WARSAW: Controversial issue of handling HFCs, or climate-damaging refrigerant gas, is unlikely to get resolved in near future as both India and the US stuck to their respective positions on Monday, making a strong pitch for support from other nations.
While India insisted that the issue must be kept out of the Montreal Protocol as HFC is not ozone depleting gas, US on Monday said the Protocol had very much jurisdiction over this climate damaging gas.
Seeking to clarify the issue, which has long been a bone of contention between developed and developing countries, US special envoy for climate change Todd Stern said, "The institution that is born to do this (phase down of refrigerant gases) and has jurisdiction over HFCs is the Montreal Protocol. Our view is let's not stand on ceremony. There are some countries that are to some extent standing on ceremony when they say no it should be done under the UNFCCC which deals with greenhouse gases."
Montreal Protocol deals with phasing out ozone-depleting substances like hydro-chlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFC). Though HFC is not an ozone-depleting gas, it contributes to global warming and consequently its phase-out comes under the Kyoto Protocol of the UNFCCC that puts the onus of its replacement only on rich countries.
Stern, addressing his first press conference here at National Stadium that is hosting the UN climate change talks, on Monday said, "Montreal Protocol has built in differentiation (to deal with the issue). It is not the same kind of differentiation like the UNFCCC but it has got differentiation built in."
He dismissed the suggestions that the UNFCCC principles should apply (for phasing out the HFCs). "Let's just get some results," Stern said.
India, however, stuck to its stand and requested the participating countries to resist any pressure to look at the issue differently unless they get alternative and cost-effective technology for the phase-out.
An Indian negotiator, said, "We (India and other developing countries) have categorically said that we would not agree to European Union, the US and other rich nations because we are still not sure on the alternative technologies, its cost and how it is going to impact our domestic consumers. In many other developing countries, we don't have technologies. There were concerns that many of these technologies are of very high cost."
Making India's stand clear, the official said New Delhi would not be party to any change which defies the core of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol.
Sources, however, had told TOI that New Delhi would first like to see the outcome of the Indo-US bilateral (joint task force) over the issue. Since the US is the prime mover of seeking to address HFC under the Montreal Protocol, it's important to see what the country has to offer in terms of solutions — economically viable and safe technology — for its phase out, they emphasized.
It is learnt that India is not all that rigid as it appears. New Delhi would first like to see whether its domestic industries — using refrigerant gas — are ready to move to alternatives that have low global warming potential.
Though New Delhi maintained the same line what it has been saying since 2009 climate conference, its recent stand, where it sent some positive signal of selectively using Montreal Protocol instruments to phase out HFCs, had raised some expectations of developed countries.
Earlier, India had shown some flexibility during G-20 deliberations and then during the meeting between US President Barak Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in end-September.
During both the G-20 and Obama-Singh meeting, India had taken a middle path. Though it had agreed to use expertise and institutions of the Montreal Protocol to whittle down consumption and production of HFCs, it insisted to keep this issue within the UNFCCC for "accounting and reporting of emissions" - a crucial clause that works in favour of developing countries.
Negotiators here said that the US and other developed countries must respect India's stand, which was backed by many developing countries including Persian Gulf nations.
While India insisted that the issue must be kept out of the Montreal Protocol as HFC is not ozone depleting gas, US on Monday said the Protocol had very much jurisdiction over this climate damaging gas.
Seeking to clarify the issue, which has long been a bone of contention between developed and developing countries, US special envoy for climate change Todd Stern said, "The institution that is born to do this (phase down of refrigerant gases) and has jurisdiction over HFCs is the Montreal Protocol. Our view is let's not stand on ceremony. There are some countries that are to some extent standing on ceremony when they say no it should be done under the UNFCCC which deals with greenhouse gases."
Montreal Protocol deals with phasing out ozone-depleting substances like hydro-chlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFC). Though HFC is not an ozone-depleting gas, it contributes to global warming and consequently its phase-out comes under the Kyoto Protocol of the UNFCCC that puts the onus of its replacement only on rich countries.
Stern, addressing his first press conference here at National Stadium that is hosting the UN climate change talks, on Monday said, "Montreal Protocol has built in differentiation (to deal with the issue). It is not the same kind of differentiation like the UNFCCC but it has got differentiation built in."
He dismissed the suggestions that the UNFCCC principles should apply (for phasing out the HFCs). "Let's just get some results," Stern said.
India, however, stuck to its stand and requested the participating countries to resist any pressure to look at the issue differently unless they get alternative and cost-effective technology for the phase-out.
An Indian negotiator, said, "We (India and other developing countries) have categorically said that we would not agree to European Union, the US and other rich nations because we are still not sure on the alternative technologies, its cost and how it is going to impact our domestic consumers. In many other developing countries, we don't have technologies. There were concerns that many of these technologies are of very high cost."
Making India's stand clear, the official said New Delhi would not be party to any change which defies the core of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol.
Sources, however, had told TOI that New Delhi would first like to see the outcome of the Indo-US bilateral (joint task force) over the issue. Since the US is the prime mover of seeking to address HFC under the Montreal Protocol, it's important to see what the country has to offer in terms of solutions — economically viable and safe technology — for its phase out, they emphasized.
It is learnt that India is not all that rigid as it appears. New Delhi would first like to see whether its domestic industries — using refrigerant gas — are ready to move to alternatives that have low global warming potential.
Though New Delhi maintained the same line what it has been saying since 2009 climate conference, its recent stand, where it sent some positive signal of selectively using Montreal Protocol instruments to phase out HFCs, had raised some expectations of developed countries.
Earlier, India had shown some flexibility during G-20 deliberations and then during the meeting between US President Barak Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in end-September.
During both the G-20 and Obama-Singh meeting, India had taken a middle path. Though it had agreed to use expertise and institutions of the Montreal Protocol to whittle down consumption and production of HFCs, it insisted to keep this issue within the UNFCCC for "accounting and reporting of emissions" - a crucial clause that works in favour of developing countries.
Negotiators here said that the US and other developed countries must respect India's stand, which was backed by many developing countries including Persian Gulf nations.
