Just a few weeks ago, Secretary of State John Kerry admitted that “one of the most successful environmental agreements in history” was actually now a huge driver of climate change. Late last week, Kerry went further, saying that “HFCs [hydrofluorocarbons], which was supposed to be the solution, turned out not to be the solution,” but can actually be “thousands of times more damaging than carbon dioxide.”
Now, 170 countries, including the U.S., have agreed to cut the use of HFCs, used in many cooling and refrigeration system. The Montreal Protocol in 1987 phased out CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) which were blamed for ozone depletion and causing the infamous “hole” in the ozone layer of the earth’s atmosphere. Kerry credits the introduction of HFCs with saving the ozone layer, but acknowledges there were unintended consequences.
All of us here know that HFCs, which was supposed to be the solution, turned out not to be the solution. We replaced the ozone depleting substances, but we came to understand the hard way that HFCs may be safe for the ozone layer but they are disastrous for our climate, in many cases thousands of times more damaging than carbon dioxide.
When asked what assurances Secretary Kerry could offer that the Paris climate deal or the amendment(s) to the Montreal Protocol won’t have similar unintended consequences, a State Department official responded:
In the United States, the EPA has already determined that certain HFCs pose more overall risk than other available alternatives in multiple end uses. EPA also re-evaluates alternatives as new information becomes available. Parties to the Montreal Protocol have relied on its scientific and technical advisory bodies to review the safety of alternatives and will continue to do so if an HFC amendment is adopted.
As noted above, the unintended consequences of HFCs were “disastrous” according to Kerry’s own words:
[T]he use of HFCs in everyday items like refrigerators and air conditioners is responsible for an entire gigaton of carbon dioxide equivalent pollution every single year. Put another way, in a single year, these substances emit as much CO2 equivalent as nearly 300 coal-fired power plants.
It may be that some nations were wary of the outcome of the original Montreal Protocol when negotiating the HFC amendment. According to the New York Times, the original plan was to freeze HFC use by 2021, and then by 2046, reduce their use to approximately 15 percent of 2012 levels. However, after poorer (and hotter) nations objected, three different tracks were established:
The richest countries, including the United States and those in the European Union, will freeze the production and consumption of HFCs by 2018, reducing them to about 15 percent of 2012 levels by 2036. Much of the rest of the world, including China, Brazil and all of Africa, will freeze HFC use by 2024, reducing it to 20 percent of 2021 levels by 2045. A small group of the world’s hottest countries—India, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait—will have the most lenient schedule, freezing HFC use by 2028 and reducing it to about 15 percent of 2025 levels by 2047.
So although Kerry said last Friday that “adopting an ambitious amendment to phase down the use and production of hydrofluorocarbons—or HFC±is likely the single most important step” to limit global warming and “protect the planet,” some nations are permitted to continue to escalate their use of HFCs for more than a decade before even freezing, much less reducing, their use. With a timeline of more than three decades, even the intended consequences of the amended Montreal Protocol may not be realized until the second half of this century, pushing the unintended ones even further down the road.
