TL: GREENPEACE STATEMENT 9TH MEETING OF THE PARTIES TO THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL SO: GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL, (GP) DT: SEPTEMBER 17, 1997 Delivered by: Wolfgang Lohbeck of Greenpeace Germany and Emiliano Ezcurra of Greenpeace Argentina Distinguished delegates, NGO representatives, ladies and gentlemen: Yesterday we had the honour to thank UNEP, on behalf of our 3 million supporters worldwide, for awarding Greenpeace the 1997 Ozone Award. In Greenpeace's Ozone Award Acceptance Statement, which was distributed, we stated: "The Montreal Protocol is a very important precedent in global environmental protection. Clearly, the ozone crisis would loom even larger without the Protocol. We congratulate the Protocol for its achievements to protect the ozone layer." While acknowledging the great importance of the Protocol, we can not refer to the 10th Anniversary Meeting with any sense of celebration. Anniversaries give pause for reflection. One question regarding the Protocol, is could more have been accomplished during the past years to protect the ozone layer since 1987. A more important question is what more can be done today? These years we have witnessed record breaking ozone depletion over both hemispheres. This pattern will continue as we have now entered the most vulnerable decade of the ozone layer. Things will likely get worse before we see any improvement. And we must acknowledge that there is a leap of faith in the assumption that the ozone layer will ever fully recover. Greenpeace believes that the Protocol has not lived up to its full potential due to the overwhelming influence of the multinational chemical corporations. This theme is clearly reflected at this 10th Anniversary Meeting. How should we characterize this meeting? "The Corporate Hijacking of the Montreal Protocol" or perhaps "American Business Against the Earth". Both statements reflect the truth. It is outrageous that the US delegation should come to a meeting of the Protocol openly stating that "for the sake of business we won't talk about accelerated phase-out dates for HCFCs ". What type of an attitude is that? What if other Parties showed up with similarly reckless dismissals of crucial issues? Are there real environmental benefits to earlier HCFCs phase- outs or are there not? That should be the only criteria upon which decisions are made. Even a minimal acceleration of HCFC phase-out, as presented in the EU proposal, would have significant benefits. Mr. Tom Garvey of the European Commission told us that European scientists have calculated that reductions in the use of HCFCs, in line with the EU proposal, would yield a chlorine loading reduction of 1%. This represents 80% of the benefit accruing from a 2010 Methyl Bromide phase-out in A 5 countries, and three times the benefit to be gained by bringing forward the Methyl Bromide phase-out for A2 countries from 2010 to 2005. Is this solid science or isn't it? That is the only question. If the answer is yes, then it is incumbent upon the Parties to move forward. The United States, with support from Canada, Australia and many of the A5 countries, must not continue to hold the ozone layer hostage for the sake of industry. At minimum, there must be an agreement that if the above calculations can be further verified during the coming months then there will be a significant acceleration of HCFC phase-out dates at the 1998 meeting of the Parties in Egypt. If there is no meaningful agreement towards an accelerated HCFC phase-out then we urge the Parties to speak the truth and issue a clear statement accordingly. The environmental imperative and the pre-cautionary principle dictate that a radically accelerated phase-out of both HCFCs and methyl bromide is absolutely necessary. Ladies and Gentlemen, The success of the UNEP Ozone Award winning Greenfreeze technology demonstrates that it is possible to meet human needs and to protect the atmosphere at the same time. There is absolutely no excuse for the continued use of unsustainable HCFC and HFC technologies anywhere in the world. The world needs Greenfreeze type solutions in all facets of human life. Despite the fact that there are proven safer technologies available, the industry continues to aggressively promote HCFCs and HFCs -destroying the ozone layer, contributing massively to global warming, and poisoning our biosphere. Methyl bromide producers, meanwhile, are actively expanding bromide sales around the world, and obstructing international efforts to phase-out this powerful ozone depleting chemical. Though they have earned billions in profits from the sale of ODSs, the chemical corporations have yet to pay a penny to help repair the damage that their products have inflicted upon the ozone layer. They are quite content to let the taxpayers clean up their mess. If the chemical corporations paid a percentage of their profits from their sales of ODSs to the Multilateral Fund, then the global phase-out of all ozone depleting substances could be achieved at a radically accelerated pace. Delegates, in 1980, the chemical industry set up the Alliance for a Responsible CFC Policy, a powerful lobby group to delay governmental regulations on ODSs. Today the industry plays a similar role on the issue of climate change through the International Climate Change Partnership (ICCP). The ICCP works alongside other industry front groups like the Global Climate Coalition, in a common effort to obstruct significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through the Climate Convention. Governments must not cave in to these self-serving pressures from industry and fail to deliver such an agreement at the December, 1997 meeting of the Climate Convention in Kyoto Japan. On the occasion of the 10th Anniversary of the Montreal Protocol, Greenpeace calls for the implementation of a global emergency action plan to rescue our threatened atmosphere . Such a plan must include: (1) a radically accelerated phase-out schedule of the global production and consumption of all ozone depleting chemicals under the Montreal Protocol; (2) legally binding international agreements to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions- including HFCs, through the Climate Convention; (3) the establishment of an eco-tax on the producers of fossil fuels and ozone depleting substance to fund the development of new clean technologies. The twin crises of ozone depletion and climate change are potentially the greatest threat to the well being of human life on earth. Even as we struggle with the ozone crisis, industry is pushing the world towards another disaster through the massive use of potent global warming HFCs. The Montreal Protocol has a moral responsibility to acknowledge the negative impacts of these substances. If we fail to phase-out all ozone depleting substances and if we don't stop industry from leading the world down AGAIN a one way street with environmentally unsustainable solutions like HFCs, we may phase-out the future well-being of human life on this planet. -- End --