[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 128 (Saturday, August 4, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1762-E1763]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  INTRODUCTION OF ``GLOBAL CLIMATE AND OZONE LAYER PROTECTION ACT OF 
                                 2007''

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, August 3, 2007

  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, today, I am proud to introduce the Global 
Climate and Ozone Layer Protection Act of 2007. This bill represents 
the first significant strengthening of the domestic laws governing 
ozone depleting substances since the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 
I'm pleased that this major step forward is supported by both industry 
and the environmental community.
  In May, the Oversight Committee held a hearing on the connection 
between ozone layer depletion and global warming. These issues are 
linked because chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons 
(HCFCs) are not only ozone depleting chemicals but very potent 
greenhouse gases, as well. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are common 
substitutes for HCFCs, are also strong greenhouse gases.
  The May hearing focused on the Montreal Protocol, the global 
environmental treaty that sets legally binding controls on the 
production and consumption of ozone depleting substances. The Committee 
learned that, because of the global warming impact of ozone depleting 
chemicals like CFCs, the Montreal Protocol has provided substantial 
benefits in mitigating global warming since it was negotiated in 1987. 
The witnesses explained that the Montreal Protocol will have reduced 
the total global warming impact from ozone depleting chemicals by about 
50 percent in 2010. This reduction will have the effect of delaying 
these climate-related impacts by seven to twelve years. In other words, 
without the Montreal Protocol, the world would be about a decade 
further along the path to dangerous climate change.
  The Parties to the Montreal Protocol will meet in September to 
commemorate the 20th anniversary of the treaty and to consider several 
proposals to strengthen it. This meeting provides an important 
opportunity to better protect the ozone layer and the climate. The 
provisions of this bill are intended to realize the full potential of 
this opportunity.
  First, the bill includes a sense of Congress provision regarding the 
upcoming Montreal Protocol negotiations. It states the sense of 
Congress that the United States should negotiate with the other parties 
to the Montreal Protocol to maximize the ability of the Protocol to 
mitigate global warming impacts and to accelerate the phase out of 
HCFCs in developed and developing countries. Accelerating the phase-out 
of HCFCs has the potential to produce significant climate benefits at 
low cost. The phase-out of HCFC-22 and its HFC-23 byproduct alone would 
have a climate effect equivalent to eliminating nearly one billion tons 
of carbon dioxide emissions. This figure is equal to roughly half of 
the total emissions reductions required under the Kyoto Protocol. By 
fully funding the Montreal Protocol's Multilateral Fund, this 
accelerated phase-out of HCFCs can be achieved at a small fraction of 
the cost of achieving equivalent carbon dioxide emissions reductions.

[[Page E1763]]

  Second, the bill closes a legal loophole by banning the importation 
of any product containing phased-out HCFCs, beginning January 1, 2010. 
The importation of bulk HCFCs for use in new products is already banned 
on that date.
  Third, the bill establishes a mechanism for destroying ozone 
depleting substances such as those that currently exist in 
refrigerators and air conditioners before they are released into the 
atmosphere. The legislation takes a bifurcated approach to ensure the 
destruction of these chemicals. Beginning January 1, 2010, any person 
seeking to produce or import an amount of a phased-out ozone depleting 
substance, considered to be a class I substance under the Clean Air 
Act, must offset this production or importation by destroying or 
securing the destruction of three times this amount of ozone depleting 
substances based on an ozone-depletion potential equivalent basis.
  The bill takes a more graduated approach with regard to substances 
deemed to be class II substances under the Clean Air Act, or HCFCs. 
Beginning January 1, 2012, any person seeking to produce or import an 
amount of a class II substance must offset this production or 
importation by destroying or securing the destruction of 1.2 times this 
amount of ozone depleting substances based on an ozone-depletion 
potential equivalent basis. The offset ratio for class II substances is 
increased to a two-to-one ratio in 2015.
  Another mechanism for addressing banks of ozone depleting substances 
is the creation of the Refrigeration Environmental Management Council. 
This nonprofit organization will have a board of directors composed of 
industry representatives, government officials, and public citizens. It 
will collect an assessment of 30 cents per pound on new refrigerants in 
order to provide a $1 per pound incentive for destroying, recycling, or 
reusing existing ozone depleting substances.
  Finally, the bill requires the EPA Administrator to promulgate 
regulations extending existing recycling requirements governing CFCs 
and HCFCs to substitutes for these chemicals. The effect of this 
provision will be to require EPA to finalize the June 11, 1998, 
proposed rule on this subject.
  Collectively, these provisions will have a tremendous impact. The 
bill addresses ozone depleting substances that have yet to be produced 
as well as existing banks of substances that may yet be emitted into 
the atmosphere. The bill addresses older CFCs as well as newer HCFCs. 
And the bill addresses international negotiations as well as domestic 
initiatives.
  According to the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy, an 
industry coalition made up of some 50 companies and trade associations, 
the proposed refrigerant management program is projected to reduce 
annual greenhouse gas emissions by 81 million tons of carbon dioxide 
equivalent. It will also annually reduce approximately 6,000 tons of 
ozone depletion potential. By 2015, it is projected to generate 
approximately $1 billion to fund incentives for recovery, reclamation 
and destruction of refrigerant compounds. In its entirety, the 
legislation should deliver greenhouse gas emissions reductions greater 
than the global reductions required by the Kyoto Protocol.
  The Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy has been extremely 
cooperative and creative in this process, and I am grateful for their 
support. This industry has been an important player in the global ozone 
protection effort for more than two decades. The members of the 
Alliance have played a critical role in making the Montreal Protocol 
and implementation of Title VI of the Clean Air Act the successes that 
we are celebrating this year. The Alliance's support for efforts like 
the Refrigerant Environmental Management Council indicates a 
willingness to help achieve important environmental goals in 
economically sensible ways.
  I'd also like to commend the Natural Resources Defense Council. As a 
premier environmental group with expertise in both the Montreal 
Protocol and climate change issues, their expertise was invaluable in 
developing this legislative proposal.
  The dramatic benefits from this consensus, balanced bill are the 
result of a process that started with state-of-the-art science and then 
explored common-sense, cost-effective measures.
  There are a few matters that came up during our discussions that are 
worth noting for the record. First, as is clear under section 601 of 
the Clean Air Act, the definition of ``produce,'' does not include 
substances that are entirely consumed in the manufacture of other 
chemicals. This definition is important in understanding which 
chemicals will require destruction offsets under Section 5 of the 
legislation.
  Second, the recycling requirements under Section 6 are not intended 
to apply to foam, which is evident from the plain language of the 
legislation.
  Finally, the fire suppression provision in Section 4 is intended to 
address a specific problem that applies to one chemical that is used 
for fire suppression. It is the stakeholders' understanding that a fire 
suppression chemical which is currently used in aviation applications 
is scheduled to be phased out in 2015. Unfortunately, the alternatives 
to this chemical are currently much worse from a climate change 
perspective. Since this application represents only 22 ozone depletion 
potential tons from 2015 to 2030, the legislation would grant the 
Administrator the authority to permit its continued use as long as no 
better alternatives are available.
  Global warming is an enormous challenge. To fight global warming, we 
will need to examine every sector of our society. We'll need to 
increase energy efficiency. We'll have to reduce emissions from 
transportation and electricity generation. We'll need to move away from 
the dirty technologies of the past and embrace new, clean technologies.
  I hope my colleagues will support the Global Climate and Ozone Layer 
Protection Act of 2007 so that we can begin to take those steps.

                          ____________________