TL: MONTREAL PROTOCOL NEGOTIATIONS 1992: A GREENPEACE GUIDE TO SAVING THE OZONE LAYER SO: Greenpeace International (GP) DT: December 1992 Keywords: atmosphere ozone greenpeace solutions cfcs hcfcs refrigeration agreements denmark europe alternatives gp conferences ec / OVERVIEW Ozone depletion threatens the health and even the survival of all forms of life on Earth. It is a long-term danger because of the long lifetimes of the chemicals that destroy ozone, as well as an immediate global emergency. Even after all production of ozone-destroying chemicals has been halted, quantities of these chemicals remaining in the atmosphere will commit the world to decades of ozone depletion and its averse effects. The risks are alarming. World Meteorological Organisation, in a statement prior to the start of the Copenhagen meeting, said that ozone depletion early in the year over northern Europe, Russia and Canada and above inhabited areas of southern Argentina and Chile in the autumn had been "dramatic". WMO's Romen Bojkov said that "far more severe depletion of the ozone layer in both northern and southern hemispheres than we had expected" has occurred. For at least another decade, the ozone depletion will accelerate faster than the rise in chlorine and bromine concentrations in the stratosphere. NASA's Dr Robert Watson stated at an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) workshop in October this year that rates of global ozone loss could be double current rates by the end of the century, although the level of chlorine loading increase is expected to be about 20% above the present. On top of the rapid ozone losses that will be induced by rising chlorine levels is the ever-present threat of random volcanic events that could inject aerosols into the stratosphere completing the necessary conditions for massive ozone loss in the mid-latitudes. It is in this context that the paramount objective of decisions taken in Copenhagen should be to reduce the chlorine and bromine loading of the stratosphere as fast as possible. As the Parties to Montreal Protocol gather for the fourth time in five years they risk repeating the mistakes of the past: too little action, too late. Rather than acting immediately to ban any further production of ozone-destroying chemicals, Governments are preparing to accept the long-term production of a new class of ozone-destroyers: hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). These chemicals will wreak their damage on the ozone layer during the period of greatest risk in the next couple of decades, when levels of chlorine in the stratosphere reach their peak. WHAT IS AT STAKE IN COPENHAGEN? With history and science clearly demonstrating that previous actions on ozone depleting substances have been inadequate, crucial decisions to eliminate the production and use of these chemicals are needed. The key decisions which are to be made in Copenhagen include: * Phase-out dates for production and consumption of CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform (1,1,1 trichlorethane). Phase-out dates for these are proposed by UNEP to be brought forward by 4 years in the case of the first four and nine years for the latter to 1 January 1996. A number of countries are proposing 1995 as the final date for production. A number of countries are quibbling over whether or not to make a 75% or an 85% cut in 1994.In reality, these substances should be phased out immediately. * Controls on HCFCs. UNEP proposes a range of control options for HCFCs based on a cap of between 2 and 4% of 1989 CFC consumption plus 1989 HCFC use, to be achieved by 1 January 1996, with a reduction to 75% of this cap by 1 January 2000, 50% by 2010 and phase-out by 2020. As in the debates leading up to the 1990 London Amendments UNEP has been forced to cave into pressure from countries defending key industrial interests. As late as July 1992 UNEP, for example, was proposing a 2005 phase-out for HCFCs, but has been forced to retreat from this.HCFCs should be phased out at the same that CFCs are eliminated. * Controls on Methyl Bromide. This chemical is widely used in agricultural operations as a pesticide has recently been discovered to play a major role in ozone loss. UNEP is proposing that production and consumption be frozen by 1995 at 1992 levels and reduced by 25% by 2000. On the basis of recent international workshops on methyl bromide there are few if any technical obstacles to the elimination of methyl bromide. This substance needs to be phased out immediately. * Funding for to Developing Countries. A number of developed countries proposed in July that the Interim Multilateral Fund (IMF) of the Montreal Protocol be brought within the World Bank's Global Environmental Facility. This is firmly resisted by developing countries and most NGOs. Instead, the IMF should be made permanent, outstanding financial pledges honoured, new funding commitments increased and made mandatory. Developed countries that persist in pushing the GEF takeover of the IMF risk the possibility that some large developing countries could pull out of the Protocol. * Loopholes in the Protocol. The question of essential use exemptions are to be considered in Copenhagen. Instead of defining essential uses, the Montreal Protocol should be amended to make mandatory the recovery and recycling of ozone depleting substances from industrial processes and maintenance activities. In addition, a further loophole arising from the inadvertent production of ODS from manufacturing processes should be closed rather than sanctioned, as proposed by the USA. * Destruction of ODS. A decision is due to be made on approved technologies for the destruction of ODS in Copenhagen. The draft decision essentially ignores non-incineration technologies and Greenpeace is urging a delay whilst other environmentally benign technologies are considered. Incineration technologies should not be approved and further investigations undertaken to enable the Parties to approve more environmentally benign destruction technologies. FUTURE DANGER The history of ozone depletion has been a history of observed depletion consistently outstripping scientific predictions. Science did not predict the formation of the Antarctic ozone hole. It did not predict the absolute extent of mid-latitude depletion now being measured; nor did it predict Arctic ozone losses of 20 percent, recorded in early 1992. If the history of this issue is a guide there is every likelihood of more unpleasant surprises in the future. Even more worrying is the fact that when quantities of chlorine reach certain concentrations in the stratosphere where the ozone layer lies, very rapid depletion can occur, such as that which led to the formation of the Antarctic ozone hole. Because of quantities of long-lived chlorine chemicals already released, we are committed to some twenty percent more chlorine reaching the stratosphere before international agreements begin to bite and emissions of ozone-destroying chemicals are halted. This small increase in chlorine loading is likely to trigger disproportionately larger ozone losses. If Robert Watson is right, perhaps double the current rate. IMPACTS The results of the damage we are doing to our protective ozone layer will be global. The extra ultra-violet radiation allowed through a depleting ozone layer is harmful to all living things. As ozone depletion continues, so inevitably will the impacts on plants, animals, humans, and on life in the oceans. These impacts include increases in eye damage and blindness, for humans, animals, birds and fish. They include increasing incidences of skin cancer and damage to the immune system. Many crops will not grow as well as ozone depletion continues. Because some species are more vulnerable to ultra- violet radiation than others, it is expected that on land and in the oceans, the balance of natural ecosystems will be upset. Evidence from the Southern Ocean shows that phytoplankton, the base of the marine food chain, are already being adversely affected by ozone depletion. Concentrations of these tiny marine organisms in sub-polar waters may be 1000 to 10,000 times greater than are found in tropical and sub-tropical waters. And already, springtime ozone depletion above Antarctica has resulted in an observed 6-12 percent reduction in the photosynthetic ability of Antarctic phytoplankton lying under the hole. This reduction has risen as high as 25 percent under certain conditions. As well as underpinning the entire marine ecosystem, phytoplankton play an important role in absorbing carbon dioxide from the air. As their numbers dwindle, and as their ability to soak up carbon dioxide is impaired, more carbon dioxide will be left in the atmosphere to contribute to global warming. The oceans absorb more than half the carbon dioxide emitted each year from human and natural sources, and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has warned that a ten percent decrease in carbon dioxide uptake by the oceans would leave about the same amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as is produced by fossil fuel burning. FALSE SOLUTIONS Despite the expanding risks posed by continuing ozone depletion, industry's agenda for ensuring continued profitability continues to drive the search for safe substitutes. Industry representatives form a powerful majority on all the technical assessment panels established under the Montreal Protocol. Serious consideration has not been given to alternatives which do not threaten the health of our atmosphere, even though Greenpeace has shown that viable alternatives do exist and in many cases are already being produced commercially. (see Greenpeace Alternatives Report) Instead, the multinational corporations represented on the panels continue to insist that they must be permitted to continue producing their chosen substitute chemicals: HCFCs and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). HCFCs still destroy ozone, while HFCs are potent global warming gases. To support demands that HCFCs must be accepted as substitute chemicals, a misleading measure of their capacity to destroy ozone: ozone depletion potential (ODP) has been used. This measure calculates a particular chemical's capacity to destroy stratospheric ozone over a 500-year time period. Using this measure, HCFCs appear to represent only a few percent of the destruction capacity of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). However, in the United Kingdom, Germany and the United States, scientists have warned of the danger of large-scale acceptance of HCFCs as substitutes for other ozone- destroying chemicals. The 1991 Report of the UK Stratospheric Ozone Review Group (SORG) called the use of ODPs for HCFCs "quite unreliable as guides to the short-term impact of these substances on the ozone layer", and recommended that their contribution to chlorine loading be used instead (SORG 1991). Similarly Susan Solomon and Daniel Albritton, two of the United States' most respected atmospheric scientists, concluded recently that "long-term ODPs were not appropriate for making short-term (decade-scale) forecasts [of HCFC impacts on ozone losses]". Other independent reviews show that HCFCs are not the essential substitute chemicals claimed by industry. A 1992 study for the UK Department of Trade and Industry states that "there are no current or potential applications of HCFCs in the sectors examined for which no other technically feasible alternatives exist or are likely to be available in the short to medium term". In reality, it is clear that HCFCs are not essential substances for society. They are essential only for HCFC manufacturers and commercial users who want to avoid investing in new, less harmful equipment and techniques. REAL ALTERNATIVES In the battle to save the ozone layer, industry's insistence that the task is impossible has been shown repeatedly to be based not on logic, nor on concern for the health of the ozone layer, but on the driving need for continued profitability. CFCs were essential, the world was told at first. Then industry accepted that consumption could be halved within ten years, and then that their production could be phased out completely by the end of the century. Now, the world's leaders are preparing to agree that CFCs and other ozone-destroyers must be phased out within three years. Yet although in the history of attempts to save the ozone layer, the impossible has consistently been shown to be possible, industry is now taking a stance which will lead inevitably to further unnecessary danger to the ozone layer, and further acceleration of the momentum of global warming. Factories are even now being built for the production and use of these substitute chemicals, before toxicity testing has been completed, and despite the fact that they still cause grave damage to the environment. Both classes of chemicals are potent global warming gases, while HCFCs still destroy ozone.And the world's leaders appear to be prepared to accept this continuation of the threat to the health and survival of all of life on Earth, even though Greenpeace has shown that safe alternatives exist for virtually every application where industry would choose to substitute HCFCs and HFCs for CFCs. For the vast majority of applications where HCFCs or HFCs are proposed as substitutes, there is a broad range of alternatives. Many of these alternatives are already competitive, and in some cases they even surpass the false solutions of HCFCs and HFCs in terms of costs and efficiency. Prime examples are the widespread use of no-clean, aqueous and semi-aqueous cleaning processes for electronics equipment, and propane and ammonia-based refrigeration systems. The past record of the impossible becoming possible offers good reason to believe that prospects for reducing costs and further enhancing efficiency and performance will improve even further in the near- term, particularly if Government demands force industry to devote more research time and money to clean solutions. At present, parties to the Montreal Protocol are preparing to agree to permit significant increases in the production and use of HCFCs for the next three decades. Such an agreement would be a costly and dangerous mistake which would commit the ozone layer to greater and longer-lasting damage than politicians realise. It would needlessly extend and intensify the period of greatest risk from increasing levels of ultraviolet radiation. The real policy question which governments should be addressing is how to minimise the risks to humans, agriculture and the natural environment, on land and in the oceans. Instead, they are ignoring the danger, and ignoring also the real alternatives to CFCs and other ozone- destroying chemicals: alternatives which exist now and which are commercially available. If Governments do agree at Copenhagen that HCFCs should be produced and used for decades after CFCs and other ozone- destroying chemicals are phased out, that agreement will send a clear message to industry that it should establish infrastructures for the long-term production of these chemicals. HFCs: Out of the Frying pan and into the Fire? A new generation of halocarbons known as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) which have no impact on the ozone layer are now being heavily promoted by the chemical industry. HFC 134a, also known as Klea, is a proposed substitute for CFCs used in refrigeration, and is 3200 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. The forecast future production volumes of HFCs give rise to major concerns about their global warming impact, which could easily offset a 10% reduction in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels by 2025. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change calculated from industry data that by 2025, if uncontrolled, HFC 134a emissions would be close to 500,000 tonnes/year. The climatic effects of this level of emissions is equivalent to 10% of 1990 carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use (using a 100 year global warming potential index). By 2050, with HFC 134a production approaching 1 million tonnes per year, emissions would be equivalent to 18% of 1990 CO2 emissions from fossil fuels It is staggering to think that just as the world is beginning to face the need to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions the chemical industry is vigorously promoting a major new greenhouse gas. Furthermore the use of HFC 134a also creates a range of other technical disadvantages which would particularly affect developing countries. If HFC 134a is used as a coolant, it requires specially designed synthetic oils in the cooling compressors. These oils are several times more expensive than conventional lubricants, and their production, transport and processing requires costly high- tech equipment. In addition, the producers themselves specify that with the use of the new cooling oils used in HFC 134a applications, cooling cycles must be one hundred percent moisture-free to prevent decomposition. It is hard to imagine how such conditions can be attained especially in tropical countries with humidity around 90 percent. Even attempting to attain these conditions will be unacceptably costly for developing countries, and if their attempts are not successful this will significantly reduce the effective lifetime of the cooling materials - to the advantage of refrigerator producers and to the economic cost of developing countries. Finally HFC 134a would have to be recycled with the aid of vacuum pumps at great outlay and costs, making recovery of this powerful global warming gas most unlikely. Even in a well-developed and environmentally-aware country like Germany no more than 2 percent of annual CFC production is recovered today. PROPANE/BUTANE REFRIGERATION The refrigeration industry has lobbied strongly for the use of HCFCs and HFCs, supposedly to make possible the early phase-out of CFCs. Industry's argument is that a commitment to these chemicals offers the only chance to stop using CFCs. The simple flaw in this argument is that safe substitutes either are already available, or could become available rapidly if industry accelerated its research and development efforts. Without any of the multimillion dollar resources available to the multinational corporations whose chemicals continue to destroy the ozone layer, a collaborative enterprise between Greenpeace Germany, an East German company DKK Scharfenstein and scientists from the Dortmund Institute of Hygiene has resulted in commercial production of a propane-butane domestic refrigerator. This fridge, in which propane/butane is used as the coolant, does not destroy ozone. These gases cost half the price of CFCs and one-tenth the price of HFC 134a. The propane/butane refrigerant mixture is particularly suitable for newly industrialising countries. It is easy to handle and, unlike industry's chosen substitutes, it does not need high-tech equipment and does not demand dependency on imports or expensive licences. The propane/butane mixture is suitable for a wide range of refrigeration temperatures, and would be suitable for many small refrigeration applications including freezers, air conditioning and retail cabinets.The first model of the DKK Scharfenstein "Greenfreeze fridge" will be commercially available early next year. Already, it has already received an important endorsement from the German Environment Minister Klaus Toepfer, who has said that the fridge has "a better total eco-balance than all the other fridges on the market". Mr Toepfer also said the propane/butane fridge has a realistic chance of being the first fridge to attain the prestigious Blue Angel Label, awarded for environmentally sympathetic product design. Star refrigeration of Glasgow, Scotland, has reported that propane "will eventually be adopted as the preferred refrigerant for small sealed systems because it is the most efficient and most benign substance available, and because it can be used with negligible risk". The UK Institute of Refrigeration has called propane the "sensible" refrigerant for domestic fridges. The chairman of the Institute's Technical Committee, Dr Forbes Pearson, says propane is "the obvious choice for domestic refrigeration - and it's cheap". Development of the "Greenfreeze" fridge has shown that even in one sector of the "essential" uses of CFCs and their "replacements", truly safe alternatives do exist. It is for Governments to recognise that industry's pleas for acceptance of its chosen - and false - solutions are selfishly based, and that rather than accepting industry's arguments, the proper course of action is to pressure industry to further develop the alternatives which Greenpeace has shown to exist, and to be commercially viable. METHYL BROMIDE Methyl bromide is a powerful ozone-destroyer. Although it is a short-lived gas, surviving in the atmosphere for only 18 - 25 months, it has been calculated that within a five-year time period, its potential to destroy stratospheric ozone is 20 times greater than that of CFC-11. In part, methyl bromide's ability to destroy ozone depends on how much chlorine there is in the stratosphere. The higher the chlorine concentrations, the more destructive methyl bromide is, owing to the chemical coupling between chlorine and bromine. UNEP has reported that if human sources of methyl bromide were eliminated, the benefits to the ozone layer would be similar to advancing the CFC and carbon tetrachloride phaseout schedule by 1.5 to 3 years. Methyl bromide reaches the atmosphere from both human and natural sources. UNEP has estimated that approximately 30 kilotonnes of methyl bromide are emitted from human sources each year which is about 15-35 percent of the total, natural plus anthropogenic. The total atmospheric burden of methyl bromide is in the range 150-220 kilotonnes. Fumigation of soils and post-harvest crops accounts for virtually all the methyl bromide emitted as a result of human activities. The vast majority of these emissions come from industrialised countries. 90 percent of all methyl bromide sales are in northern hemisphere countries, while North America (mainly the United States) and Europe are responsible for nearly 70 percent of global sales and use of this gas. Developed countries account for 78 percent of all methyl bromide used for soil fumigation. According to UNEP, in the developing world methyl bromide fumigation is used primarily for high-value export crops. It is not used for crops consumed by the local population. Soil fumigation is one of the least defensible uses of methyl bromide. Rather than promote living and vital soils which themselves suppress disease and pests, methyl bromide fumigation kills all life in the soil. Fumigated soils are particularly susceptible to reinvasion by pests, and farmers are thus rapidly caught in a vicious circle of endless fumigation. Non-chemical alternatives to soil fumigation include flooding, soil solarisation, biological and cultural control. Alternatives for glasshouses include steam treatment of seedling beds, artificial plant growth substrates and solarisation. About 14 percent of methyl bromide produced globally is used to fumigate food after harvest, to prevent pests from moving from one country or region to another. About 80 percent of all methyl bromide used for this purpose escapes into the atmosphere. These emissions could be reduced drastically by capturing and recycling the fumigant, rather than simply venting it into the atmosphere. Technology now exists to capture 97 percent of methyl bromide used in fumigation houses, but this technology is not yet widely used. There is no single alternative to methyl bromide used for quarantine purposes, but many alternatives exist for case-by-case application, and others could soon be developed. Alternatives include controlled atmosphere, heat, cold, increased processing in the country of origin and biological control. To date most European governments have been slow to respond to the methyl bromide issue. Japan is reported to be critical of the need to phase out this gas, hiding behind the claim that more science is needed before action can be taken. The United States position is stronger: under the United States Clean Air Act, methyl bromide qualifies as a Class I ozone depleter a,.H.],ZZ][].$,YH84ased out no later than 2000. FUNDING The Interim Multilateral Fund (IMF) was established during the meeting of Parties to the Montreal Protocol in London in June 1990. Its purpose is to help developing countries meet the incremental costs of complying with the provisions of the Protocol.A unique aspect of this Fund is that both donors and recipients have an equal say over how its funds are spent. Other funds, such as the Global Environment Fund, (GEF) are controlled by donors. The IMF is managed by the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). It has a 14-person executive committee which consists of representatives from seven developed nations and seven developing nations. When the Montreal Protocol's Seventh Open-ended Working Group met in Geneva in July this year, some donor Governments proposed merging the IMF with the GEF. The main argument in favour of this move was that this would provide one single funding instrument for global environmental issues. In addition, it was argued that the IMF had not received funds pledged to it, and that the IMF has not moved projects forward quickly enough. At Copenhagen, Parties to the Montreal Protocol will decide whether the IMF should become a permanent funding mechanism. under the Montreal Protocol, or whether it should be merged with the GEF. Unless developing countries support the proposal, it will not be possible either to change the Fund's structure, or to merge it with the GEF. Developing countries strongly oppose any attempt to move the IMF under the wing of the GEF, because of their past adverse experiences with the World Bank which largely controls the GEF. UNDP provides the GEF with technical assistance, capacity building and project preparation and UNEP gives scientific and technical advice but in reality, most of the decisions relating to the GEF are made by World Bank staff without any outside oversight. Developing countries' suspicion of the World Bank on the basis of its past environmental record are backed by many examples. All the indications are that World Bank staff are oblivious to the GEF criteria. In fact, World Bank staff approved the first tranche of GEF projects before the criteria had been developed. World Bank staff identify and develop GEF projects with only nominal input from the scientific and technical panel, whose comments are treated as recommendations only. Information from affected communities or concerned NGOs is not provided to the implementation committee, nor to the contributing countries who examine each tranche of projects. Developing countries have cited a variety of World Bank projects which have resulted in environmental and social devastation. In China, for example, the World Bank administers a $2 million GEF project which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But at the same time, the World Bank's energy lending sector directly funds projects which exploit and develop China's coal, gas and oil resources. Greenhouse gas emissions from the development of these fossil fuels will overwhelm any possible reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the GEF projects. In China, the Bank proposes to devote $310 million to coal thermal power plants; $150 million for oil and gas development; $80 million for a cement plant and over $1 billion for fossil fuel-based transportation projects. Another example of the World Bank's inability to comprehend the environmental effects of its decisions is its approval, in December 1991, of a loan to a subsidiary of the company Whirlpool to build compressors using CFC 12, at a site in Egypt. Now, the Bank is applying to the IMF for funds to replace the CFC 12 with safe alternatives. The original approval should never have been given, and now the World bank is seeking to rectify its mistake by applying for funds that could otherwise go to other new projects. . THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer was agreed in 1985 on the basis of theoretical scientific work first reported by Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina eleven years earlier, which showed that CFCs could destroy stratospheric ozone. Shortly after the Vienna Convention was finalised and agreed, the world was shocked by irrefutable evidence from the British Antarctic Survey showing the existence of the Antarctic ozone hole. Two years later, in 1987, agreement on specific regulatory measures was reached, and the original Montreal Protocol on Substances that Destroy the Ozone Layer was finalised and approved, coming into force in January 1989. This protocol provided for a halving of CFC production and consumption by July 1998. It also provided for a 10 year delay in the control requirements for developing countries. By 1990, revelations of accelerating ozone losses which far outpaced scientific predictions spurred parties to the Protocol to tighten its provisions and agree to a total phase-out of CFCs by the year 2000. This revised Protocol (the London Amendments), agreed in London in June 1990, added two other substances to its list of chemicals which destroy ozone: carbon tetrachloride and methyl chloroform. An attempt was made by a number of countries to also control HCFCs, but this was vigorously resisted by chemical companies who fielded an armada of lobbyists at the London meeting. ICI for example threatened that the control of HCFCs would lead to more production of CFCs. Industrial interests represented at the London meeting in 1990 described the measures as draconian provisions, they rapidly proved inadequate. Ozone losses continued to accelerate, not just above Antarctica, but above heavily-populated mid-latitude regions, the tropics and above the Arctic. In February 1992, a combined European/United States research effort revealed "frightening" quantities of chlorine monoxide - the precursor for exponential ozone depletion - in the stratosphere above the Arctic, and above northern latitudes stretching across most of northern Europe and north America.These scientific findings prompted Governments to propose even stronger measures to protect the ozone layer. Now, the proposal is for a complete phase-out of ozone- destroying chemicals listed in the Montreal Protocol (controlled substances) by January 1 1996. HCFCs are not included in this schedule, even though their short-term potential for destroying ozone is greater than that of methyl chloroform, a controlled substance. DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES Even when all production of ozone-depleting substances has been stopped, some 2.5 million tonnes of these chemicals will still exist in old equipment and in stockpiles. If they are not ultimately destroyed, they will eventually escape to the atmosphere and continue to destroy the ozone layer. UNEP's Ad Hoc Technical Advisory Committee on ODS destruction has recommended incineration as the best option for eliminating stockpiles of CFCs and halons. This recommendation greatly concerns Greenpeace. The committee, whose members mostly represent commercial incineration interests, has not adequately considered other destruction options. Moreover, its belief that incineration is the answer to destruction and disposal options is seriously flawed. While the committee quotes destruction efficiencies of 99.99 percent for incineration of ozone-depleting substances, these efficiencies represent incineration under ideal conditions. In ordinary commercial practice, efficiencies are significantly lower, dropping as low as 80 percent in some instances.Because of the stability of chemicals which destroy ozone, if they are to be incinerated successfully they must be burned with large volumes of other compounds. This fact could thus be used as a justification for increased incineration of other toxic, municipal and other wastes. CFCs and halons require very high temperatures for successful incineration: temperatures not necessarily always achieved in municipal incinerators. If temperatures are not high enough, it can be expected that substantial quantities of these chemicals will escape intact to the atmosphere, to add to ozone depletion. Even when a destruction and removal efficiency of 99.99 percent has been achieved, recent research indicates that new chemical products are formed during the combustion process, including toxic chemicals such as toluene and xylene and exotic brominated compounds. The use of municipal incinerators for destruction of CFCs is impractical for another reason. Incineration of CFCs results in the formation of large quantities of corrosive acid gases, including hydrogen fluoride. This gas would rapidly corrode incineration components, putting a substantial financial burden on municipal authorities in terms of kiln replacement costs.Alternative and more environmentally benign destruction options include dehalogenation, electrochemical, physicochemical and catalytic processes. It is asserted that these alternative technologies are given the necessary investment to enable the selection of the most appropriate methods of dealing with stored ozone depleting substances. GREENPEACE DEMANDS