PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Europaudvalget 2004-05 (2. samling), Miljø- og Planlægningsudvalget 2004-05 (2. samling)
KOM (2003) 0492 Bilag 4, MPU Alm.del Bilag 183
Offentligt

Medlemmerne af Folketingets Europaudvalg

g deres stedfortrædere

Bilag

Journalnummer

400.C.2-0

Kontor

EUK

26. april 2005

Til underretning for Folketingets Europaudvalg vedlægges brev og non-paper vedrørende

forslaget til forordning om regulering af visse fluoriserende drivhusgasser, der den 14.

april 2005 af statsministeren er sendt til formanden for Europa-Parlamentet, formændene

for de politiske grupper i Europa-Parlamentet og de danske medlemmer af Europa-

Parlamentet.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

DEN MARK

non-paper

The Proposal for a Regulation of certain Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases

The common position of the Council of a Regulation of certain fluorinated greenhouse gases (F-

gas regulation) from October 2004 introduces some improvements on a European level but it

only uses a fraction of available eco-efficient technologies. The European Parliament now has the

opportunity to improve these shortcomings.

Background

The Kyoto Protocol has just entered into force, largely due to leadership of the European Union.

Three of the six gases included in the Kyoto Protocol are F-gases, which are the background for

the proposal for the regulation as put forward by the Commission in August 2003.

In October 2004 the Council (Environment) reached a common position based on a revised pro-

posal from the Commission. The Commissions original proposal is now split in two parts:

1. A regulation covering education, inspection etc. based on the Treaty’s article 175 and bans on

a few minor applications based on the Treaty’s article 95

2. A restriction in use of F-gases in Mobile Air Condition systems (MACs) in an amendment to

the car type approval directive solely based on the Treaty’s article 95.

Austria and Denmark are currently implementing a general ban on using certain F-gases. The

Danish and Austrian experiences, as well as innovations seen in other Member States, show that

there are technical/financial viable and environmentally better alternatives to the F-gases. Alter-

natives are commercially available for a long range of products and equipment, where the overall

emissions of greenhouse gases are significantly lowered. Most alternatives even reduce the energy

consumption also.

Alternatives are being produced and marketed by a broad range of European producers. The

consumers can now do their shopping in supermarkets where the refrigeration is based on the

alternatives, which are delivered by the major players on the European market like Linde AG and

York Refrigeration. Another example is a McDonald’s restaurant, where the public can dine in a

F-gas free restaurant.

The German Federal Environmental Agency has carried out a comprehensive and detailed work

on the availability and effectiveness of the alternatives. The report shows that alternatives exist

for all important applications, and concludes – for uses in supermarkets and in air-conditioning

of buildings - that today, F-gas free systems are already state-of-the-art.

What are the shortcomings of the common position of the Council?

Firstly, the common position is not ambitious enough. The proposal of a Regulation of certain F-

gases does not take the proven and already existing developments into account.

It is in opposition to our ambition on promotion of eco-innovations and environmental technol-

ogies with synergies between environmental protection, economic growth and new jobs. By im-

posing only negligible bans, we not only halt the eco-innovation process in this field, but we also

lose credibility in the development of eco-efficient solutions in general.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Secondly, the common position of the Council of the Regulation will not allow Member States –

of their own choice – to be more ambitious and in line with the economical and feasible technical

alternatives.

The internal burden sharing agreement assigns Member States with highly differentiated obliga-

tions on reduction of greenhouse gases. It is therefore necessary for the individual Member States

to use different means in order to reach their reduction targets

Within the refrigeration sector we will in the next decade see a major shift away from the ozone-

depleting substances. This can be replaced by a significantly growing use of F-gases and parallel

contribution to climate change. Or, on the other hand, we can guide the promotion of available

alternatives by banning unnecessary uses of F-gas and thereby ensure the protection of the envi-

ronment and - through the stimulation of further eco-innovation – a front-runner advantage for

European industry in this field.

In the public, the current proposal from the Council will be seen as an endorsement of the ag-

gressive greenhouse gas and it will be seen as a halt to innovation and introductions of environ-

mentally better products. At the European market alternatives are increasingly visible to the pub-

lic, in contradiction to the signal that the common position of the Council communicates.

What can the European Parliam ent d o to im prove these shortcom ings?

The dossier as of the common position of the Council is quite different from the dossier on

which the European Parliament based its first reading. The European Parliament therefore has to

reflect on the separation and the content of the 2 elements of the dossier. New amendments be-

yond the amendments of the first reading should be accepted.

The European Parliament can choose to ban unnecessary uses (in new systems/products) of cer-

tain F-gases within a reasonable time frame. Alternatives exist already for a very broad range of

applications from household refrigerators and freezers to supermarket cooling/freezing systems

and heat pumps. This will necessitate an expansion of the list of applications in Annex II to the

Regulation, e.g. as suggested by DK/AT/SE in the Council (attached).

Or, the European Parliament can choose to base the full regulation on the Treaty’s article 175

(environment), to secure that those Member States, deciding to use feasible solutions for fulfilling

their commitments to the Kyoto Protocol and the internal burden sharing, can do so. This solu-

tion is in accordance with the opinion given by the Parliaments legal service which points to-

wards article 175 alone as the correct legal basis for this environmental Regulation.

The use of the Treaty’s article 175 can even be a solid platform for progressive innovation in the

EU and opening new markets worldwide.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Alternative table for Annex II as proposed by Denmark, Austria and Sweden in the negotiations

in the Council in October 2004

Fluorinated greenhouse gases

Hydro fluorocarbons

Perfluorocarbons

Hydro fluorocarbons

Perfluorocarbons

Fluorinated greenhouse gases

Hydro fluorocarbons

Fluorinated greenhouse gases

Application

Refrigerants in non-confined

direct-evaporation systems

Fire protection systems and fire

extinguishers *

Windows

Footwear

Tyres

One component foam **

Aerosols ***

Stationary refrigeration, air-

conditioning and heat pump

equipment and dehumidifiers

with charges with or above

10 kg ****

Household refrigerators and

freezers with charges less than

150 grams

District heating pipes

Tracer gas *****

Refrigerant

Production of flexible polyure-

thane foam

Date of prohibition

Date of entry into force

1 July, 2006

Date of entry into force

1 January, 2008

Hydro fluorocarbons

Sulphur hexafluoride

Perfluorocarbons

Hydro fluorocarbons

1 January, 2008

Date of entry into force

1 January, 2006

Except for use in military installations and in critical uses (to be defined by the

Committee referred to in Article 10).

Except in uses where safety regulations prohibit the use of alternatives.

***

Except for medical purposes and for use in confined space where fire standards

prevent the use of flammable propellants or where their use is stipulated for maintenance of elec-

trical or electronic components.

****

Except in uses where safety regulations prohibit the use of alternatives or if it does

not entail disproportionate cost for the industry.

*****

Except for use in laboratories.