I have also received the following answer from Lambert Kuijpers; he
tried to send it directly here but, of course, being unsubscribed, it
didn't pass.
Brian
Dear all,
I refer to the email by Brian Ellis, regarding the article by John Heilprin.
* This article by John Heilprin (Associated Press) has gone to a
large number of newspapers, particularly in the United States
(hundreds), amongst which the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the
Washington Post and Washington Times, etc.
* UNEP has told me afterwards that one should not talk too much to
John Heilprin because it leads to distraction from the argument and
half-truths in his publications. He often is prejudiced and has
pre-formed opinions.
* He has talked to a number of people by telephone (see email by
Blaise Horisberger), and also to me on the 7th of July in Montreal
(where the discussion was not so much a discussion but more a struggle
to get things into a better perspective).
* Before many interviews he had talked to several NGOs, amongst
which the Environmental Investigation Agency (Alexander von Bismarck).
* His argument was that the Montreal Protocol just contributed to
climate change, to global warming and that not much was done about it.
* John Heilprin did mention that the HCFC and HFC emissions are
becoming very important (based upon estimates of the emissions in the
IPCC TEAP Special Report in 2015). This is the basis for his statement
that the HCFC and HFC emissions in 2015 would be larger than the
emission reduction in Gt CO2 equivalent the Kyoto Parties (not the USA)
are targeting. In principle this is correct, however, in the article,
the surrounding material makes it difficult to understand.
* The article contains a lot of detail information, partly true,
partly a mix of truth and misleading ideas, and also several mistakes
(as well as correct facts) where it concerns ozone layer recovery and
climate.
* I do not think that much should be done as a reaction, it at
least has focused people again on the Montreal Protocol, now together
with climate, which is a real issue.
* The ARI institute in the US, when asked about flammables and
ammonia, sticks again to the old fashioned position. It would have
helped if they would have been more progressive, emphasising the
possibilities of all kind of chemicals, and emphasising the no-emission
case. An emphasis on energy efficiency is OK, but it is not really the
only point.
I have given the following comments/ reactions to Heilprin (realising
that these issues are "difficult" for laymen, but Heilprin brought them
all up himself):
* The Montreal Protocol I not a climate treaty, but has phased out
all CFCs in the developed and (virtually) in the developing countries
with an emphasis on ozone depletion.
* This has been a good achievement however, we have realised since
the eighties (although there was a tendency to forget about the high GWP
of CFCs in the nineties) that CFC emissions cause global warming.
Moreover, as with CO2, it is not so that a phase-out of CFCs means that
they have disappeared. They will be in the atmosphere for many years to
come (dependent on the half life which is in the order of 100 years for
CFC-12). That means that all near future emissions are on top of the
CFCs in the atmosphere.
* The Montreal Protocol, indeed, allows HCFC consumption in the
developing countries to increase until 2016. This could imply a
consumption (production) by 2015 of about 600,000 tonnes annually.
Although this is less than 100,000 tons of CFC-12 for one year, the
amount emitted during 25 years would be substantial (if the HCFC
consumption would remain constant until 2040, the phase-out year). I
mentioned to Heilprin that this would be unprecedented.
* I have also mentioned that he looks at the current control
situation (somewhat short-sighted) and that Parties will do their utmost
to introduce more stringent control schedules and so forth for the
developing countries for HCFCs so that the ozone layer recovery (which
is not affected too much) and the global warming picture is not as bad
as under the pessimistic assumptions that one can make
* I mentioned that HFC (and HCFC) consumption over the next decade
or so will not grow so much as a replacement option for CFCs, but simply
due to economic parameters (growth in developing countries etc.).
However, given all the material collected in the Special Report, it has
also been mentioned that the total emissions in CO2 equivalent will be
almost constant between 2002 and 2015. I have mentioned that this is not
good of course, but already quite an effort if this could be achieved (I
have not referred to e.g. the phase-out of HFC-134a in MACs in the EU by
2011-2017).
In summary, I have mentioned that the Montreal Protocol is in principle
an ozone protection Protocol and not a global warming Protocol competing
with Kyoto or the other way around. However, it has been difficult to
discuss all the elements around it with Mr. Heilprin. A different type
of journalist would have been better.
Hope that this was useful; it explains how I experienced the Heilprin
conatct.
Lambert Kuijpers,
Co-chair UNEP TEAP
Gary Crowell wrote:
> They've finally figured out that the substitutes for Freon are worse for
> the environment than Freon ever was...
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209520,00.html
>
>
> Gary Crowell
> Micron Technology
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
> Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
> Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
http://www.cypenv.org Cyprus environment/energy
http://www.cypenv.org/worldenv World environment/energy
http://www.cypenv.org/weather Cyprus weather
http://www.cypenv.org/smf/index.php Environment/energy forums
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cypnature/ Cyprus nature forum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
