Proceeding contribution from Joan Ruddock (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 16 June 2009. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Aerosol Technology (Climate Change).
Aerosol Technology (Climate Change)
Indeed we do, as does the European Union, which has been progressing discussions on how to reduce the level of VOCs that people are exposed to. As a result of hearing about this technology, my officials have contacted the company concerned to find out more about the product, and to provide details of relevant contacts in both my Department and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. As for the question about whether a meeting could be facilitated, I am more than happy for that to happen, and I am sure that the officials will be delighted, too. I have noted from the hon. Gentleman's comments that this particular technology is claimed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. He made the point that it was the use of existing CO2 that was coming from waste products. Clearly, any use of CO2 causes concerns as does whole life cycle analyses. When he talks about producing activated carbon and using furnaces to do that, there has to be a whole life cycle analysis to make proper comparisons. We would need to be convinced that there is such a benefit, despite this apparent contradiction—CO2 being our major greenhouse gas—and that using CO2 in that way would not produce the problems that were encountered when replacing CFCs and then getting a gas that in itself was even more problematic. If this technology does indeed have the net effect of removing some CO2 from the atmosphere, then it would certainly be welcomed. However, the efficacy of such so-called "green" propellant systems is also a key factor to consider, as well as their overall carbon footprint. My understanding is that although the aerosol industry—both in the UK and worldwide—has a strong interest in developing compressed gas systems, which offer a similarly high level and consistency of performance as liquefied gas systems, so far they have had only limited applicability. Clearly that is another factor that needs to be considered. On a broader point, perhaps more consideration should also be given to alternatives to aerosols. I stress that point because behaviour change is one of the keys to reaching our carbon targets, and there are many means by which people can dispense the products that they seek to use, particularly when it comes to products such as deodorants and antiperspirants that do not require the use of aerosols themselves.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 494 c67WH
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- Westminster Hall
- Subjects
- Climate change Aerosols Environment protection Innovation Technology Carbon emissions Volatile organic compounds
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-05 23:36:36 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_567514
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_567514
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_567514