The importance of phasing down hydrofluorocarbons and other short-lived climate pollutants

Article

Abstract

While negotiations continue for a United Nations (UN) Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) by December 2015 to take effect in 2020, a parallel effort to achieve fast climate mitigation is needed under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol) to slow current impacts and reduce risks of passing tipping points that trigger self-amplifying feedback mechanisms that accelerate warming. Fast reductions of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs), including black carbon (BC), methane (CH4), tropospheric ozone (TO3), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), can cut the rate of climate change in half by mid-century and by two thirds in the Arctic. The Montreal Protocol can be used to quickly phase down production and consumption of high global warming potential (GWP) HFCs, which can avoid 0.1 °C of warming by 2050, and 0.5 °C by 2100, while catalyzing improvements in appliance energy efficiency, which will provide further climate change mitigation by reducing energy use and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, particularly in fast-growing economies like India and China. The simultaneous global deployment of existing technologies can reduce emissions of BC, CH4, and TO3 by enough to avoid an additional 0.5 °C of warming by 2050, while providing immediate benefits for human health, agriculture, and sustainable development. Fast action to reduce the four SLCPs will reduce the risk of setting off irreversible feedback mechanisms and provide urgent optimism and momentum for a successful UN climate treaty in 2015.

Keywords

Short-lived climate pollutants Hydrofluorocarbons Climate change Fast-action mitigation 

References

  1. Andersen SO, Sarma KM (2002) Protecting the ozone layer: the United Nations history. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen SO, Halberstadt ML, Borgford-Parnell NA (2013) Stratospheric ozone, global warming, and the principle of unintended consequences—an ongoing science and policy success story. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 63(6):607–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (2011) Snow, water, ice and permafrost in the arctic (SWIPA): climate change and the cryosphere. Oslo, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  4. Avnery S, Mauzerall DL, Jiu J, Horowitz LW (2011) Global crop yield reductions due to surface ozone exposure: year 2030 potential crop production losses and economic damage under two scenarios of O3 pollution. Atmos Environ 45:2297–2309. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bindoff P, Stott A (Co-Coordinating Lead Authors) (2013) Chapter 10: Detection and attribution of climate change: from global to regional, in ipcc (2013) climate change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  6. Burney J, Ramanathan V (2014) Recent climate and air pollution impacts on Indian agriculture. Proc Natl Acad Sci. doi:10.1073/pnas.1317275111 Google Scholar
  7. Carvalho S, Andersen SO, Brack D, Sherman NJ (2014) Alternatives to high-GWP hydrofluorocarbons. Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  8. CCAC (2014) UN climate summit commitment to reduce short-lived climate pollutants, and their impacts in oil & gas, green freight, HFCs alternatives, and municipal waste. http://www.unep.org/ccac/Events/UNClimateSummit2014/ActionStatementSupport/tabid/794296/Default.aspx
  9. CEM—Clean Energy Ministerial (2014) Energy efficient cooling and demand response. http://www.cleanenergyministerial.org/Portals/2/pdfs/CEM5-RT-CoolingandDR-Pres.pdf
  10. CSC—China State Council (2014) 2014–2015 energy conservation, emissions reduction and low carbon development action plan (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  11. EC—European Council (2013) Submission by Ireland and the European Commission of the European Union and its Member StatesGoogle Scholar
  12. US EPA—Environmental Protection Agency (2002) Building owners save money, save the earth: replace your CFC air-conditioning chiller. Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  13. EU (2014) Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated gases and repealing regulation (EC) No 842/2006. https://www.g20.org/sites/default/files/g20_resources/library/Saint_Petersburg_Declaration_ENG_0.pdf
  14. Hansen JE, Lacis AA, Lee P, Wang W-C (1980) Climatic effects of atmospheric aerosols. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 338(1): doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1980.tb17151.x
  15. IEA (2013) World energy outlook 2013: factsheet—how will global energy markets evolve to 2035? http://www.iea.org/media/files/WEO2013_factsheets.pdf
  16. IEEFA—Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (2014) Briefing note Indian power pricesGoogle Scholar
  17. INMP&NG—(Indian Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas) (2013) Roadmap for reduction in import dependency in hydrocarbon sector by 2030—part 1. New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  18. Molina M, Zaelke D, Ramanathan V, Andersen SO, Kaniaru D (2009) Reducing abrupt climate change risk using the Montreal Protocol and other regulatory actions to complement cuts in CO2 emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106(49):20616–20621. doi:10.1073/pnas.0902568106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Phadke A, Abhyankar N, Shah N (2014) Avoiding 100 new power plants by increasing efficiency of room air conditioners in India: opportunities and challenges. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, BerkeleyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ramanathan V (1975) Greenhouse effect due to chlorofluorocarbons: climatic implications. Science 190:50–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sarma MS, Andersen SO, Zaelke D, Taddonio K (2009) Ozone layer, international protection. In R. Wolfrum (ed.) (2012) The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International LawGoogle Scholar
  22. Shindell D et al (2012) Simultaneously mitigating near-term climate change and improving human health and food security. Science 335(6065):183–189. doi:10.1126/science.1210026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. UNEP (2012) Report of the sixty-fifth meeting of the executive committee of the multilateral fund for the implementation of the Montreal Protocol. UN Doc. UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/65/60/Corr.1, Annex 1Google Scholar
  24. UNEP (2014a) Proposed amendment to the Montreal Protocol submitted by the Federated States of Micronesia. UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/34/5Google Scholar
  25. UNEP (2014b) Proposed amendment to the Montreal Protocol submitted by Canada, Mexico and the United States of America. UNEP/OzL.Pro.WG.1/34/4Google Scholar
  26. UNEP (2014c) Enabling a global phase-down of hydrofluorocarbons: discussion paper submitted by the European Union. UNEP/OzL.Pro/26/INF/7.Google Scholar
  27. UNEP and CCAC—Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-lived Climate Pollutants (2014) Low-GWP alternatives in commercial refrigeration: propane, CO2, and HFO case studies. Nairobi, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  28. UNEP and WMO—World Meteorological Organization (2011) Integrated assessment of black carbon and tropospheric ozone. Nairobi, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  29. UNEP—United Nations Environment Programme (2011a) Near-term climate protection and clean air benefits: actions for controlling short-lived climate forcers—a UNEP synthesis report. Nairobi, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  30. UNEP—United Nations Environment Programme (2011b) HFCs: a critical link in protecting climate and the ozone layer—a UNEP synthesis report. Nairobi, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  31. UN—United Nations (2012) Resolution adopted by the general assembly: the future we want, A/res/66/288. http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/futurewewant.html
  32. US EPA (2014) Protection of stratospheric ozone: determination 29 for significant new alternatives policy program. 40 CFR Part 82Google Scholar
  33. US DOS (2014) US-India energy and climate change cooperation. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/09/232328.htm
  34. US DOS—Department of State (2013) United States and China reach agreement on phase down of HFCs. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/09/232328.htm
  35. Velders GJM, Fahey DW, Daniel JS, McFarland M, Andersen SO (2009) The large contribution of projected HFC emissions to future climate forcing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:10949–54. doi:10.1073/pnas.0902817106
  36. Velders GJM, Ravishankara AR, Miller MK, Molina MJ, Alcamo J, Daniel JS, Fahey DW, Montzka SA, Reimann S (2012) Preserving Montreal Protocol climate benefits by limiting HFCs. Science 335:922–923. doi:10.1126/science.1216414 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang W-C, Yung YL, Lacis AA, Mo T, Hansen JE (1976) Greenhouse effects due to man-made perturbation of trace gases. Science 194:685–690. doi:10.1126/science.194.4266.685 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. WB—World Bank (2013) Methane finance study group report: using pay-for-performance mechanisms to finance methane abatementGoogle Scholar
  39. WHO—World Health Organization (2014) Burden of disease from the joint effect of household and ambient air pollution for 2012Google Scholar
  40. Xu Y, Zaelke D, Velders GJM, Ramanathan V (2013) The role of HFCs in mitigating 21st century climate change. Atmos Chem Phys 13:6083–6089. doi:10.5194/acp-13-6083-2013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zaelke D, Andersen SO, Borgford-Parnell NA (2012) Strengthening ambition for climate mitigation: the role of the Montreal Protocol in reducing short-lived climate pollutants. Rev Eur Compliance Int Environ Law 21(3):231–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© AESS 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Governance & Sustainable DevelopmentWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations