Tag Archives: chemical management

Consensus is explosive

I strongly believe in the Globally Harmonized System (GHS)  as a means of Hazard Communication to properly inform consumers and end users of the hazards related to the chemicals they use.

ALL chemicals are toxic and hazardous depending on the concentration, the condition it is used and the acts of the end user towards that chemical. Water whose chemical name is H2O has claimed lives through its volume or have drowned persons and damaged properties.

I went back to graduate school in 2016 to study occupational health and industrial hygiene to know more, because I find my skill on OHSAS 18001 too shallow. It is my own intent and my own effort to do so and not a corporate interest  or regulatory requirement.  Being involved in climate change mitigation particularly F-gas control was an added bonus and I have started to love what I do,  until I have to work on my indicator on standards development for low GWP refrigerants for my own country.

IEC 60335-2-24 was easy, no complications, HFC 134a is generally expected to be replaced by HC 600a, extremely low GWP, no ODP, unpatented, natural but then… IEC 60335-2-40 came with the extremely influential global chemical companies even, supported by some development organizations.

Latest J7 pro 610Patents are at stake for Methylene fluoride, Hydrofluorolefins, and other synthetically developed substances and alternatives. I didn’t expect that it would come to this point that changes in a specific hazard symbol are proposed, overtaking and disregarding the GHS.  All chemicals are hazardous regardless of its flammability.  Remember flammability is not the only concern and that speck of light is not part of the globally accepted symbols for hazard communication. ghs-pictograms2-700x694 It was proposed that work on the specific product comes first before work on the globally harmonized system? Because another standard had mentioned, the product standard would be the utmost priority over vertical standards. Or is it a means to mask the actual hazard of a substance.  This is totally unacceptable, Yet we are being forced by corporate interests to be in unsafe conditions and perform unsafe acts by downgrading hazard communication symbols to stupidity.

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Climate Change, Corporate Social Responsibility, GHG Mitigation Effort, Quality, Health, Safety & Environment, Sustainability

Cool Greenwashing

lg-g3-380

Which planet are you trying to save? I believe we only have one earth.

My last post in my other blog Fast Food Greenwash was posted last October 7, 2012.  I haven’t seemed to access that blog for a quite a while since I haven’t had any work related to the fast food industry or they say “quick-serve restaurant” for quite a while.  Thankfully, I only eat fast food during emergency like when stuck in Metro Manila traffic and starving as hell  in my 3-hour commute.

2009 was a long time ago when I started blogging about Greenwashing and now that its 2007, things are getting worse and worse. Given the age of climate change mitigation actions, and the complicated rules of calculating GHG emissions, companies are playing around with  the carbon footprint and stamping it in their products and marketing materials. Anyway, I will write something about it separately.

In 2016, I had the opportunity to work for a GIZ  project on Green Cooling. The programme has been around for quite a while, since the enforcement of the Montreal Protocol on the control of substances that deplete the Ozone Layer more than two decades ago. Honestly, I have to admit, prior to this engagement, I have not connected Ozone Depletion with Climate Change even if  I have claimed expertise in environmental management.

ODS have always been treated independently from GHGs.  A “True or False”  question in my GHG verification course in 2011 even asked if Ozone Depletion causes Climate Change, of course the answer was false. Simply, Ozone Depletion is caused by Ultraviolet Radiation entering the atmosphere while Climate Change is caused by the trapping of heat from Infrared Radiation.  Who cares about UV and IR Radiation when all we see is White Light? What is true considering human activities was that prior solutions to ozone depletion have contributed to increased greenhouse gas emissions.

This is a truly complicated concept that has led to well… Greenwashing, particularly in refrigeration and air conditioning. Ok sell us the fridge and A/C, just get that “Eco-Friendly” sticker off.

Honestly, when I buy an A/C, I consider the price.  I don’t really look at the nameplate. But if you really want to be “ecofriendly” look at the nameplate. Why? Because that’s where you will find the rated capacity in terms of energy consumption and the refrigerant type.  Looking at the nameplate is not equivalent to looking at the bright and colorful stickers manufacturers place that are colorful and bright. Your attention is directed upon their “Greenwashing”.

The fact is, the Montreal Protocol has set the cap for ODS refrigerants and parties are directed to replace it with ODS alternatives….and these ODS alternatives are  high GWP GHGs….why did this happen?  Because, Ozone Depletion have always been treated independent of Climate Change?  except in 2016 when the Kigali Amendments to the Montreal Protocol was agreed upon.

Below are four nameplates of various cooling appliances, can you guess which one is the most eco-friendly?

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Climate Change, Corporate Social Responsibility, Environmental Audit, GHG Mitigation Effort, Greenwash, Random, Sustainability