it's not ALL gloom folks... ....Some chemical plants in developing nations could still win
credits under the plan by cutting HFC more quickly than at the
proposed rate, Zaelke said. "There's still room to make a bit
of extra money."
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
U.S. Tries Again With Year's 'Biggest Climate Deal' (Update1)
2010-09-21 15:11:40.255 GMT
(Adds lobby group comment in penultimate paragraph.)
By Mathew Carr
Sept. 21 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. plans a second stab at a
greenhouse-gas proposal, arguing that carbon trading isn't the
best way to eliminate hydrofluorocarbon-23, an industrial waste
product that traps 11,700 times as much heat as carbon dioxide.
The Montreal Protocol, signed in 1987 after scientists
discovered a hole in the earth's ozone, could be a vehicle for
saving hundreds of millions of dollars now spent via emissions
trading, said Dan Reifsnyder, the official responsible for ozone
protection at the U.S. Bureau of Oceans, Environment and
Science. The cost of including an HFC phase-down in the protocol
would be "millions rather than billions," said Washington-
based Reifsnyder in a phone interview on Sept. 16.
The U.S.-backed proposal, also supported by Canada, Mexico,
Micronesia and the Philippines, would save 88 billion metric
tons of carbon-dioxide equivalent through 2050, according to a
statement e-mailed by Reifsnyder's office. That's almost three
times the amount of global emissions generated each year from
the burning of fossil fuels.
"This is the biggest climate deal on the table this
year," Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for
Governance & Sustainable Development, a Washington-based
environmental lobby group, said yesterday in an interview.
Under the U.S.-backed plan, chemical plants would destroy
HFC-23, a byproduct of making refrigerants and air conditioners,
using money from the Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund rather
than the United Nations-administered Clean Development
Mechanism. Details of who would pay into the fund and how much
it needs will be the subject of negotiations over the next few
months, Reifsnyder said.
Failed in Egypt
The proposal, which failed to win enough support at UN-
sponsored talks in Egypt last year, will be presented again at a
meeting starting Nov. 8 in Kampala, the capital of Uganda.
China, India, Brazil and South Africa may resist the U.S.-
supported plan, making it unlikely to succeed this year, Zaelke
said. China is concerned about the cost of alternatives to HFC,
he said.
Global carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel use
totaled 30.4 billion tons in 2008, according to the latest data
available from the U.S. Department of Energy. That's a 1.7
increase from 2007. UN envoys have said a global-climate
agreement is unlikely at a meeting later this year in Cancun,
Mexico.
Under the plan to revise the Montreal Protocol, developed
nations would cut HFC output to 15 percent of baseline emissions
by 2033, while developing nations would have until 2043.
Baselines are averaged over 2004-2006, according to the
proposal.
Increased Scrutiny
The increase in HFC stems from earlier efforts to avoid
ozone-depletion, Reifsnyder said. While HFC destroys less ozone
than some older chemicals, it is among the most potent of
greenhouse gases, which scientists blame for global warming. The
Montreal Protocol is an appropriate instrument for slowing
output, he said.
The executive board for the UN's Clean Development
Mechanism, known as the CDM and created under the 1997 Kyoto
Protocol to lower greenhouse-gas emissions, is increasing its
scrutiny of projects in developing nations that receive credits
for destroying HFC-23. The UN review won't be complete until
after the Kampala meeting.
The CDM has issued 218.6 million metric tons of credits to
HFC-23-destroying projects since 2005. They are valued at 2.8
billion euros ($3.7 billion) at the average credit price of
12.65 euros a ton during the past two years.
Developing nations have been seeking more funding from
richer nations for projects to adapt to climate change. These
emerging countries blame industrialized nations for most of the
heat-trapping emissions generated over the past 100 years.
Resistance
Investors and some developing nations may resist
alternative plans for cutting HFC.
"There are vast amounts of money to be made under the
CDM," Reifsnyder said. "Why would people be more interested in
destroying them more cheaply under the Montreal Protocol?"
Destroying HFC-23 can cost as little as 17 euro cents a ton
of CO2 equivalent, said the Environmental Investigation Agency,
a lobby group based in London and Washington. The annual bill to
destroy global HFC-23 production could be as small as $60
million, the agency said Sept. 3. That's less than the carbon-
credit revenue earned from one HFC-23 reduction plant in India,
it said.
"I think it's unlikely that the countries receiving such
huge sums under the CDM will agree to all HFC-23 being covered
by the Montreal Protocol until a clear political signal is sent
by developed countries to say they will no longer fund HFC-23
via the CDM," Fionnuala Walravens, a campaigner for the lobby
group in London, said today by e-mail.
Some chemical plants in developing nations could still win
credits under the plan by cutting HFC more quickly than at the
proposed rate, Zaelke said. "There's still room to make a bit
of extra money."
For Related News and Information:
Top Power Stories: PTOP <GO>
Emissions-trading stories: NI ENVMARKET BN <GO>
Today's top energy news: ETOP <GO>
European power-markets home page: EPWR <GO>
--With assistance from Catherine Airlie in London. Editors:
Bruce Stanley, Mike Anderson
To contact the reporters on this story:
Mathew Carr in London at +44-20-7073-3531 or
m.carr@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Stephen Voss on +44-20-7073-3520 or
sev@bloomberg.net
