WARSAW: India is not going to dilute its stand over the controversial HFCs, or climate-damaging refrigerant gas, issue and will strongly oppose any move by the US or other developed countries during the ongoing climate talks in view of the domestic concerns. New Delhi is clear that any change in its position will not only affect the common consumers but also several critical sectors, including defence.
Visiting environment minister Jayanthi Natarajan reiterated India's stand, saying, "Any move to shift HFCs to Montreal Protocol from the UNFCCC will call for an amendment".
She also emphasized that the decision would to taken only by consensus under the UNFCCC convention, signaling that any move by handful of rich nations, led by the US, is not acceptable to India.
Her categorical remarks came barely two days after the US special envoy for climate change Todd Stern claimed here that the Montreal Protocol (MP) had jurisdiction over the HFCs.
Using the same platform here on Wednesday, Natarajan told the international press that though HFCs are greenhouse gases; these are not ozone-depleting substances. "Hence, it cannot be dealt with under the Montreal Protocol...HFCs issues must be handled under the UNFCCC," she said.
Montreal Protocol deals with phasing out only ozone-depleting substances like hydro-chlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFC). Though the HFC is not an ozone-depleting gas, it contributes to global warming and consequently its phase-out comes under the Kyoto Protocol of the UNFCCC that remains the sole prerogative of rich nations.
Natarajan didn't refer to Stern's remarks; she made India's stand abundantly clear by articulating the Cabinet's decision on the matter.
Seeking to clarify the issue, which has long been a bone of contention between developed and developing countries, Stern on Monday had said, "The institution that is born to do this (phase down of refrigerant gases) and has jurisdiction over HFCs is the Montreal Protocol....The MP has built in differentiation (to deal with the issue). It is not the same kind of differentiation like the UNFCCC but it has got differentiation built in."
Dismissing suggestions that the UNFCCC principles should apply (for phasing out the HFCs), the US envoy said, "Let's just get some results".
New Delhi, however, didn't buy this argument and pitched for a status quo so that the issue can be addressed only under the Kyoto Protocol of UNFCCC, which accepts the principles of common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR), asking only rich nations to respond to phasing out greenhouse gases.
The minister said, "In view of the lack of safe, technologically viable and economically feasible alternatives, the issue of HFCs needs further examination and status-quo should be maintained for the present".
Though Natarajan preferred not to get into what Stern had said, her delegation members later questioned the US envoy's argument.
A negotiator said, "Had the US convinced of this argument of jurisdiction, it would not have proposed an amendment to bring the HFCs matter under the Montreal Protocol during meeting of parties in Bangkok in October".
He asked, "If the US thinks that the MP has jurisdiction over HFCs, why did it move an amendment?"
As many as 19 countries, including India and some G-20 nations, had vehemently opposed the America's move to deal the matter under the Montreal Protocol.
Sources, however, said that New Delhi was not all that rigid over the issue and it would first like to see the outcome of the Indo-US bilateral (joint taskforce) over the matter.
New Delhi would like to see whether its domestic industries — using refrigerant gas — are ready to move to alternatives that have low global warming potential. It will also have to weigh the stand of other BASIC (group of Brazil, South Africa, India and China) nations under their respective bilateral discussions with the US and European Union (EU) nations.
