Fixing ozone hole raises warming concerns

A 2002 study prepared for an industry coalition that encourages use of HCFCs and HFCs says the safety measures and higher energy bills required by some alternatives would cost U.S. consumers hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

“We’re saying efficiency is just as important as the refrigerant being used,” Yurek said. “If it’s going to increase the amount of energy used to operate a piece of equipment, you’re actually worse off because you’re going to be pumping more CO2 (carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere.”

The Montreal Protocol has been powered by a global fund run by the United Nations and the World Bank. On average, more than $150 million is spent a year to help developing nations comply with the treaty by phasing out CFCs.

The fund pays the costs for companies to switch from CFCs to HCFCs, HFCs and other chemicals commonly used in air conditioners, semiconductors, foams, fire extinguishers, hair spray, and roof and wall insulation. The biggest beneficiaries are companies in seven countries: China, India, Venezuela, Argentina, Mexico, Romania and North Korea.

Meanwhile, consumers in the U.S. and elsewhere continue to snap up products that would cost more if HCFCs and HFCs were already eliminated. Under the Montreal treaty, industrial countries have until 2030 and developing countries until 2040 to quit using HCFCs and HFCs.

“It is true that there will be a significant growth over the next 10 years of HCFC production and consumption in the developing countries,” said Lambert Kuijpers, a Dutch nuclear physicist and a lead author of the U.N. report. “This will also contribute to global warming in a so far unprecedented way, if it will occur as anticipated.”

That is a touchy subject for supporters of the Montreal agreement. Few want to acknowledge anything could be wrong with a treaty that is on track to fix at least one major environmental problem.

“You have to put it into historical perspective. Hydrocarbon technology wasn’t ready. ... It was still being tested in the early 1990s. And only gradually that technology became mature and became accepted,” said Sheng Hsuo Lang, the fund’s deputy chief officer. “In hindsight, you can say, ’Why didn’t you wait?’ Or you can take action right away.”

The United States signed the Montreal Protocol, but has not ratified the Kyoto Treaty.

MORE FROM ENVIRONMENT

Environment Section Front

Europe: U.S., China too weak on climate South Pole trekkers sew during R&R Obama promotes energy efficiency program Study: Warming puts seals, koalas at risk Bells toll, more arrests at climate summit Review: Climate e-mails petty, not fraudulent Antarctic nations to toughen shipping controls Under Danish roof, world talks climate Shipping alert issued over giant iceberg Environment Section Front   Add Environment headlines to your news reader: