Review of the Central Proposition. Section 1.3 sets out a paraphrase of the objectives of this project in the form of a Central Proposition. This is set out again below in italics. The central proposition behind this project is that it could make environmental sense from a climate policy perspective to mitigate emissions by either reducing current reliance on high-GWP blowing agents or by separating and diverting ODS and HFC containing foams out of the waste stream to be processed in ways that avoid ozone depletion and GHG emissions and that it is practicable to do so. The inventory and assessment of potential mitigation strategies are designed to help confirm or dismiss this proposition prior to a more in depth assessment of policy options which, in itself, is outside of the scope of this project. This proposition is then used in the subsequent sub-sections to assess the value of the findings of this work in context. However, before doing so, it is appropriate to reflect for a moment on the proposition itself. Following the passing of Assembly Bill 32 in 2006, CARB published a Staff Report in November 200731 quantifying the baseline emissions in 1990 and, thereby, establishing the target for emissions from the State in 2020. The total agreed was 427 million tCO2-eq. That target was seen to be a 25% reduction against the levels existing in 2006 when AB32 was passed, but is now seen as a 15% reduction in 2010 – indicating the impact of the recession on emissions in the interim. The Business-as- Usual projections contained in the Staff Report suggested that emissions would reach 600 million tCO2-eq. per annum in 2020, making a reduction of 40% necessary. Clearly, per capita targets would depend on changes in population in the intervening period. With real savings of 173 million tCO2-eq. required annually by 2020, it was clear that a number of measures would be required. These have been set out in California’s Climate Action Plan which is being continually updated as new policy initiatives are evaluated and agreed upon. High Global Warming Potential Gases are already part of that Plan, particularly where HFCs have been replacements for ODS. However, there has been more debate about the inclusion of ODSs themselves. These were not included in the baseline plotted in the Staff Report of 2007, but it was acknowledged that HFC use in 1990 was at its very early stages because the transition away from ODSs had only just begun at that point.
