - what about the massive German EPA study showing scope for replacement of HFCs, sector by sector ? The Danish Government (for one) has also done extensive research into the viability of alternatives which is how it was able to come up with its phase out programmes. What works in Austria, Germany, Denmark or Switzerland can work in the US, UK or France. 10. The whole report mixes data based on the objective scientific appraisal of the impact of emissions with data based on wholly political assumptions about technology choices and market development. The picture created is spurious. These are not technical questions but the result of politics and the influence of the f-gas industry on politics and policy. As a result the report is a prescription for un-necessary continued HFC pollution, storing up a completely avoidable addition to climate change. B & Q Sells HFCs UK-based DIY chain B & Q which has formerly prided itself on its 'green credentials' has started selling split-box and mobile air conditioning systems containing the powerful greenhouse gases HFCs. Described as 'ideal' for conservatories and homes they add to the panoply of products now targeted at the home leisure market, which add significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. Electricity-hungry digital radio, TVs always on standby, gas-powered patio heaters and now air conditioning units to cool down badly designed conservatory extensions. One of B & Qs web offerings is a split-box air conditioning system so energy hungry that it wins an "E" rating, others score "D" & "C" ratings. They all utilise HFCs, which will in due course, leak into the atmosphere, causing additional climate change. What now of B & Qs green claims ? B & Q does not sell hydrocarbon-based air conditioners, even though one of their suppliers, DeLonghi, produces them. All this is in flagrant contradiction to the public B & Q climate policy. B & Q Social Responsibility Fact sheet Env 09 says helpfully: 'many of the currently-common HFCs are potent greenhouse gases, which contribute to climate change'. Fortunately, as B & Q add: 'Technology has progressed and now natural hydrocarbon gases are available to replace these halogen chemicals. The natural gas (called R600A) now used in the majority of our showroom fridges and freezers has a negligible effect on global warming and does not destroy ozone. Natural gas technology is highly energy efficient, resulting in cheaper running costs for our customers'. As a result, notes B & Q, 'these types of appliances' are 'being supported by the Energy Savings Trust'. Presumably this does not apply to its air conditioners. Has this booming and environmentally disastrous market proved too much of a temptation for B & Q ? For B & Qs policies on climate see - http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/aboutbandq/social_responsibility/CLIMATEC.PDF UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions Threaten EU Targets "Britain's loss of control over its greenhouse gas emissions could also be problematic for EU partners" ENDS Daily reported on 4 April. "The European environment agency warned several years ago that the bloc was relying too much on over-achievement against Kyoto targets by the UK and Germany to enable its overall -8% emissions target to be met. Both are now struggling" said ENDS. UK greenhouse gas emissions rose in 2004 for the second year running, provisional figures showed on Thursday. The 1.5% increase took emissions to 12.6% below 1990 levels. More Bad News Section From the F-gas industry -- "HFCs IN HER MAJESTY'S THEATRE IN LONDON (UK): With the need to provide the pleasant internal environment demanded by modern audiences, comfort cooling was recently completely renovated. A state of the art new chiller running on R407C (1) has been installed, with a capacity of 205 kW. It was delivered to site, craned to rooftop level, installed, commissioned and up and running in time for the next performance within 3 days (1) a blend of HFC-32, HFC-125 and HFC-134a (23/25/52)" From ETCFC website http://www.fluorocarbons.org/frame.htm?/voxnews/news.asp To register to receive the newsletter, or to be removed from the list, please contact secretary@mipiggs.org |
 |