The Business of Climate Change - The Hindu
2
22/11/2013 The busi ness of cl i mate change - The Hi ndu www.thehindu.com/new s/national/the-business-of- climate- change/article5117582.ece 1/2 ews » National The business of climate change Nitin Sethi International treaties, environment, science and business interests converge on the use and replacement of refrigerant ases. he issue of refrigerant gases is covered by two international agreements Montreal Protocol (MP) and the U.N. Framework Contention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The MP is meant to reduce or do away with gases that cause a ole in the ozone layer that enve lopes the Earth — mostly refrigera nt gases a nd solv ents. The UNFCCC is meant t o ring down emissions of greenhouse gases that warm up the planet. Under the MP, rich countries began migrating from the earlier ozone-depleting refrigerant to costly HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons). HFCs do not cause any harm to the ozone layer but have very high potential to raise global emperatures. Unwilling to pay the price for the same technology transition in poorer countries, the MP agreements ensured India nd other emerging economies transit instead to HCFCs (hydrochlorofluorocarbons) — a family of gases that has esser impact on the ozone layer but are dangerous for the climate too. There were large financial gains for the ndustrialised countries then too as HCFCs were also patented products. s of now, between 2013 and 2030, developing countries are slated to make a second transition under the MP, hasing out from HCFCs to HFCs. But the U.S. now wishes that India leapfrog to the most advanced, least impacting, costly and patented technologies ypassing the HFC phase. On e of the alternati ves being propose d is produced joint ly by DuPont and Honey well, two U.S.-based multinationals, and the other by the Japanese company Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited. India holds a large business potential. It is one of the fastest growing markets in the world for refrigeration business. But developing countri es have long argued tha t HFCs — being greenhouse gases and not ozone-depl eting substanc es — should be covered under the basket of g ases that UNFCCC se eks to reduce. Under the UNFCCC, in princi ple at least, he developed world is required to fund the entire additional costs of developing countries making a technological ransition for reduct ion of greenhouse gases. But these costs — they are high because proprietary technologies are nvol ved — are not covered comprehensively unde r the MP. he MP does have a mechanism to defray the costs for the transition but India has contended that an option for a rolonged period of transition and a cost-sharing formula in the MP will not cover the investments India would have o make. Besides a direct business proposition, there is another strategic advantage that the U.S. and other developed countries ain on the climate change front. he refrigerant gases to be phased out are short-lived in the atmosphere and contribute very little at the moment as ompared to carbon dioxide to the accumulated problem. But the emissions of these gases are growing at a fast pace nd these gases do have much higher climate impact per unit than carbon dioxide. By pushing for an early phase out of the short-lived HFCs instead of focusing on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, he U.S. also gets a chance, India contends, to pass the buck for action to emerging economies while claiming it is a lobal leader on the issue. It also is able to buy time for the more troublesome and difficult reduction of its carbon ioxide emissions. Recently the U.S. and China have signed an agreement to phase down the HFCs using the financial mechanisms of the MP but accounting for them under the U.N. climate convention. The U.S. has demanded that India agree to starting ultilateral discussions under the protocol and to move along the same route before Manmohan Singh lands in the U.S. So far Indian officials have noted that the Chinese refrigerant business is at a different technological and perational level and just because China has signed a deal does not mean India should too. he Indian negotiators have also told the U.S. envoy that there is no advantage in working on a bilateral basis on the ubject if the only objective of the U.S. government is to push for bringing the issue under the Montreal Protocol. he final word on this controversy is yet to be heard with the negotiations for Manmohan Singh’s U.S. visit still ontinuing. Correction >>The full form of HFCs is hy drofluorocarb ons. It is not hydrochlorocarbons as given in “The
Transcript of The Business of Climate Change - The Hindu
8/13/2019 The Business of Climate Change - The Hindu
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-business-of-climate-change-the-hindu 1/2
22/11/2013 The business of climate change - The Hindu
www.thehindu.com/news/national/the-business-of-climate-change/article5117582.ece 1/2
ews » National
The business of climate change
Nitin Sethi
International treaties, environment, science and business interests converge on the use and replacement of refrigerantases.
he issue of refrigerant gases is covered by two international agreements Montreal Protocol (MP) and the U.N.Framework Contention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The MP is meant to reduce or do away with gases that cause a
ole in the ozone layer that envelopes the Earth — mostly refrigerant gases and solvents. The UNFCCC is meant toring down emissions of greenhouse gases that warm up the planet.
Under the MP, rich countries began migrating from the earlier ozone-depleting refrigerant to costly HFCs(hydrofluorocarbons). HFCs do not cause any harm to the ozone layer but have very high potential to raise globalemperatures.
Unwilling to pay the price for the same technology transition in poorer countries, the MP agreements ensured Indiand other emerging economies transit instead to HCFCs (hydrochlorofluorocarbons) — a family of gases that has
esser impact on the ozone layer but are dangerous for the climate too. There were large financial gains for thendustrialised countries then too as HCFCs were also patented products.
s of now, between 2013 and 2030, developing countries are slated to make a second transition under the MP,hasing out from HCFCs to HFCs.
But the U.S. now wishes that India leapfrog to the most advanced, least impacting, costly and patented technologies ypassing the HFC phase. One of the alternatives being proposed is produced jointly by DuPont and Honeywell, two
U.S.-based multinationals, and the other by the Japanese company Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited.
India holds a large business potential. It is one of the fastest growing markets in the world for refrigeration business.
But developing countries have long argued that HFCs — being greenhouse gases and not ozone-depleting substances— should be covered under the basket of gases that UNFCCC seeks to reduce. Under the UNFCCC, in principle at least,
he developed world is required to fund the entire additional costs of developing countries making a technologicalransition for reduction of greenhouse gases. But these costs — they are high because proprietary technologies arenvolved — are not covered comprehensively under the MP.
he MP does have a mechanism to defray the costs for the transition but India has contended that an option for arolonged period of transition and a cost-sharing formula in the MP will not cover the investments India would haveo make.
Besides a direct business proposition, there is another strategic advantage that the U.S. and other developed countriesain on the climate change front.
he refrigerant gases to be phased out are short-lived in the atmosphere and contribute very little at the moment asompared to carbon dioxide to the accumulated problem. But the emissions of these gases are growing at a fast pacend these gases do have much higher climate impact per unit than carbon dioxide.
By pushing for an early phase out of the short-lived HFCs instead of focusing on reducing carbon dioxide emissions,he U.S. also gets a chance, India contends, to pass the buck for action to emerging economies while claiming it is alobal leader on the issue. It also is able to buy time for the more troublesome and difficult reduction of its carbonioxide emissions.
Recently the U.S. and China have signed an agreement to phase down the HFCs using the financial mechanisms of theMP but accounting for them under the U.N. climate convention. The U.S. has demanded that India agree to starting
ultilateral discussions under the protocol and to move along the same route before Manmohan Singh lands in theU.S. So far Indian officials have noted that the Chinese refrigerant business is at a different technological and
perational level and just because China has signed a deal does not mean India should too.
he Indian negotiators have also told the U.S. envoy that there is no advantage in working on a bilateral basis on theubject if the only objective of the U.S. government is to push for bringing the issue under the Montreal Protocol.
he final word on this controversy is yet to be heard with the negotiations for Manmohan Singh’s U.S. visit stillontinuing.
Correction
>>The full form of HFCs is hydrofluorocarbons. It is not hydrochlorocarbons as given in “The
8/13/2019 The Business of Climate Change - The Hindu
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-business-of-climate-change-the-hindu 2/2
22/11/2013 The business of climate change - The Hindu
www.thehindu.com/news/national/the-business-of-climate-change/article5117582.ece 2/2
usiness of climate change” (Sept. 12, 2013).
Keywords: Refrigerant gases, Montreal Protocol, U.N. Framework Contention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, ozoneayer, greenhouse gases, hydrofluorocarbons, hydrochlorofluorocarbons, U.N. climate convention
