[] TL: The Widening Ozone Hole: The Case for Safe Alternatives SO: Greenpeace International (GP) DT: April 6, 1992 Keywords: atmosphere ozone reductions alternatives cfcs conferences greenpeace reports gp / Prepared for the Sixth Meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol 6 - 15 April 1992 Geneva Greenpeace International BACKGROUND As early as 1974, scientists began to worry that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) could damage the earth's protective ozone layer. In 1985, our worst fears were confirmed: the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole left no doubt that the atmosphere was in crisis. The same year, governments negotiated and signed the Vienna Convention for Protection of the Ozone Layer which officially recognised that the ozone layer was being adversely affected. By 1988 scientists had confirmed that CFCs were responsible for this damage. In environmental terms, the governmental response to the ozone crisis has been grossly negligent. Even as the Montreal Protocol (MP) was signed in 1987, two full years after discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole, governments and companies chose to allow further production of ozone depleting compounds (ODCs), rather than adopting the precautionary approach required by Article 2 of the Vienna Convention and declaring a total, immediate ban on production. Under the MP it was agreed only to cut the use of five types of CFCs in half by the end of the century. In effect, this provided a licence for continued ozone depletion. During the June 1990 meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, when new scientific evidence had demonstrated that ozone depletion was worse than previously feared, Greenpeace again called for an immediate, total ban on ODC production. Once again, the response was woefully inadequate: governments acknowledged the need to phase-out the production of the major ODCs, but agreed to continue production until 2000 in developed and 2010 in developing countries. CURRENT SITUATION In 1992, we are faced with an emergency situation: ozone depletion is occurring at all latitudes at rates which had not been predicted. Unprecedented concentrations of the main ozone depleting compound, chlorine monoxide, have been recorded over densely populated areas of North America and Europe. So far, however, governments have presented us only with the weakest of responses. By moving up CFC phase out dates by merely a few years and allowing for the widescale production of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), governments are waging a dangerous bet, with the future of our planet at stake. Use of CFCs into the 21st century will guarantee increased chlorine concentrations in the atmosphere and increased ozone destruction. One might ask, if in 1992 industry is now able to commit itself to phase out CFCs by 1996, why governments were unwilling to make such demands back in 1987 and 1990? The answer is clear: governments have been guided by the advice and demands of the CFC producers, not by the needs of the environment or the public. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the chemical industry maintained that CFCs were indispensable and irreplaceable. The chemical industry is leading; governments are following. It should come as little surprise therefore that industry has apparently unquestioningly accepted the latest decisions to move up the phase-out dates to 1996, favouring the introduction of a whole new generation of chemicals which contain either ozone destroying chlorine or will add to the global warming problem. The CFC producers, companies such as DuPont, ICI, Hoechst, Asahi Glass and Atochem, have now recognised that the days of CFC production are almost over. Yet these companies continue to try to convince the public and governments that their products are indispensable, and that environmentally sound alternatives do not readily exist. They have now turned their attention to producing substitute chemicals - HCFCs and HFCs - which could continue to wreak havoc on the atmosphere for decades into the future. It would seem that chemical manufacturers have been interested solely in promoting patented chemical alternatives that will continue their control over the market, and ignoring non-patentable technology alternatives in the interest of pursuing profits. ALTERNATIVES TO CFCS, HCFCS AND HFCS Greenpeace is presently undertaking a review of alternatives to the chemical industry's ozone depleters. During the course of this review, we have become convinced that a complete and immediate ban on the production of ozone depleters is not only environmentally necessary, but also achievable. We do not need to replace these hazardous chemicals with environmentally destructive substitutes. Nearly every day there are news reports about CFC user industries achieving major breakthroughs in developing and implementing new technologies or production processes, many of which are environmentally benign, and competitive with (and in some cases superior to) ozone-depleting processes in terms of energy efficiency, costs and performance. The chemical industry would prefer that the public remains uninformed about these alternatives. When NASA announced in February, 1992 that unprecedented levels of chlorine were found in the skies over populated regions in the Northern hemisphere, the media machinery of the chemical giants kicked into high gear: their HFC/HCFC substitute chemicals were touted as the solution to the crisis. No mention was made of other environmentally sound or benign alternative technologies, processes and substances. If the chemical industry has made any significant effort to promote truly safe alternatives, Greenpeace is unaware of it. In 1989, some CFC manufacturers claimed that without CFCs there would be no computers. It was a case of either "keep CFCs or give up modern technology". Today, most major manufacturers of electronics are well on their way to a total elimination of CFC use, with decreased costs and improved quality. Interestingly, many of the viable, environmentally sound alternatives to ozone-depleting chemicals were not even in production, or had not reached the drawing boards before the Montreal Protocol was first signed. So much progress has been achieved already with relatively little funding at the initiative of the user industries; with additional incentives and support from governments, a great deal more can be achieved in the very short term. To continue down a narrow path towards HCFCs and HFCs, however, would stifle development of a growing range of alternatives which are now being developed. The Montreal Protocol requires Parties (in Article 9) to cooperate in "promoting...research, development and exchange of information on...(b) possible alternatives to controlled substances, to products containing such substances, and to products manufactured with them." At the Open Ended Working Group meeting in Geneva on 6-15 April 1992, Parties have a legal obligation to ensure that alternatives such as those described below are given full support. Greenpeace demands that, for the sake of our future, and for that of our children and grandchildren, the Parties to the Montreal Protocol declare an immediate ban on the production of all CFCs and all other ozone depleting substances, as well as HFCs which are potent global warming gases. We call on governments to minimize further ozone depletion by ensuring that environmentally safe alternatives are brought on line as quickly as possible. ASSESSING VIABLE ALTERNATIVES Any discussion of alternatives to applications using ODCs must address three basic points: Is the "need" really a need? Can the need be met by the use of alternative products? Can a safe product be delivered by changing production processes? For the large majority of ODC use, there is a range of viable alternatives already available. In other applications, new technologies and products will be on the market in the near future. In order to mitigate the ozone crisis, we must not leave unexplored any alternative to ODCs, and place the development and deployment of alternatives at the top of the international agenda. THE KEY USER SECTORS The following overview, based on Greenpeace's ongoing review of viable alternatives, belies the chemical industry's claim that only a very narrow range of products - mostly HCFC and HFC substitutes - are viable for current ODC use. While it must be noted that some alternatives being developed raise other environmental concerns (though arguably none as serious as the ozone crisis or global warming), their very existence demonstrates the short-sighted and self-promoting limitations of the chemical industry perspective. Greenpeace does not advocate solutions which simply replace one environmental catastrophe with another. For products such as deodorants, personal care and household products, sprays, paints, polishes and cleaners, there are a wide variety of alternatives in commercial use. These include alternative application methods such as solid stick and roll-on dispensers, mechanical pump sprays, brushes, and pads. Alternative chemical spray propellants in wide use include hydrocarbons, dimethyl ethers and other compressed gases such as air and CO2. These alternatives are often cheaper than aerosols and may not be subject to patents. Many developing countries have switched to, or have always employed propellants such as pentane and butane in industrial uses. Moreover, there are very few instances where a current CFC application in the aerosols sector is truly "essential" and where alternatives do not yet exist. Metered-dose inhalers for asthma sufferers is one example. Carefully controlled, the existing stock of CFCs could be used for this application for a very limited period while safe alternatives are developed. But even in the case of inhalers, there are already alternatives for many users. For example, in both Sweden and the Netherlands, over 60% of asthmatics are using dry powder inhalers. 2. Foams For virtually all major applications in the foams sector, alternatives free of CFCs are either at or near the marketing stage. The foams industry has used ODCs for a wide range of products, from shoe soles and seat cushions to refrigerator insulation and packaging. There is now a similarly broad range of alternatives available which do not deplete ozone. Vacuum insulation panels being developed, for example, which offer superior insulation for appliances and provide significant energy savings. A variety of other materials can substitute for rigid foam insulation, including fibreglass, rock wool and cellulose. Recycled paper or newsprint can be used instead of foam packaging in many cases. Also, alternative foam blowing agents, including water, CO2 and pentane are already being widely used. 3. Solvents Alternatives are now available for virtually every application where CFC 113 or methyl chloroform are employed as solvent cleaning agents. Perhaps in no other CFC use sector are so many alternatives already in wide use. Important enterprises in the electronics industry have already concluded that water-based cleaning processes work as well, and often more cheaply, than CFC-based methods. For many applications, electronics manufacturers have developed production processes not requiring "cleaning" by ODCs. Switching to such technologies can result in significant long-term cost and energy savings in the electronics manufacturing process. Other cleaning processes, using fine ice particles and pressurised gases, for example, are also being used. 4. Refrigeration and Cooling The need for air-conditioning in many instances must first be re-evaluated. In many parts of the world, air conditioning applications are a luxury which can be foregone with little hardship (and at lower economic cost) simply by making greater use of fresh air ventilation. This is especially true for automobile air conditioners. Passive and active solar technology can assist in ventilation cooling of buildings and cars. Similarly, we must consider whether much of our refrigeration needs could be met by using cold storage cupboards, and eating more fresh rather than frozen foods. Where air conditioning and refrigeration is necessary, there are several alternatives now in use or under development which do not use ODCs, many of which appear likely to yield significant increases in energy efficiency. For example, evaporative coolers using water are already being used in large industrial air conditioning applications. In the United States, more than 70 companies manufacture evaporative air conditioners for residential, automotive, commercial and industrial markets. Ammonia in the standard vapour compression system is widely used as a refrigerant in industrial chiller applications. Absorption systems using water and ammonia as a refrigerant have been used for decades. According to the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, air-conditioning technologies based on use of waste heat from on-site electricity generation have the potential to greatly reduce energy consumption by using waste heat to drive absorption air conditioning systems. This would eliminate CFC use in many large-scale applications immediately. Energy savings of 20 per cent or more are often feasible, while eliminating ODCs altogether. Other promising technologies, such as the use of propane as a refrigerant and Stirling cycle refrigerators, which use helium, could be on the market very soon. 5. Firefighting Even in the field of firefighting it is possible to phase out ozone-depleting substances. Alternative extinguishing agents, such as CO2, water, foam and powder are already widely used. Alternative approaches, such as good fire prevention practices and use of fire and smoke resistant materials, are already significantly reducing the need for Halon systems. GREENPEACE DEMANDS Destruction of the ozone layer is already occurring. All scientific evidence points to worsening depletion well into the next century. It is no longer a matter of protection but of damage limitation. In these circumstances, governments are under a duty to take all steps possible to mitigate the damage. Greenpeace calls on governments to once and for all take the necessary decisions which will limit the extent and duration of damage to the ozone layer and consequently the future of life on Earth. An effective response to this crisis must be based on the use of environmentally safer alternatives. ù There must be an immediate ban on the production of all ozone-depleting chemicals. Such a ban must include both fully- and partially-halogenated chlorofluorocarbons, as well as halons, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform and methyl bromide. ù Plans for commercial production of HCFCs and HFCs must be abandoned. ù As a highest priority, environmentally sound alternatives must be actively researched, developed and promoted by governments and industry. ù The Parties should revise the terms of reference of the Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund to reflect this priority in technology transfer programmes.