|
作者：傑生•安德森
15年來，蒙特婁議定書從當初國際環保協定的招牌，變成現在鮮少人會去注意、但運作良好的協定。而京都議定書還沒簽訂之前，就成為媒體的頭條，並前所未有的全球合作之下，氟氯碳化合物（CFCs）正悄悄地人們的記憶中消失。
這些令人安慰的消息，是本月初、在主管經援開發中國家逐步淘汰傷害臭氧氣體的第十屆委員會中，從蒙特婁會場中傳出的。其它還包括：依照蒙特婁議定書而成立的「多國基金」，以及同意世界銀行提供經濟援助給四個減少使用CFC國家的計畫，而這比預定時程的要早；此外，也成功的改革了髮膠中的有害成分。
雖然有好消息，不過如果仔細檢查「多國基金」中所同意的內容，有些人可能會皺起眉頭。在會議中，執行委員會審核了47個以HCFC-141b取代CFC-11的計畫、46個以HFC-134a取代CFC-12的計畫。奇怪的是，在蒙特婁議定書中，也認為HCFC這類化合物應該逐步淘汰；奇怪的是，為了減少溫室氣體釋放，在京都議定書中，也將HFC-134a列入限制名單中，因為HFC-134a暖化地球的能力是二氧化碳的的1,300倍；奇怪的是，現在也已經有了這兩類化合物的替代物。執委會到底是如何通過那些審核案的呢？
HCFC化合物是「過渡性」替代物，因能立即取代CFC而受重用，但是它並沒有真的好到哪裡去（就長遠而言，對臭氧的傷害是CFC的10%），遲早要被淘汰。不幸的，這10%的比例讓人忽略了HCFC在短期內帶來的衝擊；在未來10年中，HCFC的釋放量造成的傷害將會是CFC的三成。而在這段期間中，臭氧層的傷害會攀到高峰。而且目前逐步淘汰HCFC的計畫也曖昧不明，在開發中國家，直到2040年才能完全停止使用，而其間完全沒有中期目標。當多國基金對於補助改用HCFC時，這就很明顯的告訴受援國家，基金不負責在這之後HCFC逐步淘汰的工作；這些開發中國家在期限到了的時候，自己要肩負這個責任，但是他們能辦得到嗎？
相對於過渡的HCFC，HFC類化合物在蒙特婁議定書中，被公認是完全安全的「終極溶劑」，如果用行話來說。因為HFC不會破壞臭氧層，而能達到議定書的目標。但是，這個狹隘的環保觀點，忽略了HFC對於全球暖化的效應。北歐國家對於HFC的憂慮，使他們採用了十年前綠色和平組織發展出的綠色冷凍科技。這種科技用使異丁烷（isobutane）當作冷媒，幾乎不會造氣候暖化，而且可以增進冷卻效率。但是在1998年，多國基金資助的311項計畫中，只有18項採用類似的技術。
許多人認為，延長使用HCFC和HFC，是為了爭取化學工業支持蒙特婁議定書的代價。因為這些化合物的專利都還很新，所以價格當然比傳統的CFC高出許多。對於像是杜邦、杭尼威（Honeywell）和ICI等大化學公司而言，雖然失去了其他取代性化合物的生意，但是結果並不太糟。他們雖然放棄製造這幾十年來、全世界每天生活都需用到的產品，但是依然有生意可做，並且贏得了環保的名聲，這才是最重要的。不過修改後的蒙特婁議定書，將停止使用HCFC的時間提前了，而京都議定書中納入了HFC，這很明顯的會讓氟碳製造商眼睜睜的看著手中的王牌一張張失去效用，而使得他們不得不自保。(2001.12.14)
安德森是位於布魯賽爾的歐洲氣候組織(Climate Network Europe)的能源專家。
【文章連載】
■保護臭氧層的代價是氣溫昇高嗎？
(上) (下)
全文與圖片詳見: http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/main
dish/anderson121401.asp
版權歸屬Earth Day Network，環境資訊協會(龐中培 譯，蘇崧棱 審校)
中英對照全文：http://e-info.org.tw/issue/climate/2002/
cl02011501.htm |
|
By Jason Anderson
After 15 years as the poster child for international environmental agreements, the Montreal Protocol has slipped into the relative anonymity of a well-functioning accord. As Kyoto Protocol negotiations grab headlines before even yielding a ratified deal, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are quietly on their way to oblivion, through unprecedented, concerted efforts worldwide.
That was some of the reassuring news coming out of Montreal earlier this month, during the 10th anniversary meeting of the committee in charge of financing the phase out of ozone-depleting gases in developing countries. Among other things, the Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol approved World Bank projects to finalize CFC phase-out in four countries, ahead of schedule. Another success in the Hair Spray revolution.
But success notwithstanding, looking at the detail of what the fund is approving could make some eyebrows start to arch. During the meeting, the Executive Committee vetted 47 projects to replace CFC-11 with HCFC-141b, and 46 projects to replace CFC-12 with HFC-134a. Odd, considering HCFCs are also slated to be phased out by the selfsame Montreal Protocol. Odd, considering the Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse gas emissions put HFC-134a on its hit list. High on its hit list: HFC-134a is 1,300 times more potent than CO2 in warming the planet. Odd, considering that non-ozone-depleting, non-greenhouse gas alternatives are readily available for the same applications. What gives?
HCFCs are touted as a "transitional" substance, necessary as readily available replacements for CFCs, but bad enough (10 percent as bad as CFCs in the long term) to warrant eventual phase-out themselves. Unfortunately, the 10 percent figure overlooks the short-term impact of HCFCs, which in the decade following release are 30 percent as bad as CFCs. It is during this period that ozone depletion will reach its peak. HCFC phase-out plans are also fuzzy. In the developing world, the phase-out is supposed to be complete by 2040, but no interim targets have been set. And as the Multilateral Fund pays for conversion to HCFCs, it makes it clear to recipients that the fund will not be responsible for a second phase-out later. Businesses in developing countries will have to shoulder that responsibility when the time comes. But will they be able to?
Unlike the interim HCFCs, HFCs earn a clean bill of health as "permanent solutions" in the jargon of the Montreal Protocol. This is because they have no ozone-depleting potential and thus fulfill the mandate of the protocol. This blinkered environmental view ignores the impact HFCs could have on global warming. Concerns about HFCs have led most of Northern Europe to adopt a refrigerator technology developed by Greenpeace ten years ago, the Greenfreeze, which incorporates an isobutane refrigerant that has negligible warming impact and yields improved system efficiency. Yet by 1998, only 18 of 311 projects financed by the Multilateral Fund used similar technology.
Many consider the long-term use of HCFCs and HFCs as the price paid in order to gain the cooeration of the chemical industry in the Montreal Protocol. Because these substances have more recent patents and are significantly more expensive to purchase than CFCs, the big chemical concerns like Dupont, Honeywell, and ICI Klea aren't doing badly, even while losing business to other alternative substances. They're getting rid of a product that permeated daily life worldwide for decades, while staying in business and earning environmental kudos -- a major coup. But revisions to the Montreal Protocol establishing quicker HCFC phase-out dates, and the Kyoto Protocol's inclusion of HFCs, have understandably put fluorocarbon manufacturers on the defensive, as they watch their remaining aces slip from their sleeve.(2001.12.14)
Jason Anderson is an energy specialist at Climate Network Europe in Brussels.
http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/main
dish/anderson121401.asp
|
