HFCs To Be Addressed In International Treaties This Year

The international treaties that address stratospheric ozone depletion and global climate change may both have a role to play this year in paving the way for the future of HFC refrigerants. Unlike their CFC and HCFC predecessors, HFCs have no ozone depletion potential and were not included in the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, a treaty established in 1987. However, HFCs are included in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol, treaties established in 1992 and 1997 respectively, because they are a greenhouse gas with global warming potential.

Background — Climate Treaties

Since 1992, HFCs have been listed as one of the six greenhouse gases in the UNFCCC, a treaty ratified by the United States that encouraged a return to 1990 levels of overall greenhouse gas emissions by 2000. There was little success by countries in meeting this nonmandatory stabilization target.

By 1997, countries sharpened their emissions-reductions commitments in the Kyoto Protocol, a spin-off treaty ratified by 187 countries, not including the United States. The Kyoto Protocol set binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European Union for reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions. These amounted to an average of five percent against 1990 levels during the five-year period 2008 to 2012. The inclusion of HFCs in the “basket of six gases” allows countries to reduce emissions of the overall basket without having to establish any specific reduction target for HFCs. This occurred because most expected HFCs to increase as a replacement for ozone-depleting gases.

This legally binding commitment remains in force for those ratifying countries but has been unsuccessful due in large part to the United States' refusal to ratify it, and its lack of coverage for developing countries. Parties to the climate treaties met in Copenhagen in December 2009 to work on new emissions-reduction targets for all countries, including the United States and developing countries. The expectation is that talks will continue in November in Mexico.

Background — Ozone Depletion Treaty

Only ozone-depleting substances such as CFCs and HCFCs are included in the 1987 Montreal Protocol, the only UN treaty that has been ratified by every country in the world — 196 nations. Industry and environmental organizations cooperated with countries to achieve success in establishing feasible phasedowns and phaseouts of ozone-depleting compounds, including refrigerants, because the process balanced the needs of the environment with technical and scientific expertise that allowed consideration of the availability of alternatives. Today, most view the 23-year-old Montreal Protocol as a model international environmental agreement because of its success in establishing a path for recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer.

2009 — An Active Year for HFCs

In September 2009, the United States, Canada and Mexico announced a joint “North American Proposal” to amend the Montreal Protocol to regulate the production and consumption of HFCs and to establish a developed country phasedown schedule in a manner similar to the schedule in a comprehensive climate change bill passed in June by the U.S. House of Representatives. The amendment also proposed a developing country phasedown schedule on a later track. The amendment addressed only HFC production and consumption while leaving unchanged the UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol provisions that govern HFC emissions.

The United States stated that although HFCs pose no threat to the stratospheric ozone layer, they risk exacerbating the problem of climate change as potent greenhouse gases. In encouraging the Montreal Protocol as the new jurisdiction for HFCs, the United States noted that the Protocol was proven to be an effective and efficient instrument for tackling problems such as the HCFC phaseout, that the infrastructure and technical experts are in place for evaluating alternative refrigerants, and that we have to take advantage of any additional means that are available to address climate protection.

U.S. delegates and their allies lobbied diligently in November at the annual Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Port Ghalib, Egypt. Realizing that the amendment could take two years to achieve consensus, the United States wanted to send a signal to the parties gathering in Copenhagen that the Montreal Protocol could effectively handle the issue of HFCs.

India and other nations argued that the Montreal Protocol could not control HFCs because they are not an ozone-depleting substance. China wanted the issue to be discussed first in the climate change forum. Many developing countries wanted to solve the challenges posed by the HCFC phaseout before moving to address a phasedown of HFCs. They expressed a strong interest in the identification of alternatives before moving forward on a phasedown. Joining India and China were Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, Malaysia, Venezuela, Colombia and other nations in strongly opposing the amendment. Supporting the amendment were the United States, Canada and Mexico in addition to the European Union, Japan, New Zealand, Indonesia, Nigeria, Dominican Republic and many smaller developing countries, especially the island nations. Nevertheless, the amendment failed due to a lack of consensus on the issue. Approximately 65 countries either endorsed or supported a nonbinding declaration supporting the amendment.