|
|
|
MIPIGGS Newsletter MEP Doyle Tightens F-Gas Regulation Before European Parliament In the latest development in the long-running saga of the new European law on f-gases or PIGGS (Potent Industrial greenhouse Gases), Irish MEP Avril Doyle has forwarded an improved draft Regulation to the European Parliament (Environment Committee) for its Second Reading. As Rapporteur to the Environment Committee on the proposal, Doyle was subject to vigorous lobbying by the swarms of fluorocarbon producers and users represented in Brussels but this month the Parliament will now vote on her revised version which includes: - a single environmental legal base (founded on Article 175, The Environment - which means the Regulation will no longer threaten more progressive measures adopted by Denmark, Austria and others) - a ban on the use of HFCs in small (under 150g charge) refrigeration systems - changes from 'inspected for leakage' to 'subject to controls for leakage' - a change in the article on review of the Regulation so that the provisions in Article 3 on air conditioning and refrigeration systems will also apply to mobile air conditioning (eg in cars) as of the end of 2008 (mobile air conditioning is being dealt with by amending another existing regulation with a single market basis, effectively tying all European countries into a common technology and standard) MIPIGGs welcomes the changes proposed by Doyle. Most helpful for the environment is the 'environment' legal basis. If adopted, this will thwart attempts by the 100s of f-gas industry lobbyists operating in Europe, to roll-back the use of alternative technologies which avoid climate-changing pollution with f-gases. Even so, MIPIGGS believes that Europe will need to go much further. The measure will not reduce overall f-gas pollution - it will continue to rise rapidly. Only substitution with alternative technologies can do that (see briefings at www.mipiggs.org). Perhaps most important, Doyle's proposal fails to include the major use of refrigerants (over 90% of HFCs) which are used in the larger (non-domestic, commercial) units: MIPIGGs believes that these should be covered by the regulation. Some observers fear that the Parliament may even give up the ban on small unit HFCs in order to retain the legal basis. It is unusual for the European Parliament to significantly revise legislation at this stage but this has occurred because the Parliament substantially changed after the recent European Elections, and because the Dutch Presidency waited for the UK to take over before finalising the measure. Members of the Parliament will come under pressure from the mainly US-based f-gas lobby as they vote on the Regulation. Meanwhile a recent German study (below) shows how easy it would be for European states to make large cuts in use and pollution from Potent Industrial Greenhouse Gases. In June 2005 the EU Council of Ministers confirmed the position on the regulation which they had previously adopted in October 2004. Under their formulation, mobile air conditioning was dealt with separately (by amending an existing rule) under a legal basis of a single market, while the other measures went under the environment legal base. A single market basis would mean that Member States are open to challenge on the grounds of impediments to trade if they adopt stronger measures than the regulation specifies. Environmental organisations, many MEPs and Austria and Denmark continued to press for a single environmental basis. In June 2005 Belgium, Portugal and Sweden also called for the regulation to ban f-gases "where cost-effective alternatives exist". Germany Shows That F-Gas Pollution Could Be Cut 30% Now In August a German Environment Agency study showed that f-gas emissions (PFCs, HFCs, SF6) could be cut 30% in Germany if feasible measures beyond those proposed in the draft regulation were to be adopted. This would result from substitution rather than the discredited idea of 'containment' (see article below) on which the draft regulation mostly relies. The German study identifies phase out of HFCs in mobile air conditioning by 2020, and replacing half the use of HFCs in refrigeration with alternatives (such as ammonia, hydrocarbons) also by 2020, as the principal measures. Simply relying on the European rules, says the study, would allow emissions of f-gases to rise to 4% above 1995 levels by 2020. (See ENDS Environment Daily - Monday 29 August 2005, Issue 1931) IEEP Challenges Stek Assumptions In June the respected Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) issued a report questioning the assumptions used by the European Commission in formulating the EU f-gas regulation. These centre on the idea of 'containment' i.e. stopping the escape of f-gases used in refrigeration, air-conditioning etc, instead of the strategy proposed by MIPIGGs and others, of substitution, that is using alternative technologies with no f-gases at all. Crucially, the proponents of the Regulation, and many Member States, adopted the assumption that a STEK type reporting system could cut emission of f-gases to just 4.8% a year. The rest, it was assumed, would remain in banks, or be recovered and re-used or destroyed. MIPIGGs has pointed out that experience with CFCs, the fore-runners of HFCs, and many reports and observations from among the users of HFCs, suggests that any assumptions of effective containment are wishful thinking. In addition, HFCs are rapidly building up in the atmosphere (20% a year over the Arctic), and are clearly coming from the use of HFCs, both in mobile and stationary applications. On top of this, the fluorocarbon manufacturing industry itself acknowledges that much of the profit comes from the "aftersales" market - ie replacing has that has leaked into the atmosphere. The STEK system runs in Holland. Many commentators have pointed out that the Netherlands is one of the best organised countries and experience with ozone depleting f-gases used in the same applications suggests that many other Member States - with fridge mountains and extensive leakage - simply cannot be relied upon to run any such system. In February 2004 Eric Johnson of Atlantic Consulting used industry data to demonstrate that 'containment' of PIGGs such as HFC-134a had already failed. (See report and newsletter at www.mipiggs.org). Nevertheless, the Commission and most Member States adopted the notion of containment, which is pushed by industry lobbyists who heavily outnumber environmental voices in national capitals and in Brussels. The IEEP report (Is STEK as good as reported ?) by Jason Anderson subjects the assumptions made by the EU to detailed examination. It shows that even on the data used by the Commission, studies of STEK reveal that leak rates could be 6.9 - 12.7% not 4.8%. Anderson compared end-user leakage rates with sales figures from HFC distributors. Moreover, there are reasons to believe the real rates may be much higher. For example the surveys were voluntary, with only 16% of companies selected actually filing a return in the one giving a 4.8% 'result'. It beggars belief that companies experiencing massive loss of refrigerant for example, are likely to have volunteered that information. Anderson comments that 'the European Parliament has considered but rejected more stringent measures to promote replacement of F-gases' during the first reading in 2004, and 'it is likely that the Parliament took the achievable reductions from containment as a given'. Most Member States - such as the UK - also simply survey industry views (users and producers) and base their policies on what they are told. Few have any independent technical research base. The containment idea came from an industry-dominated subgroup of the European Climate Change Programme, a system set up by the European Commission to help it formulate policy on dealing with f-gases, which are ostensibly controlled under the Kyoto Protocol. They recommended a containment-based framework directive. The Commission proposed linking this to the ozone Regulation 2037/2000 but industry objected to linking HFCs to phase out of CFCs. As a result, as Anderson describes, a free standing draft f-gas Regulation emerged from the Commission in 2003. A parallel process focussed on phase-out of HFCs in mobile air conditioning - an application which continues to boom in the EU. The dispute then mainly focussed on the legal basis, with American-backed industry aiming to emasculate progressive measures to promote alternatives to f-gases, already underway in Sweden, Germany, Denmark and Austria. Anderson's report details how although the 4.5% figure was adopted as the amen evidence for containment - 'the backbone' of the Regulation - 'there was never any further investigation of the leak rate'. The key report on STEK was not available electronically, and was only available in Dutch. This was one of four studies which were supposed to look at the problem from different angles. The 4.5% figure came from a study of log-books. Anderson discusses all the studies in detail and describes it as an issue of 'immense complexity'. Another study, by ITM, found that just half of the interventions in the logbooks in its review were 'fully traceable'. Anderson does not claim that the 4.5% figure is definitely wrong but his report demonstrates beyond doubt that it must be highly unreliable and unsafe as a basis of policy. EPEE (European Partnership for Energy and the Environment), the industry lobby group for use of f-gases, said that Anderson had "misrepresented" the potential of containment (EPEE press release 24 June). Lastly, Anderson points out that although STEK has probably made some reduction in leak rates in the Netherlands, overall emissions of HFCs in Holland will rise - more than tripling - between 2000 and 2010 because under current policy, more systems will use HFCs. Only a scheme to require alternative technologies, can avoid this. UK Taxpayer Funds £24m Gift To Rhodia HFC polluter Rhodia has pocketed £26m in payments from the UK Government in return for investing £1.3m in abatement of HFC pollution from its manufacturing facility at Avonmouth near Bristol in SW England. The payments come in the UK Emissions Trading Scheme. Rhodia built an incinerator to cut HFC pollution and as a result enjoyed a 20 fold profit, funded by the public, for not releasing potent industrial greenhouse gases. (See ENDS Report, 365, June 2005, p 13). Because f-gases are so potent in warming up the atmosphere, they get huge rating under scheme, compared for example to CO2 emissions. Advertising Watchdog Rules Against HFC Producer Daikin Daikin has been criticised by the UK Advertising Standards Authority for claiming that HFCs (R-410A) are "ozone friendly". The ASA upheld a complain from hydrocarbon refrigeration systems producer Earthcare on the grounds that one of the feedstock's for R-410a is the ozone destroying gas HCFC-22. (See ENDS Report 365, June 2005, p 34). DIY Giant B & Q Continues U-turn On Green Policies UK DIY company B & Q was once known for its support for green policies but now reports what trade magazine H & V News calls 'roaring sales' of its HFC-powered air conditioning systems for offices and homes. It sold 10,000 cooling units in a matter of months, some at a £100 discount. UK MPs Call For Phase Out Of HFCs In May 63 UK MPs (EDM 19) led by Bill Wiggin, called in an 'Early Day Motion' for a phase out of HFCs within a decade, and welcomed the Atlantic Consulting report 'Containment Has Already Failed'. Squeals From PIGGs Lobby In August UK trade magazine H & V News reported angry statements from Cedric Sloan of FETA, a refrigeration industry group, railing against "political dogma" or "party politics" from members of the European Parliament Environment Committee. "Some of those who have got onto the Environmental Committee are very green but they don't understand the science" said Mr Sloan. "All sorts of funny games are going on" he added. For an understanding of the science MIPIGGs recommends a reading of its briefings, and the substantive reports produced by the German and Danish Environment Agencies, and the IPCC (see links at www.mipiggs.org). Fact Between 1990 and 2003 annual sales of HFC 134a rose from 189 metric tons to 166,899. (see www.afeas.org/2003/html/hfc-134a.html) For further information contact: secretary@mipiggs.org |
 |