Compromise on fluorinated greenhouse gases: reactions

In a joint statement, the European Fluorocarbons Technical Committee (EFCTC) and the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) said they welcomed the agreement and in particular the double legal base (for stationary applications) which is described as a "reasonable compromise". However, Dr Nick Campbell, Chairman of the F-gas producer association EFCTC, said he was "concerned that the Council agreed to ban the use of HFC-134a in mobile air-conditioning systems". He argued that "alternatives are still in the development phase and no mass-produced commercial system that provides demonstrable economic, safety and environmental benefits is yet available." On the decision to adopt containment measures for stationary applications, EFCTC said "there is indeed sufficient evidence that containment is feasible and already a reality in many cases through technological improvement, monitoring of installations and training of qualified personnel". 

The European Partnership For Energy and the Environment (EPEE), which represents manufacturers of equipment relying on HFCs as a refrigerant, also welcomed the agreement. Referring to the adoption of containment measures which his organisation has been advocating, Friedrich Busch, Director General of EPEE, said the agreement "is an important step to an EU- wide system of responsible use". 

Greenpeace described as a "positive move" that ministers based part of the regulation on the environment provisions of the EC Treaty. However, the environmental group expressed its general "disappointment" at it believes the Council "failed to recognise the availability of environmentally-friendly alternatives to fluorinated gases". Bans, Greenpeace pointed out, were only agreed for 'niche' applications (sports shoes, windows, tyres, etc) but "left key sectors untouched" such as domestic refrigeration where containment measures will apply "despite the fact that the EU market is dominated by climate-friendly, hydrocarbon technology". Greenpeace particularly regretted that Denmark and Austria will not be able to "go beyond the suggested scope or timeline of the legislation" as it will be based on the internal market provisions of the Treaty and, therefore, harmonised throughout the EU. "Instead of following the lead of countries like Denmark and Austria, (...) the Council and Commission have gone for the lowest common denominator," regretted Mahi Sideridou. 

ACEA, the European automakers association, said the phase-out dates for HFC-134a were "challenging" but "doable". "We would have liked a little more time" said Communications director Alfredo Filippone. Filippone recognised that Ministers have sought to give time for carmakers to develop new alternatives but pointed out that those were "not all ready" yet. 

The Japanese automobile manufacturers Association (JAMA) said the decision on HFC-134a was "not a problem for our industry". Speaking to EurActiv, Mr Osuga from JAMA's Brussels office said the transition period were "acceptable" and "in line with [their] expectations". Concerning leakage rates, Osuga explained that the Japanese market is "led by strong consumer demand" for environmentally-friendly air-conditioning systems, meaning that "leakage rates are already low". 

A source in the car industry told EurActiv that the maximum value of F-gases' greenhouse potential (set at 150) would give industry "enough flexibility" to adapt. "In reality, this means that a majority of carmakers who want to move to CO2 systems will do it directly even if the 150 threshold will allow an alternative to CO2", namely HFC-152a. However, because of the latter's flammability, he believes that "in practice, an increasing number of makers will look for longer-term solutions" - or CO2. Indeed, both HFC-152a and CO2 systems "need further developments", the source pointed out adding that, in the end, it will be up to competitive forces to decide on the technology.