More lethal greenhouse gas

The Times of India , Friday, October 25, 2013
Correspondent : Arunabha Ghosh
India must discuss phasing down hydrofluorocarbons which endanger the planet.

In September, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Barack Obama agreed to discuss how hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are hundreds to thousands of times more potent global warming compounds than carbon dioxide, could be phased down. They agreed, bilaterally and at the G20 summit, to use the expertise and institutions of the Montreal Protocol and report emissions under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Action on HFCs offers some common ground in the protracted climate negotiations, potentially creates commercial opportunities for Indian firms, and allows India to assume the mantle of climate leadership.

Despite the Singh-Obama agreement, this week India opposed discussing amendments in the Montreal Protocol to phase down HFCs. Opponents list four main concerns against acting on HFCs. Let us consider each one.

First, action on HFCs is undesirable because action on carbon dioxide would be ignored by developed countries. The converse is also true. In 2050 HFCs could account for 20%-40% of the warming attributed to carbon dioxide, if the latter`s levels were held to a two degree celsius climate stabilisation scenario. In effect, action on carbon dioxide could be negated if HFC growth remains high between now and 2050, thanks to rapid expansion of refrigerant use in air conditioners. So, we need action on both fronts. Cherry-picking greenhouse gases will not succeed.

Secondly, the concern is that the Montreal Protocol route ignores the UNFCCC process, while not guaranteeing financial support for India to transition to non-HFC alternatives.

There can be no guarantee of funding unless we estimate costs and participate in negotiations. That is what India did during 1987-1990 to secure funding under the Montreal Protocol`s Multilateral Fund for the transition from Chlorofluorocarbons to Hydrochlorofluorocarbons. Based on past experience, there is higher chance of getting money through the Montreal Protocol than through the UNFCCC, which has failed to deliver any significant funds for climate activity.

Would UNFCCC negotiations lose steam then? That is one possibility. It is also possible that countries that do act on HFCs have stronger voice in UNFCCC negotiations, demanding that developed countries act on carbon dioxide as well as start reducing HFCs now. The UNFCCC battle has to rage on.

Thirdly, some worry that India is being forced into a corner just because China and US have cut a deal on HFCs. Fair enough. Our negotiating strategies must be set based on our self-interest. India and China are not the same when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, so the more we ally with them, the more we will have to take on similar burdens when we should not be doing so. That situation has now emerged. By being intransigent on HFCs, we have made China, let alone the US, look like a hero. This week, while India opposed discussion on HFCs under the Montreal Protocol, China remained silent. India eventually failed to keep the issue off the agenda. If we refuse to talk about it, we cannot develop a strategy. Only China and U.S win in that case.

Fourthly, critics argue that action on HFCs is undesirable because it opens up India's refrigerants market to foreign companies peddling alternative chemicals.

So? Indian companies are also undertaking research and development for alternative chemicals (such as efficient hydrocarbons) as refrigerants in room air conditioners. Indian car companies are using lower emission refrigerants for cars meant for EU or US markets, where standards are changing. Business opportunity is not a prerogative of only the developed world. Arguing that we should not act on HFCs because someone else invented the alternatives is like saying we should not fly because two American brothers invented the aeroplane.

Prime Minister Singh showed leadership and strategic insight by keeping both the UNFCCC and Montreal Protocol routes open while acting in concert with other G20 countries.

What should India do next?

One, do not compromise on action on carbon dioxide even if HFCs are phased down. India should suggest periodic review of actions on carbon dioxide and HFCs, thereby, keeping the issue alive within the UNFCCC while proceeding through the Montreal Protocol on operational issues.

Two, identify impacts on India via temperature rise if HFCs are not curtailed, or if carbon dioxide is not reduced, or if the world fails to control both.

Three, engage with Indian firms, particularly manufacturers of automobiles, home appliances and refrigerants. We need better understanding of the cost of transition, efficiency gains and losses, changing technical standards in export markets, commercial opportunities for Indian-made automobiles and home appliances, and potential patent-related concerns.

Four, engage the best global experts (Indian and foreign) on safety issues relating to alternatives to HFCs.

Five, develop a strategy for supporting Indian firms, which would be adversely affected by the transition. Financing for them would also have to come from multilateral sources.

Discussing HFCs with the US bilaterally and negotiating a multilateral roadmap to phase down HFCs are not mutually exclusive. India should ensure that an agreement delivers replacements that are technologically safe, commercially viable, and contains adequate financial support to make the transition.

The writer is CEO of the Council on Energy, Environment and Water

 
SOURCE : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/More-lethal-greenhouse-gas/articleshow/24675848.cms
 


Back to pevious page



The NetworkAbout Us  |  Our Partners  |  Concepts   
Resources :  Databases  |  Publications  |  Media Guide  |  Suggested Links
Happenings :  News  |  Events  |  Opinion Polls  |  Case Studies
Contact :  Guest Book  |  FAQs |  Email Us