On October 6, 1999, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center's principal investigator for ozone detection, Dr. Richard D. McPeters, reported that there was no substantial difference between the record setting 1998 ozone hole and the ozone hole observed in 1999. On October 13, 1999, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's chief ozone scientist, Dr. David Hofmann, leaped to the conclusion that the ozone layer appears to be recovering because of the lack of statistical difference between the two years.   

    While it is true that chlorine from CFCs in the stratosphere (the uppermost layer of the earth's atmosphere) has probably peaked and is now in decline, the abundance of  halons and CFC replacements, HCFCs, are on the increase. The Co-Chair of the Scientific Assessment Panel of the Montreal Protocol, Dr. Daniel Albritton, reported that the overall rate of decline in ozone has slowed in recent years, but that it is not yet clear whether that pattern heralds the recovery of the ozone layer.   

    Scientists are predicting that the ozone layer will be fully repaired sometime after the year 2050 without dramatic action to accelerate the phase-out of ozone-depleting chemicals. But global warming may delay the recovery.   

*{    -Jessica Vallette Revere atmosphere  }

 *partie=titre     Reports of Ozone Layer Recovery May Be Premature  *partie=nil 

     This is a list of countries whose activities are compromising the goals of the Montreal Protocol.  

    China: For not ratifying the Copenhagen Amendment at the 11th MOP held in that country's capitol.  

    Italy: For being consistently being the furthest behind in its contributions to the Multilateral Fund ($29 million overdue, since 1991).  

    USA: Overly vigorous (though behind the scenes) support of flourocarbon ODS alternatives. Penalty Box  

     Editor's Note  

    Thanks to industry's long-term reliance on fossil fuels, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), methyl bromide and other chemicals, we are in the midst of a global atmospheric crisis that can no longer be ignored. However, the Clinton/Gore Administration behaves as if there was no scientifically established connection between ozone depletion and global warming, in spite of new evidence to the contrary. If they did acknowledge this crisis, they could work to bring U.S. policy in line with the two international environmental treaties that deal with global warming and ozone depletion, the Kyoto Protocol and the Montreal Protocol. Instead, the Clinton/Gore Administration has worked to weaken the provisions of these accords threatening human health and our global environment.  

     Protection of the ozone layer was one of the hottest environmental issues during the 1992 U.S. presidential race. The relationship between global climate change and ozone depletion should play a major role in the environmental positions of candidates competing to win the year 2000 vote. The next President will be in a unique position to change existing policies to make them more consistent with the clear need to stop the damage to the Earth's atmosphere. Furthermore, it is up to Americans to send a message  to Congress that it must ratify the Kyoto Protocol as soon as possible. Changing the composition of our nation's elected environmental leadership will help heal the atmosphere and may spur other countries to do the same.  -Jessica Vallette Revere Fallout From the 11th Meeting of Parties in Beijing, China  

     While the world's attention was focused on the World Trade Organization meetings in Seattle in December 1999, the Clinton/Gore Administration was quietly giving away the store in Beijing, China, at the 11th Meeting of Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Environmental, health, and consumer groups alerted the world that the nations signed on to the agreement are no longer capable of responding to serious threats to the ozone layer.   

    "The shocking news of a new ozone hole over Northern Europe, almost as severe as the Antarctic ozone hole, should have moved nations to eliminate ozone destroying chemicals. Instead, they acted to paralyze a once-successful international agreement," said Jessica Vallette Revere, Atmosphere Campaign Director at Friends of the Earth. "This pact is not protecting life on earth from greed and shortsighted policies."   

    Revere also noted that the medical costs associated with ozone depletion have sky-rocketed. Skin cancers are on the rise, and Americans are now spending over $3 billion a year on cataract operations.   

 *partie=titre The meeting failed in several areas:   *partie=nil 

    Funding to Protect Ozone Layer Cut Wealthy nations reduced the amount of funds available to help developing nations eliminate CFCs, halons, methyl bromide and other ozone-depleting chemicals by $26 million. This cut was a slap in the face to those developing countries that volunteered to phase out the worst ozone-depleting chemicals more rapidly than the Protocol requires.   

    New Ozone-Depleting Chemicals Largely Unregulated An important European proposal to automatically control all new ozonedestroying chemicals was killed. Representatives of Great Lakes Chemical were present at the meeting to make sure their pet chemical (n-propyl bromide) was not slated for phase-out.  

    Methyl Bromide Quarantine &  Pre-shipment Use Allowed to Expand Indefinitely The pesticide industry fought for unlimited expansion of use of this toxic chemical to control pests in internationally traded goods. Methyl bromide is 50 times more effective than CFCs at destroying stratospheric ozone. The European Union proposed a cap on expanding the use of methyl bromide. Unfortunately, the pesticide industry won and countries were only required to report on its use.  

    Ozone-Depleting Chemicals Still Promoted as a Solution Nations reaffirmed using ozone protection funds to support projects that use HFCs and PFCs:  A Controversial and  Short-Term Replacement for CFCs continued on next page Are CFC replacement chemicals wolves in sheep's clothing?   

*{ phrase précédente partielle }

    In June 1999, industry experts, scientists, environmental ministers, and three citizen group representatives met in Geneva, Switzerland, to address the question of how best to limit the emissions of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). These chemicals were developed by the fluorocarbon industry, including Dow Corporation and DuPont, to replace CFCs and halons, which are being phased out under the Montreal Protocol. They are used as refrigerants, blowing agents for insulating foam, and fire-extinguishing agents. Unfortunately, these chemicals have turned out to have very high global warming potentials compared to carbon dioxide, the principle chemical responsible for global climate change.   

    The good news is that the use of about 80% of ozone-depleting chemicals has been successfully eliminated without the use of other fluorocarbons. Another 8% of these chemicals have been replaced by HFCs. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) have replaced about 12% of non-methyl bromide ozone-depleting substances. But these numbers don't tell the full story. HFCs are significant global warming agents and some of them have such long atmospheric lifetimes that, once emitted, they are considered to be in the atmosphere permanently.  

    As a result, these chemicals cannot be considered the best long-term replacements for CFCs or halons. The fundamental question considered by this group of experts was flawed because it implied that only emissions should be limited, not the actual production and use of these chemicals. The world's leaders should not be seeking to merely control emissions of chemicals when their very existence compromises human health or the environment--especially when alternatives are available.   

    Ozone depletion and climate change are politically, scientifically, technically, and financially linked. Ozone depletion masks global warming and changes in climate and meteorological conditions affect the ozone layer. The Montreal Protocol is linked to the Kyoto Protocol because it is meeting the goal of eliminating ozone-depleting chemicals by adopting global warming chemicals as replacements. These chemicals, HFCs and PFCs, are among the six gases that will be controlled under the Kyoto Protocol. Therefore, they should only be used when no other technology is available to replace CFCs or halons in a particular application.   

    Alternatives to HFCs and PFCs are widely available in the foam-blowing and refrigeration sectors. Mass-produced and custom hydrocarbon refrigeration systems are being adopted by European countries and are gaining market share in India and China. They are also being adopted in the foam-insulating markets in Europe, Japan and North America. Other refrigeration alternative technologies such as carbon dioxide, plain water, and absorption are either in the prototype stage or used in custom applications. HCFCs, chemicals that still cause significant damage to ozone. HCFCs are also potent global warmers.   

    Global Warming's Harmful Effects on Ozone Downplayed  Participants turned deaf ears to a report by scientists that due to global warming, there may be an additional 20-year delay in ozone recovery. The report was simply referred to a committee for another year's discussion.  

    "Industry took care of themselves, diplomats took care of their jobs, China took care of the meeting arrangements, but no one took care of the Earth." said Larry Bohlen, Director of Health and Environment Programs at Friends of the Earth.  

 *partie=titre  Positive outcomes included:   *partie=nil  

    Technology Dumping A list of nations that no longer wish to receive obsolete equipment dependent on ozone-depleting substances was circulated.  

    HCFC Trade and Production Now Controlled The Parties agreed to a HCFC trade ban for countries that have not yet ratified the Protocol's 1992 Copenhagen Amendment, which banned the use of the HCFCs by the year 2030 for developed countries and 2040 for developing countries. The Parties hope this will provide an incentive to these countries to ratify the Amendment as soon as  possible.   

    The Parties also agreed to require developed countries to freeze the production of HCFCs at 1989 levels (measured as the average of 1989 consumption and production levels) by 2004 and developing countries to do so in 2016, with a baseline of 2015. Unfortunately, production of 15% above baseline will be permitted to meet the "basic domestic needs" of developing countries. Developed countries were required to freeze consumption by 1996 and reduce consumption 35% by 2004.  

     For further information about the production and consumption of CFCs and ozone depleting substances, see Sebastian Oberthur, "Production and Consumption of Ozone Depleting Substances," PROKLIMA Project/Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), November 1998.  *{ E-mail: roklima@gtz.de  }

DOMESTIC FRONT 
Water-based refrigeration is particularly interesting. It has been used in large, low-pressure, vapor compressions systems since the early 1900s and is increasingly used in lithium-bromide and water absorption plants for large, heatdriven air conditioning facilities in the U.S. and Japan. Since 1995, water has been used in industrial chillers and industrial heat pumps, where it has been found to use 30-40% less energy than the best available HFC technology.  Considering German scientist Sebastian Oberthur's estimate of HFC production and emissions reaching about 1.6 million metric tones by 2050 and roughly 7 million tons by 2100 (under the assumption of an average annual growth of 3%), it is imperative that all nations limit their adoption of fluorocarbon alternatives to prevent additional global warming and its consequences.   

*{    -Jessica Vallette Revere  }

     Responding to a successful lawsuit by environmental groups, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) released proposed methyl bromide regulations on January 18, 2000, and opened a public comment period that ended March 13th (see the proposed regulations and hearing dates at *{ www.cdpr.ca.gov } ). When finalized, these regulations will be significantly different from the discretionary Methyl Bromide Proposed Permit Conditions--a document that guides the use of methyl bromide, but was rejected in a previous rule-making process--in at least one critical aspect. The new regulations will have the force of law and no longer be discretionary.   

    Through March 13th, the public had the opportunity to make verbal comments at public hearings or written comments about the proposal. Curiously, no public hearing was initially scheduled in Ventura or Santa Barbara Counties, despite the history of local concern about methyl bromide fumigations. Local activists succeeded in convincing the state to hold a hearing in Ventura County. At the end of the comment period, DPR must respond to all substantive comments.  

    The public interest community is deeply disturbed and disappointed with DPR' s proposed regulations. If this proposal is adopted as law, it is our opinion that they will not provide adequate protection for California residents from the adverse health effects of methyl bromide exposure.  

*{    For more information see: www.panna.org, or contact Anne Schonfield, Pesticide Action Network, 415-981-1771, e-mail: annes@panna.org; or Bryan Neuberg, Pesticide Watch, 415981-6205, ext. 323, e-mail: nomethyl@earthlink.net. }

*{ 
Chemical Name                              Use                     GWP (over 100 years)  

    HFC-134a                   Refrigerant, propellant in metered-dose inhalers, and foam blowing agent 3,800-5400  

     HFC-23                      By-product of HCFC-22 production, used in verylow temperature refrigeration, blend component in fire suppression, plasma etching & cleaning of semiconductor components 11,700-14,800  

     HFC-125                       Blend component of numerous refrigerants and a fire suppressant 2,800-3,800  

     HFC-227ea                      Fire suppressant and propellant for  metered-dose inhalers 2,900-3,800 HFC-143a                        Refrigerant blend                    11,700-14,800  

     *GWP is a comparative number. Carbon Dioxide, the principle greenhouse gas, has a GWP of 1.0.  

    Source: Report of the TEAP HFC and PFC Task Force, October 1999, Appendix L "Atmospheric Values for Various Ozone Depleting Substances and their Substitutes"  }

     *{ Davita Johns}
	 
	  *partie=titre A SAMPLING OF GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIALS   *partie=nil 

      *partie=titre Technology Choices and Questions:  What Is the Best Option?   *partie=nil 

    Nations continue to debate what are the best technologies to replace CFCs, HCFCs, and halons. Unfortunately, some of the technologies currently used are hotly debated because they themselves are ozone depleters or will be controlled by the Kyoto Protocol due to their global warming potential. CFCs and HCFCs are used primarily as refrigerants and to blow foam, while halons are used to put out electrical fires and other industrial or military fires.  

    Some believe that the efficiency gains of using hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and per-fluorocarbons (PFCs) as refrigerants and foam-blowing agents make them the best long-term replacements for ozone-depleting substances. Others believe that hydrocarbons and alternatives (such as water-based systems) are the most efficient and environmentally benign technologies currently available.   

    There are a number of ways to assess the best technology choice for a given use. One is the existing system, where a company uses its own internal decision-making process, which is based on both research and development and available technical and economic information. However, this works only for companies with internal resources that are adequate to fund such an assessment. A significant problem arises for small, independent companies residing in developing countries, whose technology decisions are influenced by implementing agencies of the Montreal Protocol, including the World Bank and the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), because they can't afford to engage in the same sort of assessment process. In some cases, certain people serving on these agencies' decision-making panels are employed by multinational corporations that produce the chemicals under consideration for replacement, which can result in certain technology biases, as seen by the choice to use HFCs and PFCs.   

    The Montreal Protocol's own Technical and Economic Assessment Panel has tried to clear up some of the issues about HFCs and PFCs in its 1999 report, "The Implications to the Montreal Protocol of the Inclusion of HFCs and PFCs in the Kyoto Protocol."  

    -Jessica Vallette Revere "While informative, the TEAP's report on controlling HFC and PFC emissions misses the point by focusing on emissions control instead of answering the question `how can my company avoid using these chemicals in the first place?' The answer is clear, chose the alternative that poses the least threat to the environment and human health."  

     *{ Published by Friends of the Earth  

     Contributors:   Fernando Berjano, RAPAL (PAN Latin America) Samuel Chayen, M.Sc. Israel Economic Forum for the Environment Victoria Maldonado, CODEFF  (FoE Chile) Grace Ohayo-Mitoko, Health and Environment Watch (Kenya) Jessica Vallette Revere, Friends of the Earth USA Kelly Sims, Ozone Action  Anne Schonfield, Pesticide Action Network Cheikh SYLLA, PAN Africa  

    Edited By: Larry Bohlen, Jody Schaeflein &  Lisa Speckhardt  Friends of the Earth  

    Designed By: JML Design Contact: Jessica Vallette Revere Atmosphere Campaign Director Friends of the Earth Voice: 202-783-7400, ext. 227 Call toll-free 1-877-843-8687, ext. 227 Fax: 202-783-0444 www.foe.org/ptp/atmosphere/  }

     With the passage of the Beijing Declaration at the 11th Meeting of Parties, which reaffirms the Parties commitment to protect the ozone layer, one can only ask whether China and Israel knew of the ozone-destroying tea party brewed under their noses by Chinese and Israeli industry during the last few years?  

    A November 1999 UNIDO report shows that the joint project to produce methyl bromide between the Israeli-based Dead Sea Bromine Group and the Lianyungang Sea-Water Chemical Industry in China has increased production more than fivefold from 1995 to 1998 and is now producing more than 2,300 tons per year. Methyl bromide production is expected to double again by 2002.   

     The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, Energy and OzonAction Unit released its "Inventory of Technical and Institutional Resources for Promoting Methyl Bromide Alternatives" in August 1999. This is an information resource designed to help countries implement training and policy development activities for replacing methyl bromide. It can be used by governments, international and national institutions involved in the development of methyl bromide phase-out activities carried out with grant support from the Multilateral Fund and other institutions. Two for Tea: Chinese and Israeli Industries Brewing More Methyl Bromide  
INTERNATIONAL FRONT  

     Methyl Bromide Sourcebook Available Surprisingly, Dead Sea Bromine Group, one of the main servers of this toxic tea, pride themselves on being the first Israeli industry to be accredited by the International Environmental Management Standard, ISO 14001, a voluntary environmental standard set for industries.   

    This standard requires that companies have a verifiable system for achieving compliance and for preventing noncompliance with environmental regulations and agreements. In addition, ISO 14001 requires that an organization know what impacts it is having on the environment. An ISO 14001 certified company must take into account its possible effects on the community local to the facility, and its impact on other stakeholders including citizens groups. The irony of Dead Sea Bromine Group's certification is that its main product, methyl bromide, poses serious threats to human health and the environment, and if China ever ratifies the Copenhagen Amendment, these production levels will threaten the country's ability to ever meet the phase-out schedule.  

    It's time to bring the toxic tea party to an end. The Israeli government, which is considered friendly toward the ozone layer, should explain to Dead Sea Bromine that as an environmentally aware industry, they need to change their strategy of transferring dated and harmful ozone-depleting industries to developing nations in order to extend their profits and continue production unheeded. It's time for China, with its elegant call for ozone protection under the Beijing Declaration, to reduce and eliminate methyl bromide production.  

     The contacts and resources listed in the Inventory  are organized according to the type of services and information provided. The Inventory costs US$40.  

*{     To order, contact:  

    SMI (Distribution Services) Limited PO Box 119 Stevenage Hertfordshire SG1 4TP ENGLAND Fax: +44 1438 748 844  } 

       In Gratitude to Mr. K. M. Sarma, Executive Secretary of the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol   

    Mr. K. M. Sarma announced his retirement from his post as Executive Secretary for the ozone agreement at the 11th Meeting of Parties in Beijing, China. Mr. Sarma's welcoming encouragement and genuine respect for our work empowered us to remain involved as active participants at the negotiations. Even with a critical role to play, citizen, health and environmental groups can easily feel like outsiders within the Protocol due to their observer status in the Montreal Protocol negotiations. His appreciative words and facilitation of our needs meant a lot to all the NGOs and we thank him.   

    Mr. Sarma, may you continue to do what you have been doing all these years, working for a green and peaceful world.   

    We wish you good health and happiness.  

     Citizen, health and environmental groups were seriously disappointed with the final replenishment level of the Multilateral Fund (MLF) adopted by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. At the 11th Meeting in Beijing, the Parties failed to agree to a level of funding that would support developing countries' efforts to eliminate ozone-depleting substances as fast as technically feasible. In fact, the new replenishment level of $440 million was even lower than the $466 million adopted in 1997.  

    The highly contentious negotiations were conducted behind closed doors, without participation of any of the citizen groups from developing countries that attended the 11th Meeting of Parties (MOP). Instead, these groups had to rely on "hallway conversations" with delegates to determine the hour-to-hour, day-by-day changes in positions.   

    India firmly stated that at least $700 million in total funding was needed to help developing countries that want to end their use of CFCs in advance of the Montreal Protocol scheduled phase-out in 2010. Brazil supported India's position, along with several other countries. The Executive Committee has supported these efforts in the recent past. For example, India is now phasing out its CFC production facilities with a project implemented through the World Bank worth $82 million. China will phase out its production under the auspices of the World Bank in a project worth $150 million. The World Bank is currently working with Russia to phase out its production by June 2000, with the project worth $24 million.   

    One of the most controversial and still unresolved questions deals with so-called "innovative financing." Sometimes called "concessional lending," this form of lending can be a good way to leverage scarce funds and provide money to companies that are either too large or are closely affiliated with multinational corporations wishing to eliminate their use of ozone-depleting substances. These activities would not otherwise be eligible for money under the MLF. Some developed countries believe this would substitute for outright grants. Many believe that concessional lending is unfair because it will lead to an increase in developing nation's national debt, which they cannot afford. If concessional lending is used, it should be contingent on the fulfillment of commitments to grants, and only after these nations are assured that, in the event that the recipient company goes bankrupt, the loan will be forgiven and no additional debt will be incurred.   

    Developing countries are legitimately concerned, though, that these lending programs will increase their national debts. Rather than negotiate a higher replenishment that was tied to making these lending programs reality, these countries agreed to the lower amount that was adopted ($466 million).  

    Pegging a higher, and therefore more acceptable, replenishment level to innovative financing was a brilliant negotiating tactic by many donor countries including the U.S. because it resulted in the acceptance of a lower replenishment and undermined efforts to increase the total amount of money committed to the Fund. Other donor countries, such as Italy and Japan, are undermining the effectiveness of the fund by not paying their obligations to the Fund in full and on time.  

    It is clear that these developed countries are not interested in increasing the amount of the Fund and helping develFull Funding, Fair Funding for Developing Countries   

    oping countries meet the mandate of the Montreal Protocol. Friends of the Earth will continue its efforts to get the U.S. Congress to approve more than the minimum funding levels for the Multilateral Fund, with the hopes that such an example will spur other countries to begin paying their fair share.   

*{     Friends of the Earth 1025 Vermont Ave. NW Suite 300 ˇ Washington DC 20005 Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Washington, D.C. Permit No. 1658  }

     Printed on recycled content paper using soy inks with no heavy metals. Ozone depletion may make it harder to combat global warming because a compromised ozone layer allows more ultraviolet (UV) light to penetrate the world's oceans and threaten their ability to serve as a carbon sink.  

    UV light is a non-visible part of the light spectrum that plays a significant role in the world's ecology. Interestingly, UV rays help to make atmospheric oxygen into ozone in the ozone layer, which resides in an area 10-50 kilometers above the earth. The ozone layer then protects living organisms by shielding out the majority of harmful UV rays that would otherwise reach the Earth's surface.  

    Normally, UV-B light that reaches the ocean is prevented from penetrating very far by high concentrations of dissolved and particulate matter. Scientists now believe that global warming, acid rain and polluted runoff are degrading these substances faster than in the past, enhancing the penetration of UV radiation into the water column and setting in motion a process that will worsen global warming.   

    Very small aquatic organisms such as cyanobacteria, algae, and plankton are Global Warming and Ozone Depletion:  A Vicious Cycle? extremely vulnerable to historically high levels of UV light. Solar UV can inhibit growth, development and physiological responses of these organisms. It even kills some types. These organisms form the backbone of the aquatic food chain. Consequently, entire food chains could collapse without them.   

    In addition, UV light has a detrimental impact on plankton that play a pivotal role in the oceans' ability to draw carbon dioxide (the primary global warming chemical) out of the atmosphere, which makes the world's oceans a "carbon sink." If this sink is compromised, the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will accelerate. This connection was explained in an article published in The Ecologist in March 1999 (see further reading list below). Alarmingly, some Kyoto Protocol negotiators are counting on the ocean carbon sink to help offset the need to reduce emissions of global warming chemicals. Global warming and ozone depletion are two of the most serious crises ever faced by humankind and the links between them call for new strategies to combat them simultaneously. -Jessica Vallette Revere Bunyard, Peter. 1999, March/April. How ozone-depletion increases global warming. The Ecologist, 29(2)  

*{
    Obetthur, Sebastian. 1998. Production and Consumption of Ozone Depleting Substances 1986-1996: The data reporting system under the Montreal Protocol. Eschborn, Germany: Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH  

    National Academy of Sciences. 2000. Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change 2000: Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources. Available on the World Wide Web at www.nap.edu/books/0309068916/html/  

    NOAA, NASA, UNEP, World Meteorological Organization, European Commission. 1998. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998, Volume 1 & 2  

    UNEP. Eliminating Dependency on Halons: Self-help guide for low volume consuming countries. Order online at www.earthprint.com: ISBN 92-8071783-9, US$50  

    UNEP, HFC and PFC Task Force of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. 1999, October. The Implications to the Montreal Protocol of the Inclusion of HFCs and PFCs in the Kyoto Protocol Further Reading 

}