Speaking at yesterday’s opening of the United Nation’s Climate Summit in New York, Canada’s environment minister Leona Aglukkaq, announced that her government was to publish a “Notice of Intent” to regulate HFCs in line with the USA.
“We have already taken action on some of the largest sources of emissions in this country, the transportation and electricity generation sectors, and today, building on our record, we are proud to announce that Canada will be taking pre-emptive action to reduce and limit harmful HFC emissions, before they increase,” Leona Aglukkaq told the Summit delegates.
According to the Canadian government, the Notice of Intent will outline the proposed scope of the regulatory measures for HFCs and timelines for stakeholder consultations: “Building on our successful approach of integrating with our largest trading partner, the regulations will align with recently proposed United States regulations on HFCs. The regulations will apply to HFCs in bulk and to certain manufactured products containing HFCs.”
Such a move would mean that Canada could follow the USA’s recently announced proposals to ban high GWP refrigerants like R404A, R507A and R134a in certain applications from as early as 2016.
For the last five years, Canada, in partnership with the United States and Mexico, has pushed for an amendment of the Montreal Protocol to include a phase-down of HFCs. While the Proposal has not yet been adopted by the international community, Canada maintains that it is committed to addressing the HFC problem and continues to advocate for a global agreement to phase down HFCs.
US could ban R404A from 2016 – July 11, 2014
USA: A number of common HFC refrigerants including R404A and R134a could be banned in certain uses from as early as January 1, 2016, under new proposals put forward by the US EPA. Read more…
Refrigerant ban “a threat to industry” – August 15, 2014
USA: Foodservice equipment manufacturers have been the first to react to the US EPA’s proposal to phase-out high GWP refrigerants by 2016, calling it “unrealistic, if not impossible”. Read more…