|
作者：傑生•安德森
逐步淘汰與混亂不明
以溫室氣體取代破壞臭氧氣體的嚴重性，很久以前即為人所知，但一直不被重視。工業界藉由同意將逐步淘汰破壞臭氧的CFC（這種氣體同時也嚴重影響溫室效應），卻能夠不受到影響溫室效應方面的道德譴責，使得如此的「淘汰」步驟顯得更加重要。但既然替代物已經有了，為何是用其他溫室氣體來]取代？在蒙特婁議定書的草擬階段，破壞臭氧氣體和溫室氣體之間的關連，就曾經引發熱烈的討論，之後也開過幾次研討會，並且提出了警告。不過，一如所料地，這些行動都沒有產生多少效用。改採用異丁烷之類的碳氫化合物，可能會引起巨大的改變：可明顯降低溫室氣體的排放量。但是由於對新科技的保守態度、不願意多花費在訓練及安全措施上，使得這些碳氫化合物的應用延後了。許多年過去了，想要改用替代物變得越來越困難，市場上已經將氟化物視為標準規格，而對於其他替代物有興趣的小公司，則資金不足，無法抵抗這種趨勢。
其實替代物的問題不只限於HCFC和HFC，泡沫材料工業倚賴有毒的氯化甲烷（methylene chloride），而新一代的溶劑三氯乙烯（trichloroethylene），最近被認為與男性不孕症有關。既然目前工業界都大量使用這兩種化合物，「多國基金」身為聯合國環境協議的一部份，是否就有責任去整體考量這些化合物對人類與環境的衝擊？聯合國對於有關臭氧與氣候的協議，難道不應該朝向長期、相同的環境目標嗎？對於「多國基金」的資助國而言，特別是美國，答案是很清楚的「不」！許多年來，美國一直阻礙著給予非氟碳替代物優惠的可能性（很巧的，這同時也幫助了某個強勢的國內工業），並且有力地牽制著蒙特婁議定書，以最少的代價，讓業界所應盡的義務絕不會越過「逐漸淘汰CFC」這項協議的範疇。
而最近在蒙特婁發表的一項聲明-完全淘汰CFC的計畫在預計期限之前提早完成-正符合了這個模式，再也沒有更好的示範了。其中美國的利益顯而易見：給予「淘汰」的資助，需要有個明確定義的終點，而用什麼該取代CFC則是次要的事情。事實上，不論真正的替代方式是什麼，都是次要的事情，因為一旦發展中國家簽署援助計畫並接受款項後，後果都必須由自己承擔。
這當然不可多所責難，富有的國家幾乎不使用CFC了，而他們也出資幫助發展中國家削減CFC的使用。替代方案比預期中更容易推行，成本更便宜，而新科技的效能也更高。然而，由於有很多將多項環境考量納入改變現況之中的機會，都因為被僵硬區分的環境議題而錯失了。由聯合國推動的各項協議間之互動（或缺乏互動），無疑的，將會成為明年（2002）秋天「永續發展世界高峰會」上的熱門議題。在蒙特婁議定書中，以溫室氣體取代破壞臭氧氣體的案例，這讓人們清楚地了解，為何需要這類的互動討論會議了。(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/
cl02012201.htm |
|
By Jason Anderson
Phased-out and Confused
The significance of replacing ozone-depleting gases with greenhouse gases has long been recognized -- and long been downplayed. Industry has claimed a kind of moral immunity from global warming concerns in exchange for agreeing to the phase-out of CFCs, which are also powerful greenhouse gases. That makes their phase-out all the more important -- but then why replace them with other greenhouse gases, when alternatives are there? The relationship between ozone-depleting gases and greenhouse gases was the subject of a handful of heated debates early on in the history of the Montreal Protocol, leading to little more than a workshop and a resolution exhorting caution. Predictably, neither had much impact. Switching to hydrocarbons like isobutane could have had a huge impact, significantly reducing the greenhouse gas emissions problem. But conservatism about new technologies, and unwillingness to accept the additional expense of training and safety precautions, delayed their early adoption. As the years have passed, it has become harder and harder to consider alternative substances; markets are standardizing around fluorinated substances, and smaller enterprises that are interested in alternatives have even less money to buck the trend.
In fact, the questions about alternatives don't stop with HCFCs and HFCs. There are foam technologies based on the toxic methylene chloride, and solvent replacements using trichloroethylene, recently linked to infertility in men. While both of these substances are accepted for industrial use, does the multilateral fund have a duty, as part of a United Nations environmental agreement, to undertake a more holistic review of their human and environmental impact? Shouldn't U.N. protocols on ozone and climate work towards the same long-term environmental goals? To several multilateral fund donor countries, most notably the United States, the answer is a resounding "No." For years, the U.S. has stymied efforts to give preference to non-fluorocarbon alternatives (coincidentally helping a powerful domestic industry) and has kept a firm grip on the reins of the protocol's commitments, never letting them stray beyond the letter of the CFC phase-out deal, at the lowest cost possible.
The recent announcement in Montreal fits the pattern: complete phase out plans of CFCs ahead of schedule -- what could be better than that? The attraction to the United States is clear: The commitment to finance phase-out needs to have a defined end-point. What replaces CFCs is a secondary issue. In fact, whether the replacement actually happens is a secondary issue, because once developing countries sign the finalization plans and accept the money, meeting the targets is their own responsibility.
It's hard to be too disparaging, of course. CFCs are nearly gone in rich countries, and these same countries are footing the bill for eradication in developing countries as well. Replacement has turned out to be easier and cheaper than expected, and newer technologies are much more efficient. But many opportunities to incorporate multiple environmental considerations into current changes are being wasted, due to the rigid division of environmental issues. The interaction (or lack thereof) between U.N. protocols will undoubtedly be a hot topic at next fall's World Summit on Sustainable Development. By replacing ozone-depleting gases with greenhouse gases, the Montreal Protocol provides a crystalline example of why that discussion is needed. (2001.12.14)
Jason Anderson is an energy specialist at Climate Network Europe in Brussels.
http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/main
dish/anderson121401.asp
|
