The “F-Gas Debate” that took place on 6 November within the ATMOsphere Europe 2012 conference was formed by some key stakeholders and moderated by journalist Sonja van Renssen. The discussion focused on different policy options to reduce the f-gas emissions, especially HFC bans and phase down scheme and whether or not these could be effective tools. Safety standards were also a recurring topic of discussions.
Majority of panelists and audience in favour of HFC bans
Bas Eickhout, Member of the European Parliament kicked off the debate by noting: “We all know that if you look at it product by product and sector by sector, for some of these bans are easily possible. The alternatives are there. The industry who has invested in those alternatives, the climate friendly alternatives, they need to be rewarded. And I think that is the core of what politicians should do when they are discussing the green economy instead of only discussing about vague green rhetorics”.
Overall, the majority of the debate panelists were generally in support of the inclusion of HFCs bans in those sectors for which safe, efficient and affordable alternatives are available on the market today or will be in the near future. Moreover, the speakers pointed out that a ban send a clear signal to industry by providing a clear timeline and creating investment security.
Conference participants participated at the debate not just by taking the floor, but also through giving instant audience feedback to live polls showing up on the screens of the conference room. About two thirds of those participating in the polls, thought that the EU f-gas emission reduction target could only be met if bans in new HFC equipment are introduced in several AC&R sub-sectors
Industry associations object strong measures
Brussels-based industry associations that participated in the debate were concerned that strong measures could be harmful to new equipment such as heat pumps and that bans create inflexibility in terms of refrigerant choice and innovation of new technologies. However, other panelists argued that bans are not as inflexible as often presented: they actually apply to new equipment only and do not kick in before a given year in the future, that is set in such a way to give sufficient development time for the industry to achieve high quality, efficiency and safe products.
Industry and policy-makers should become more active in development of safety standards
Standards were a recurring theme during the conference’s interactive debates and Q&A sessions. Several conference participants raised the issue of voluntary safety standards being dictated by the interests of companies represented in the standards making process, which requires significant effort and resources. Although voluntary in nature, these standards very often end up in regulatory texts that require conformity with them, while also insurance companies often require that these be respected as part of their insurance coverage conditions.
A policy maker called on the natural refrigerant industry to become more active in the process of standard making, as government representatives do not have the technical knowledge necessary. Several industry players in turn urged the European Commission and government representatives in general to enhance their role in the standards making process and intervene when necessary to widen the scope of standards and allow the use of natural refrigerants. The industry alerted that otherwise there is a risk that regulators’ intention of a proposed regulation to realise climate benefits and accelerate the transition to climate friendly alternatives could be undermined.
Read full article: http://www.ammonia21.com/news/view/3663
