CORSO DI LAUREA IN

ECONOMIA EUROPEA

RELEVANCE OF HFCs AND OTHER

SLCF GASES AND MAIN

INTERNATIONAL REGULATION

POLICY

Elaborato finale di: Pietro Pecchi

Relatore: Prof. Marzio Galeotti

Anno Accademico: 2014/2015

2

“The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing

and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close.

In its place we are entering a period of consequences.”

- Winston S. Churchill

3

INTRODUCTION 4

1. GWP - GLOBAL-WARMING POTENTIAL 6

1.1. GREENHOUSE EFFECT 6

1.2. LIFETIME 7

1.3. RADIATIVE FORCING 9

1.4. THE GWP INDEX 9

1.5. THE IPCC 10

2. SLCFS - SHORT-LIVED CLIMATE FORCERS 12

2.1. TROPOSPHERIC OZONE 12

2.2. BLACK CARBON 13

2.3. WATER VAPOR 13

2.4. METHANE 14

2.5. HYDROFLUOROCARBONS 15

2.6. MAIN DIFFERENCES WITH CO2 15

2.7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF SLCFS REDUCTION 16

2.8. SLCFS REDUCTION POLICIES 17

3. DETAILED OUTLOOK ON HYDROFLUOROCARBON 19

3.1. USES AND ALTERNATIVES 20

3.2. ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF HFCS REDUCTION 22

3.3. HFCS REDUCTION POLICIES 23

3.4. DEVELOPING COUNTRIES HFC'S ALTERNATIVES 25

4. INTERNATIONAL MAIN REGULATIONS ON CLIMATE CHANGE 27

4.1. MONTREAL PROTOCOL 27

4.2. KYOTO PROTOCOL 28

4.3. EU ETS 29

4.4. SUCCESS AND FAILURES OF INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS 30

CONCLUSIONS 34

BIBLIOGRAPHY 42

4

Introduction

On the 17th of October 2015 I had the opportunity to attend a conference during the Milan

international exposition. It was hosted by the UK embassy with this title:

“COP21 Climate Summit: 100m sprint or starting gun for the marathon?”

Moderated by economist and author Lord Nicholas Stern, the event featured the following

speakers: Caio Koch-Weser, President of the European Climate Foundation and Vice

President of the Deutsche Bank, Janos Pasztor, assistant to the Secretary-General for climate

change at the United Nations, and Francesco La Camera, Director General for sustainable

development, climate, and energy at the Italian Ministry of the Environment.

The main focus of this conference was to underline the importance of the 2°C challenge and

to discuss policies countries have to put in place to achieve this result for the next international

climate summit. According to the research of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC), a temperature increase of over 2°C would lead to serious consequences, such as a

greater frequency of extreme climate events. In 2009, in Copenhagen, countries affirmed their

determination to keep global warming to 2°C compared to the preindustrial era. This year

France will chair and host the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 11th session of the Meeting

to the Parties to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (CMP11), from 30 November to 11 December 2015.

The conference is crucial because the expected outcome is a new international agreement on

climate change, applicable to all, to keep global warming below 2°C

(http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/).

An update on the regulation on climate change is very important nowadays, and to better

understand the relevance of those policies, later chapters will explain the importance of a

particular type of gases, the Short Lived Climate Forcers (SLCF), how they affect climate

change, and the reduction policies put in place to reduce them. A discussion on the main

issues that make these gases so different will be explained in detail and some important

questions will be answered including: Have previous attempts at international agreements on

environmental issues reached the goals for which they were set? Which problems with

5

implementing these policies did governments face, and what scientific data do we have to

measure the successes or failures of these policies?

A closer look and analysis of the effects of the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols, gives better

understanding to the regulations and agreements already set in place to prevent climate

change. Short-Lived Climate Forcers (SLCFs) references directly to Black Carbon (BC),

Methane (CH4), Tropospheric Ozone (O3), Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and Water Vapor. All

of the SLCFs have a description, and for Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) there will be a more

detailed outlook due to its important in relevant policy today.

This thesis will stand with addressing the urgency of government intervention and what make

SLFCs different by discussing the science behind the Climate Change and the IPCC global-

warming potential, which are the indicators use by policy makers to regulate. This will explain

the causes of Climate Change and demonstrate the necessity of a stronger focus on SLCFs and

HFCs in international climate regulation.

6

1. GWP - Global-Warming Potential

The Global-Warming Potential (GWP) was developed by the IPCC more than 20 years ago.

The purpose was to compare different gases and their climate forcing potential. When data

showed the Earth’s climate was changing, the first important part was related to

understanding the greenhouse effect and how greenhouse gases (GHGs) were effecting

climate. Then scientists had to study how the Earth was able to naturally absorb those gases,

and how long that process would take. The GWP was used in the Kyoto Protocol to set a quota

of a reduction target, but due to scientific progress, in the following years the GWP data had

been updated with different values for each of the gases. “The UNFCCC reporting guidelines

for national inventories were updated in 2006, but continue to require the use of GWP values

from the IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR) (IPCC 1996)” (http://www3.epa.gov/). This

misalignment between policy and science is caused by the difficulties for government to come

up with a solution that easily agreed upon. Policy based on science has its limitations, because

science is always updating and, by the nature of the scientific method, science is always

demonstrating that a new idea or new data can radically modify what the scientific

community had previously accepted to be true. Due to the laborious process of gathering

governments together to set a common policy, policy requires certain strict measurements and

standards so that different countries can relate to one another.

To better understand the purpose of the GWP index it is important to define the term

Greenhouse Effect, Lifetime, and Radiative Forcing. These three factors are the core of the

GWP Index.

1.1.Greenhouse Effect

This is the IPCC definition of both Greenhouse Gases and Greenhouse Effect.

“Greenhouse gases are those gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural and

anthropogenic, that absorb and emit radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of

thermal infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface, the atmosphere itself, and by clouds.

7

This property causes the greenhouse effect. Water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous

oxide (N2O), methane (CH4) and ozone (O3) are the primary greenhouse gases in the Earth’s

atmosphere. Moreover, there are a number of entirely human-made greenhouse gases in the

atmosphere, such as the halocarbons and other chlorine and bromine containing substances,

dealt with under the Montreal Protocol. Beside CO2, N2O and CH4, the Kyoto Protocol deals

with the greenhouse gases sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and

perfluorocarbons (PFCs). […] Greenhouse gases effectively absorb thermal infrared radiation,

emitted by the Earth’s surface, by the atmosphere itself due to the same gases, and by clouds.

Atmospheric radiation is emitted to all sides, including downward to the Earth’s surface. Thus

greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system. This is called the

greenhouse effect. Thermal infrared radiation in the troposphere is strongly coupled to the

temperature of the atmosphere at the altitude at which it is emitted. In the troposphere, the

temperature generally decreases with height. Effectively, infrared radiation emitted to space

originates from an altitude with a temperature of, on average, –19°C, in balance with the net

incoming solar radiation, whereas the Earth’s surface is kept at a much higher temperature of,

on average, +14°C. An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased

infrared opacity of the atmosphere, and therefore to an effective radiation into space from a

higher altitude at a lower temperature. This causes a radiative forcing that leads to an

enhancement of the greenhouse effect, the so-called enhanced greenhouse effect” (IPCC,

AR4).

1.2. Lifetime

This is the IPCC definition of Lifetime.

“[Lifetime is] used for various time scales characterizing the rate of processes affecting the

concentration of trace gases. The following lifetimes may be distinguished: Turnover time (T)

(also called global atmospheric lifetime) is the ratio of the mass M of a reservoir (e.g., a gaseous

compound in the atmosphere) and the total rate of removal S from the reservoir: T = M / S. For

each removal process, separate turnover times can be defined. In soil carbon biology, this is

referred to as Mean Residence Time. Adjustment time or response time (Ta) is the time scale

characterizing the decay of an instantaneous pulse input into the reservoir. The term

8

adjustment time is also used to characterize the adjustment of the mass of a reservoir following

a step change in the source strength. Half-life or decay constant is used to quantify a first-

order exponential decay process. […] The response time or adjustment time is the time needed

for the climate system or its components to re-equilibrate to a new state, following a forcing

resulting from external and internal processes or feedbacks. It is very different for various

components of the climate system. The response time of the troposphere is relatively short,

from days to weeks, whereas the stratosphere reaches equilibrium on a time scale of typically

a few months. Due to their large heat capacity, the oceans have a much longer response time:

typically, decades, but up to centuries or millennia. The response time of the strongly coupled

surface-troposphere system is, therefore, slow compared to that of the stratosphere, and

mainly determined by the oceans. The biosphere may respond quickly (e.g., to droughts), but

also very slowly to imposed changes. The term lifetime is sometimes used, for simplicity, as a

surrogate for adjustment time. In simple cases, where the global removal of the compound is

directly proportional to the total mass of the reservoir, the adjustment time equals the

turnover time: T = Ta. An example is CFC-11, which is removed from the atmosphere only by

photochemical processes in the stratosphere. In more complicated cases, where several

reservoirs are involved or where the removal is not proportional to the total mass, the equality

T = Ta no longer holds. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an extreme example. Its turnover time is only

about four years because of the rapid exchange between the atmosphere and the ocean and

terrestrial biota. However, a large part of that CO2 is returned to the atmosphere within a few

years. Thus, the adjustment time of CO2 in the atmosphere is actually determined by the rate

of removal of carbon from the surface layer of the oceans into its deeper layers. Although an

approximate value of 100 years may be given for the adjustment time of CO2 in the

atmosphere, the actual adjustment is faster initially and slower later on. In the case of methane

(CH4), the adjustment time is different from the turnover time because the removal is mainly

through a chemical reaction with the hydroxyl radical OH, the concentration of which itself

depends on the CH4 concentration. Therefore, the CH4 removal rate S is not proportional to

its total mass M” (IPCC, AR4).

9

1.3.Radiative forcing

This is the IPCC definition of Radiative forcing.

“The term ‘radiative forcing’ has been employed in the IPCC Assessments to denote an

externally imposed perturbation in the radiative energy budget of the Earth's climate system.

Such a perturbation can be brought about by secular changes in the concentrations of

radiatively active species (e.g., CO2, aerosols), changes in the solar irradiance incident upon

the planet, or other changes that affect the radiative energy absorbed by the surface (e.g.,

changes in surface reflection properties). This imbalance in the radiation budget has the

potential to lead to changes in climate parameters and thus result in a new equilibrium state

of the climate system. In particular, IPCC (1990, 1992, 1994) and the Second Assessment Report

(IPCC, 1996) (hereafter SAR) used the following definition for the radiative forcing of the

climate system: ‘The radiative forcing of the surface-troposphere system due to the

perturbation in or the introduction of an agent (say, a change in greenhouse gas

concentrations) is the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus long-wave; in

Wm-2) at the tropopause AFTER allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to

radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropo-spheric temperatures and state held fixed

at the unperturbed values’. In the context of climate change, the term forcing is restricted to

changes in the radiation balance of the surface-troposphere system imposed by external

factors, with no changes in stratospheric dynamics, without any surface and tropospheric

feedbacks in operation (i.e., no secondary effects induced because of changes in tropospheric

motions or its thermodynamic state), and with no dynamically-induced changes in the

amount and distribution of atmospheric water (vapour, liquid, and solid forms)” (IPCC, TAR)

1.4.The GWP Index

This is the IPCC definition of the GWP index.

“[Is] based on radiative properties of greenhouse gases, measuring the radiative forcing

following a pulse emission of a unit mass of a given greenhouse gas in the present day

atmosphere integrated over a chosen time horizon, relative to that of carbon dioxide. The

GWP represents the combined effect of the differing times these gases remain in the

10

atmosphere and their relative effectiveness in causing radiative forcing. The Kyoto Protocol is

based on GWPs from pulse emissions over a 100-year time frame” (IPCC, AR4).

All the previous definitions are direct citations of the IPCC definitions, and a detailed table of

all gases and their update GWP, and the UNFCCC reference GWP, is in Appendix A.

1.5.The IPCC

As already cited many times for the important work they do, here following a short

description of the IPCC. “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was

created in 1988. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the

United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to prepare, based on available scientific

information, assessments on all aspects of climate change and its impacts, with a view of

formulating realistic response strategies. The scientific evidence brought up by the first IPCC

Assessment Report of 1990 underlined the importance of climate change as a challenge

requiring international cooperation to tackle its consequences.” (https://www.ipcc.ch).

The IPCC periodically publishes assessment reports on climate change, which are as follows:

IPCC First Assessment Report 1990 (FAR)

1992 Supplementary Reports (IS92)

IPCC Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995 (SAR)

IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001 (TAR)

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4)

IPCC Fifth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2014 (AR5)

The assessments are policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive: they may present projections

of future climate change based on different scenarios, the risks that climate change poses, and

the implications of response options, but they do not tell policymakers what actions to take.

(IPCC, TAR)

11

The purpose of using scenarios is to allow the climate assessment to be compared to climate

model results based on identical greenhouse gas emissions over time. On 9th December 2007,

the IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its “efforts to build up and disseminate

greater knowledge about man-made climate change and to lay the foundations for the

measures that are needed to counteract such change”.

12

2. SLCFs - Short-Lived Climate Forcers

This chapter focuses on the effects of particular gases and pollutants which have the common

characteristic of a short lifetime and a very high RF – some of them are GHGs, but not all of

them are. The chapter will talk about the Short-Lived Climate Forcers (SLCFs) and refer

directly to Tropospheric Ozone (O3), Black Carbon (BC), Water Vapor, Methane (CH4), and

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Due to their short lifetimes and physical proprieties, the RF of

many of these gases and pollutants are difficult to effectively quantify and compare with the

GWP100, which is the standard meter for the UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol. The only available

and comparable GWP data are on CH4 and HFCs (for detailed information of their GWP in

table of Appendix A). This chapter focuses on SLCFs – HFCs will be described in further

detail in a later chapter. SLCF are also known as Short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs).

2.1.Tropospheric Ozone

After CO2 and CH4, Tropospheric Ozone (O3) is the third most important contributor to

greenhouse radiative forcing (IPCC, AR4). “Tropospheric ozone is important because it can

influence climate, as it is a greenhouse gas itself, and because its photolysis by UV radiation

in the presence of water vapor is the primary source for hydroxyl radicals (OH). Hydroxyl

radicals are responsible for the oxidative removal of many trace gases, such as methane (CH4),

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), that influence climate

and/or are important for the stratospheric ozone layer. Tropospheric ozone arises from two

processes: downward flux from the stratosphere; and in situ photochemical production from

the oxidation of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide (CO) in the presence of NOX (NO + NO2).

Ozone is removed from the troposphere by in situ chemistry and by uptake at the Earth's

surface.” (Volz-Thomas, 1995). The tropospheric ozone has an estimate RF of +0.35 W m–2 and

a lifetime of approximately 22 years (IPCC, AR4). It can sound counterintuitive, but “ozone

depletion in the stratosphere had caused a negative RF of –0.15 W m–2 as a best estimate over

the period since 1750.” (IPCC, AR4).

13

2.2.Black Carbon

Black Carbon is not a GHG, but a component of fine particulate matter (PM ≤ 2.5 µm). “Black

carbon is emitted in a variety of combustion processes and is found throughout the Earth

system. Black carbon has a unique and important role in the Earth's climate system because it

absorbs solar radiation, influences cloud processes, and alters the melting of snow and ice

cover. A large fraction of atmospheric black carbon concentrations is due to anthropogenic

activities.” (Bond, et al. 2013). “Black carbon and non-absorbing aerosols, emitted mainly

during diesel engine operation, have short lifetimes in the atmosphere of only days to weeks,

but can have significant direct and indirect radiative forcing effects and large regional

impacts” (IPCC, AR5) “Radiative forcing used alone to estimate black-carbon climate effects

fails to capture important rapid adjustment mechanisms. Black-carbon-induced heating and

cloud microphysical effects cause rapid adjustments within the climate system, particularly

in clouds and snow. These rapid adjustments cause radiative imbalances that can be

represented as adjusted or effective forcings, accounting for the near-term global response to

black carbon more completely. […] The best estimate of industrial-era climate forcing of black

carbon through all forcing mechanisms is +1.1 W m−2 […]. This total climate forcing of black

carbon is greater than the direct forcing given in the fourth Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC) report. There is a very high probability that black carbon emissions,

independent of co-emitted species, have a positive forcing and warm the climate.” (Bond, et

al. 2013).

2.3.Water Vapor

The water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its

contribution to global warming has been debated. Researchers are now more confident with

the fact that water vapor itself will contribute to a temperature rise of a few degrees by the

end of the century (http://www.nasa.gov/). “Water vapor had indicated long-term increases

in stratospheric water vapor and acknowledged that these trends would contribute a

significant radiative impact. However, it only considered the stratospheric water vapor

increase expected from CH4 increases as an RF, and this was estimated to contribute 2 to 5%

of the total CH4 RF (about +0.02 W m–2)” (IPCC, AR4).

14

2.4.Methane

“Methane is one of the six greenhouse gases to be mitigated under the Kyoto Protocol. It is

the major component of natural gas and associated with all hydrocarbon fuels, animal

husbandry and agriculture.” (IPCC, AR4) One of the main threats, based on different

scenarios, is the release of the CH4 trapped in the permafrost. An increase of the global

temperature will lead to the melting of artic ice and a release of a high quantity of methane.

Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2), approximately 12

years, but CH4 is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. The CH4 radiative forcing is

+0.5 W m–2 and the impact on climate change is more than 25 times greater than CO2 over a

100-year period (http://www3.epa.gov/) .

Direct atmospheric measurements of methane trends and concentrations are shown in Figure

1. The data where derived from surface sites operated by NOAA/GMD (blue lines) and

AGAGE (red lines). Graph (a) shows a time series of global CH4 abundance mole fraction (in

ppb). The thinner lines show the CH4 global averages, and the thicker lines are the de-

seasonalized global average trends from both networks. Graph (b) instead is showing annual

growth rate (ppb yr–1) in global atmospheric CH4 abundance from 1984 through the end of

2005 (IPCC, AR4).

Figure 1 Recent CH4 concentrations and trends. (IPCC, AR4)

15

2.5.Hydrofluorocarbons

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are a family of industrially produced chemical gases widely used

in refrigeration and air conditioning, foam blowing, and other applications. They were

developed to replace ozone-depleting substances (primarily chlorofluorocarbons and

hydrochlorofluorocarbons – CFCs and HCFCs) that were phased-out under the Montreal

Protocol. HFC-134a, the most widely used of these compounds, has an atmospheric lifetime

of around 13 years and a GWP100 of 1300. An entire chapter will be dedicated to this climate

forcer later on.

2.6.Main differences with CO2

CO2 is important regardless of what metric and time horizon is used, but the relevance of

SLCFs depend on the metric used and it is difficult to compare them with CO2. The fact that

SLCFs have shorter lifetimes means that their pollutant effects are more locally concentrated

than globally concentrated. Higher concentration of these gases can be extremely dangerous

for both climate and human health. “In the context of climate change, emissions of different

species (e.g., carbon dioxide and methane) are not directly comparable since they have

different radiative efficiencies and lifetimes. Since comparisons via detailed climate models

are computationally expensive and complex, emission metrics were developed to allow a

simple and straightforward comparison of the estimated climate impacts of emissions of

different species.” (Aamaas, et al. 2013). Due to the particularity and complexity of the SLCFs,

is difficult to provide specific tables and direct data for trends and concentration. To better

estimate the growth rate of BC and O3, as an example, researchers have to look at precursors,

so the end result is different for every model they use. At the same time, they all agree on the

high impacts of those gases on climate change. These particular forcers (BC pollutant and O3)

have demonstrated an extremely high impact on human health, and a direct impact to local

weather changes. The following infographic, provided by the Climate and Clean Air

Coalition, gives a clear outlook on the SLCF previously described.

16

Figure 2 SLCP Infographic (http://www.ccacoalition.org/)

2.7.Environmental impact and Economic Benefits of SLCFs Reduction

While targeting CO2 can result in strong policies of adaptation and mitigation, reduction

policies on SLCFs can have a high impact on helping the effort of the 2ºC scenario. In order to

achieve that scenario, strong cutting on emissions have to put in place before it is too late. The

later the regulation is implemented, the higher the effort required will be to achieve the same

results. Working on addressing specific forcers like the SLCFs can deeply help in this effort.

The benefits are shown to be considerable; significantly reducing the rate of warming over the

next two to four decades, improving the chances of remaining below the 2ºC target (IPCC,

AR5). Due to their strong impacts in the short term, mitigation strategies including reducing

aviation contrails and reducing emissions of particulate matter (including black carbon),

tropospheric ozone and aerosol precursors (including NOx), can result in human health and

mitigation co-benefit. (IPCC, AR5) “Tropospheric O3 and BC are known to impact negatively

on people’s well-being and on the sustainability of natural resources. They are also short-lived

17

climate forcers (SLCFs), contributing to near-term global warming and changing local weather

patterns. Controls of tropospheric ozone and black carbon would therefore have multiple

benefits.” (UNEP, Assessment of Black Carbon). Ozone is toxic to plants, a vast body of

literature describes experiments and observations showing the substantial effects of O3 on

visible leaf health, growth and productivity for a large number of crops, trees and other plants.

Ozone also affects vegetation composition and diversity.

Model that simulate the Earth response on “SLCF emission reductions and BC specifically […]

would lead to clear benefits for both air quality and climate. […] The temperature responses

to the mitigation were generally stronger over the continents than over the oceans, and with

a warming reduction of 0.44 K (0.39– 0.49) K the largest over the Arctic.” (Stohl, et al. 2015)

Mitigation of SLCFs can help in preventing millions of premature deaths from small

particulate pollution and preventing the loss of millions of tons of crops from ozone pollution

every year. “Action on these substances is complementary to, but does not replace the

challenge to dramatically reduce emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels

and deforestation.” (UNEP, Assessment of Black Carbon).

2.8.SLCFs Reduction Policies

“[For SLCFs], on the other hand, cost-effective environmental policy measures should be

designed such that they optimize both the climate and air quality responses. In some

instances, control of the emissions of a species is expected to reduce future warming and

improve air quality at the same time – a ‘win-win’ situation: in others, the control of emissions

may be conflicting, in the sense that it could increase warming while improving air quality (or

vice versa) – in this case, emission control involves a ‘trade-off’ between the impacts.” (Stohl,

et al. 2015). Due to the physical properties, short lifetime, and high RF of SLCFs, the

geographical pattern of the impacts of SLCFs is generally concentrated close to the source of

emission. This makes them quite distinct from climate forcers with a global impact, which are

regulated under the Kyoto protocol. (Stohl, et al. 2015)

18

This requires carrying out a different policy, that address the same problem in different ways.

The results of policy on SLCFs are not always so easy to quantify. Governments, along with

the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), came together to treat SLCFs as

collective challenge. This came after recognizing how critical and necessary a mitigation that

addresses near-term climate change is and that there are many cost-effective options available

(http://www.ccacoalition.org/). They formed a unique initiative to support fast action and

make a difference on several fronts at once: public health, food, energy security and climate

(http://www.ccacoalition.org/). The Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) address

methane, black carbon, and HFCs. The CCAC action on short-lived climate forcers must

complement and supplement, not replace, global action to reduce carbon dioxide, in particular

efforts under the UNFCCC (http://www.ccacoalition.org/). This coalition includes by now 49

countries including the United States, Australia the EU commission and Italy

(http://www.ccacoalition.org/). This makes them a first attempt to come up with a common

regulation for SLCFs.

19

3. Detailed outlook on Hydrofluorocarbon

This chapter is focusing only on a specific SLCFs, the Hydrofluorocarbon (HFCs).

HFCs are a family of various greenhouse gases, used as replacements for ozone-depleting

substances (ODS) addressed by the Montreal Protocol. As greenhouse gases, HFCs

accumulate in the atmosphere and trap infrared radiation that would otherwise escape to

space. The full table of these gases is in Appendix A, where their GWP is shown.

Two groups of different HFCs can be segmented by the family of HFC gases: one has a high-

GWP, and the other has a low-GWP. As ODS replacement they have been used in: air

conditioning, refrigeration, fire suppression, solvents, foam blowing agents, and aerosols.

“HFCs are rapidly increasing in the atmosphere. Though HFCs currently represent a small

fraction of total greenhouse gases, their warming impact is particularly strong, and their

emissions are projected to increase nearly twentyfold in the next three decades if their growth

is not reduced. The most commonly used HFC is HFC-134a, which is 1,430 times more

damaging to the climate system then carbon dioxide. While HFCs are currently present in

small quantity in the atmosphere their contribution to climate forcing is projected to climb to

as much as 19% of global CO2 emissions by 2050. [HFCs are] projected to rise to about 3.5 to

8.8 Gt CO2eq in 2050, comparable to total current annual emissions from transport, estimated

at around 6-7 Gt annually”. (http://www.unep.org/) A detail study on HFCs and the projection

of their impact on various scenarios have been published by G. Velders in 2009, of which the

conclusion of the study was underlined in the UNEP Report “HFCs: A Critical Link in

Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer”: “The increase in HFC radiative forcing from 2000

to 2050 can also be compared to the radiative forcing corresponding to a 450 ppm CO2

stabilization scenario. The reduction in radiative forcing necessary to go from a business-as-

usual scenario (Figure 3) to such a stabilization scenario is of the same order of magnitude as

the increase in HFC radiative forcing. In other words, the benefits of going from a business-

as-usual pathway to a pathway in which CO2 stabilizes at 450 ppm can be counteracted by

projected increases in HFC emissions.” (Ravishankara, 2011).

20

Figure 3 HFCs Scenarios (Ravishankara, 2011)

The fast growth of HFCs usage is well described on the following graph, which allocate for

each sector the consumption (in term of Mt of CO2 eq.).

Figure 4 HFCs Consumption(Ravishankara, 2011)

3.1.Uses and Alternatives

As a result of the phase-out of CFCs and ODS under the Montreal Protocol, the usage of HFCs

as a replacement are been used on a growing rate year after year. The main usage of HFCs is

21

air-conditioning and refrigeration which covers around the 80% of all the HFCs consumption.

Alternatives, other than using low-GWP HFCs, are already available to avoid the use and

emission of high-GWP HFCs. Those alternatives can be both climate-friendly and energy

efficient. The GWP impact of these alternatives are way lower than the hydrofluorocarbons

by thousands. Those solutions have different physical properties, so the choice between the

replacement gases have to be carefully evaluated due to their downside properties that have

to be correctly addressed. Possible coolant alternatives could be Hydrocarbons, GWP 3-5, with

has a flammable property. CO2, GWP 1 by definition, need to be kept under high pressure and

Ammonia (NH3), GWP 1, that could be toxic if released. Water is another important coolant,

used already successfully for his high heat capacity, is between them the safest to use, and the

most cost-effective, even if need to be taken in consideration the fact that water accelerate

metal corrosion and could be a source of biological growth. (http://ec.europa.eu/). The

following CCAC’s infographic show clearly the growing trend already describer in the

previous paragraph and consumption usage of HFCs.

Figure 5 HFCs infographic (http://www.ccacoalition.org/)

22

3.2.Economic Benefits of HFCs Reduction

The difference between SLCF and HFCs are that HFCs do not affect the air quality, have less

local impact, a longer lifetime and a higher GWP. The fact that HFCs do not affect the air

quality makes them easily addressed with a specific climate policy by themselves (Stohl, et al.

2015). “HFC emissions should be considered in relation to emissions of other global warming

gases, not in isolation. In some situations, the use of HFCs can reduce CO2 emissions, hence

an appraisal of ‘overall global warming impact’ must be made to properly understand the

best fluids or technologies to use.” (March Consulting Group, 1998)

Mainly the HFCs reduction policy are based on technological optimization. Before the

phasedown of the ODS, refrigeration systems based on CFCs tended to suffer of a high level

of refrigerant leakage, due to the cheap costs of the refrigerant itself and the low consciousness

about the environmental harming” (March Consulting Group, 1998). Due to the higher cost

of the HFC gas used as a cooling vector and the rise of consciousness about climate change,

refrigeration systems based on HFCs tend to have somewhat lower levels of leakage (March

Consulting Group, 1998). Those levels are still higher than the leakage rate of refrigeration

systems using ammonia or hydrocarbon. For these systems it is essential that the leakage rate

is at the lowest possible, because in this case it would be a problem for safety reasons (March

Consulting Group, 1998). “If the same low level of leakage is achieved on HFC systems then

the global warming impact from HFCs will be significantly reduced. It is vital that global

warming emission reduction strategies compare the cost-effectiveness of investment in low

leakage techniques for HFC refrigeration systems with the investment required to buy

hydrocarbon or ammonia alternatives.” (March Consulting Group, 1998) “In the refrigeration,

air-conditioning and heat pumps sector, use of HFCs to top-up leaks is estimated to represent

55% to 65% of total HFC consumption” (UNEP, Workshop on HFC Management).

Other than preventing leakages there are various opportunities to improve the overall

efficiency of refrigeration system.

23

1. Reduction of cooling demand. Optimizing insulation and implementing building with

natural heat exchange would reduce the overall needs of cooling load and at the same

time it would provide a cut on CO2 emissions.

2. Improving of component, system design within an improvement on the operation and

maintenance practice would bring at a higher efficiency of the system and the overall

longer life of the used equipment.

3. Choosing the refrigerant. Each coolant has a different thermodynamic performance

and the resulting efficiency of choosing to use the right coolant instead of a not

optimized on is around 5%. (March Consulting Group, 1998)

Each of those would bring on a longer lifetime of the system, a cost reduction for costumers

and a cut in HFC emissions.

3.3.HFCs Reduction Policies

After various attempts to include HFCs under the Montreal protocol, on the 27th Meeting of

the Parties to the Montreal Protocol (1 - 5 November 2015, Dubai), countries agreed on starting

to address HFCs under it. This is an important step that would result in a common phasedown

policy that would successfully take place. This recent update is the result submissions

proposal of various countries and entity like USA an EU.

The following is the press statement of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry:

“Today the United States joined countries around the world to open a new chapter in the fight

against climate change. Together, we have agreed on a way forward to address the rapidly

growing use and production of harmful hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a particularly potent

greenhouse gas that plays a major role in driving global climate change. At the 27th Meeting

of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Dubai, nations from around the world committed to

address HFCs under the agreement and work toward an amendment in 2016.

This is a major accomplishment. The Montreal Protocol is among the most successful

multilateral environmental treaties in history. Amending it to include HFCs could set a course

for actions that would avoid 0.5C of warming by the end of the century.

24

The progress in Dubai also indicates that the world is ready for a new chapter in the fight

against climate change. In agreeing to address HFCs together, we have laid the groundwork

for even greater co-operation toward a successful outcome in Paris - and the entire planet will

be better off for it.” (http://www.state.gov/).

This recent update would bring in a coordination of policy and emissions target that have

already been put in action. The EU address HFCs with two legislative acts: the ’MAC

Directive’, addressing air conditioning systems used in motor vehicles, and a whole key

player regulation called ‘F-gas Regulation’ that address general HFCs usage and emission.

These legislative acts implemented a system of HFCs quota allocation system for companies

and strong reporting obligation. “The MAC Directive prohibits the use of F-gases with a

global warming potential of more than 150 times greater than carbon dioxide (CO2) in new

types of cars and vans[…]. The F-gas Regulation follows two tracks of action: Improving the

prevention of leaks from equipment containing F-gases and avoiding the use of F-gases where

environmentally superior alternatives are cost-effective.” (http://ec.europa.eu/). The overall

goal of these EU policies will be to cut the emissions of HFCs by “two-thirds by 2030 compared

with 2014 levels. Though ambitious, this reduction is achievable at relatively low cost

because climate friendly alternatives are readily available for many of the products and

equipment in which [HFCs] are commonly used today” (http://ec.europa.eu/).

Italian regulation follows the EU reduction policy, but at the same time, Italy is also an active

player on the international level, being one of the 49 CCAC partners, that helped to address

HFCs under the Montreal Protocol.

The U.S.A. Administration announced on September 2014 a new commitment to reduce HFCs

emissions. “The commitments made today would reduce cumulative global consumption of

[HFC] greenhouse gases by the equivalent of 700 million metric tons of carbon dioxide

through 2025, equivalent to 1.5% of the world’s 2010 greenhouse gas emissions and the same

as taking nearly 15 million cars off the road for 10 years. In addition, the Administration is

announcing a set of executive actions to continue progress in reducing HFC emissions”

(https://www.whitehouse.gov/). “The U.S. is [phasing] down the use of high-global-warming-

potential HFCs by finding environmentally-friendly alternatives to traditional ozone-depleting

25

substances through the Significant New Alternatives Policy, or SNAP, program. EPA reduced

annual emissions by an estimated 160 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2010. U.S.

regulations ban intentional HFC releases during service and disposal of all refrigeration and

air-conditioning equipment. Further regulations require recovery and recycling of HFC-134a

used as a coolant in motor vehicle air conditioners” (http://www.ccacoalition.org/).

Here some other examples of HFC regulations around the world:

Australia have a system of license use of refrigerants and a carbon tax equivalent system and

is a member of the CCAC. (https://www.environment.gov.au)

Taiwan is not included in any international regulation due their particular political status. At

the same time Taiwan put in place action in both phasing down CFCs and commit in CO2

cutting emissions. They are actively converting refrigerants to low-GWP coolants without

receiving any financial and technological support from the UNEP found reserved to

developing countries. (http://unfccc.epa.gov.tw/)

China is addressing HFCs on a historical, multilateral approach with U.S.A. and another

countries to phase down production and consumption of HFC within the scope of the Kyoto

Protocol. (https://www.whitehouse.gov)

Canada together with Mexico and the United States, was promoting amendment to the

Montreal Protocol to phase down HFCs under it. Withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol

Canada have no formal HFCs reduction obligations, but at the same time is a contributor of

the CCAC. (www.climatechange.gc.ca)

3.4.Developing countries HFC's Alternatives

Developing countries are a challenge on all the GHGs emissions due their increasing demand

of product and system that produce pollutants. In developing countries, around 90% of high-

GWP HFCs can be replaced with other substances or low-GWP HFCs (Zeiger, et al. 2014). This

can be achieved without reduction of energy efficiency even at high temperature climate.

Whenever possible, using hydrocarbon is the optimal choice to correctly address the global

26

warning impact, considering its flexibility as a coolant under safety standards. “Immediate

action can and must be taken to guarantee future-proof solutions for both ODS replacement

and growing demand for refrigerants and foam blowing agents.” (Zeiger, et al. 2014). Funds

to help the ODS and high-GWP reduction, are provided by the Multilateral Fund for the

Implementation of the Montreal Protocol. “Since 1991, the Fund has approved activities

including industrial conversion, technical assistance, training and capacity building worth

over US $3.0 billion” (http://www.multilateralfund.org/).

27

4. International main Regulations on Climate Change

There are a lot of expectations on the next agreement that will take place in Paris on December

2015 under the UNFCCC. One of the biggest topics will be addressing a drastically reduction

of BC emissions, and to reduce overall GHG emissions to achieve the 2-degree scenario.

Europe, for example, wants to recognize and highlight the relevant role of a new international

carbon market (http://ec.europa.eu/). The EU emissions trading system (ETS) is a significant

example of an international carbon market that, with bilateral agreement, share the market

with countries like China and South-Korea.

This chapter focuses on an analysis of the difference between the two main international

regulation on climate change will provide the right understanding of the recent updates on

the agreement of addressing HFCs within Montreal Protocol instead of the Kyoto’ one. It also

mentions the EU ETS to show a more local international regulation on Climate Change.

4.1.Montreal Protocol

Studies in the late 80s showed the relationship the recently discovered Antarctic ozone

depletion in the Antarctic lower stratosphere, and the consumption and production of

chemical substances such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

“Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) are now globally

recognized as the main cause of the observed depletion of the ozone layer. Molina and

Rowland first recognized the potential for CFCs to deplete stratospheric ozone in 1974,

thereby providing an ‘early warning.’ This scientific warning led to ODS emission reductions

by citizen action and national regulations. A decade later, the discovery of the ozone hole over

Antarctica and the subsequent attribution to ODSs further heightened concern. The 1987

Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer formally recognized the

significant threat of the ODSs to the ozone layer and provided a mechanism to reduce and

phase-out the global production and consumption of ODSs. Under the Montreal Protocol and

national regulations, significant decreases have occurred in the production, use, emissions,

28

and observed atmospheric concentrations of CFC-11, CFC-113, methyl chloroform, and

several other ODSs and there is emerging evidence for recovery of stratospheric ozone.”

(Velders, et al. 2007). The actions taken by the governments at the time to focus on a global

solution not only avoided the continuous depleting of the ozone layer, but also reduced the

damage to the ozone layer such that the damage is less today than it was in the 70s. At the

same time the government efforts prevented the presence of strong climate forcers in our

atmosphere. It was not known in 1987 but “ODSs and their substitute fluorocarbon gases

(HFCs) are also greenhouse gases, which contribute to the radiative forcing (RF) of climate”

(Velders, et al. 2007). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that an

increase in CFCs might give an additional radiative forcing of about 0.6 W/m2, which might

also contribute, approximately, a few tenths of a degree rise to global mean temperatures

(Morgenstern, et al 2008). The Montreal Protocol set binding progressive phase-out

obligations for developed and developing countries for all the major ozone depleting

substances, including CFCs, halons and less damaging transitional chemicals such as HCFCs.

It has since been ratified by 196 countries around the world.

In 2012 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) estimated that The Montreal

Protocol has prevented:

19 million more cases of non-melanoma cancer

1.5 million more cases of melanoma cancer

130 million more cases of eye cataracts

Global observations have verified that atmospheric levels of key ozone depleting substances

are going down and it is believed that with implementation of the Protocol's provisions the

ozone layer should return to pre-1980 levels by 2050 to 2075. (http://www.unep.org)

4.2.Kyoto Protocol

The basis of the Kyoto protocol comes from the scientific data, suggestions and scenarios

provided by the IPCC to governments.

The UNFCCC website provide a description that gives a better understanding what the Kyoto

Protocol really is: “The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the UNFCCC,

29

which commits its Parties by setting internationally binding emission reduction targets.

Recognizing that developed countries are principally responsible for the current high levels

of GHG emissions in the atmosphere as a result of more than 150 years of industrial activity.

[…] Under the Protocol, countries must meet their targets primarily through national

measures. However, the Protocol also offers them an additional means to meet their targets

by way of three market-based mechanisms. […] The Protocol places a heavier burden on

developed nations under the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’. The

Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and, [due to a complex

ratification process], it entered into force on 16 February 2005. The detailed rules for the

implementation of the Protocol were adopted at COP7 in Marrakesh, Morocco, in 2001, and

are referred to as the ‘Marrakesh Accords.’ Its first commitment period started in 2008 and

ended in 2012” (http://unfccc.int/). “The Kyoto Protocol aims, in its first commitment period,

to reduce CO2-equivalent emissions in 40 countries by 2008–2012. The agreed upon reductions

will occur in emissions of six key greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6)

referenced to a 1990 baseline. It is widely acknowledged that the first commitment period of

the Kyoto Protocol is only a first step to obtain the objective of the UNFCCC; namely,

“stabilization of greenhouse gases concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would

prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The adopted CO2-

equivalent emission reduction target is −5.8%” (Velders, et al. 2007). During the second

commitment period, participating parties committed to reducing GHG emissions by at least

18 percent below 1990 levels in the eight-year period from 2013 to 2020.

4.3.EU ETS

This is an example of an international market of carbon emissions to illustrate how different

countries are approaching the reduction of GHGs. For the reduction of CO2 and other

important GHGs, the EU implemented an emissions trading system (EU ETS), where is the

main policy of European Union to combat climate change. “The number of emissions trading

systems around the world is increasing. Besides the EU ETS, national or sub-national systems

are already operating or under development in Canada, China, Japan, Kazakhstan, New

Zealand, South Korea, Switzerland and the United States” (http://ec.europa.eu/). The EU ETS

30

is by far the biggest international system for trading greenhouse gas emission allowances. “It

covers more than 11,000 power stations and industrial plants in 31 countries, as well as

airlines. The EU ETS works on the 'cap and trade' principle. A 'cap', or limit, is set on the total

amount of certain greenhouse gases that can be emitted by the factories, power plants and

other installations in the system. The cap is reduced over time so that total emissions fall”

(http://ec.europa.eu/). Other than that the European Commission is looking at cost-efficient

ways to make the European economy more climate-friendly and less energy-consuming. The

goal of the “Low-Carbon Economy” road map is to achieve the target of cutting emissions

to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, with the following milestones: 40% emissions cuts by

2030 and 60% by 2040 (http://ec.europa.eu/).

4.4.Success and failures of International Regulations

The Montreal protocol is considered an example to follow for further International

regulations. The efforts and the abilities of government to understand that human

intervention was causing a huge impact on the Earth is the first step on a long way of the

Climate Change effort that nowadays this and further generations have to face.

“The Montreal Protocol represents a great achievement at the global scale. This work started

in the early 1970s, is now recognized as an outstanding example of successful cooperation

between developed and developing countries and provides an excellent model for treating

complex environmental issues of global importance” (http://www.unep.fr/).

“The climate protection already achieved by the Montreal Protocol alone is far larger than the

reduction target of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol” (Velders, et al. 2007).

One of the main reasons the Montreal Protocol was so successful in not only its

implementation but also the results achieved was due to the fact that it was very focused on

a specific problem (effects of CFCs and ODS on the ozone layer) that had a clear and direct

solution (a phase-out of CFCs and ODS). The specific focus on how human consumption was

depleting the ozone layer was an important problem to solve, yet it did not cover the overall

31

impact of mankind and the effects humans have on the environment, which is much large in

scope than just the use of CFCs and ODS.

Can we say the same thing about the Kyoto Protocol?

Following the success of the Montreal Protocol, it was soon clear that there were many more

problems that were necessary to face in the questions related to climate impact. The goal to

reduce overall impact without focusing on a specific solvable problem in a short-term time

frame created an economic and political issue that was difficult for governments to come up

with a simple and successful agreement. This is why the agreement took a much longer time

compared to the Montreal Protocol, and why it is still in the agreement and ratification process

today. This can be seen, for instance, with the USA, who signed the agreement on the 12th of

November 1998, but never ratified it, and Canada who withdrew from the protocol in 2012.

Scientific communities now have a deeper understanding of the environmental processes, and

acknowledge much more strongly than in the 80s the implications of substance emission, the

greenhouse effect, and the real effort required to prevent climate change. As an example, we

already said the Montreal Protocol was signed without knowing ODSs had a strong GHG

effect, and that GHGs were affecting the climate. For this reason, policies to reduce CFCs did

not consider the GHGs effect. CFCs were used in many industrial processes and in

refrigerators, due to their nontoxic and nonflammable properties compared to ammonia

(NH3), methyl chloride (CH3Cl), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). As a result, “the demand for the

CFCs was accommodated by recycling, and reuse of existing stocks of CFCs and by the use of

substitutes. Some applications, for example degreasing of metals and cleaning solvents for

circuit boards, that once used CFCs now use halocarbon-free fluids, water (sometimes as

steam), and diluted citric acids. Industry developed two classes of halocarbon substitutes- the

hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and the hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). The HCFCs include

hydrogen atoms in addition to chlorine, fluorine, and carbon atoms. The advantage of using

HCFCs is that the hydrogen reacts with tropospheric hydroxyl (OH), resulting in a shorter

atmospheric lifetime. HCFC-22 (CHClF2) has an atmospheric lifetime of about 13 years and

has been used in low-demand home air-conditioning and some refrigeration applications

since 1975.” (Elkins, 1999).

32

As we already discussed, both HCFCs and HFCs’ radiative forces are extremely high, and

now the concentration is increasing at a rapid rate. HFC reduction policies are only starting

to be set in place by governments in recent years.

Did the Kyoto protocol reach the goal to have an effective GHGs reduction?

Data shows that GHG emission today are higher than ever, and the CO2 concentration reach

for the first time in March 2015 more than 400PPM (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/). The trend line

does not seem to get any slower. This does not mean that the Kyoto protocol is a failure, but

it is only the first important step on the road of preventing Climate Change for government

and society. As it will be explained later on, concentration and emission are cumulated

because the earth absorption rate of GHGs takes many years, and for this reason a reduction

policy’s results would take a long time to be actually seen.

Figure 6 Concentration of CO2 PPM – (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/) October 2015

33

Figure 7 CO2 equivalent gas emission (MT) from 1960-2011 – Data: World Development Indicators (World Bank)

IPCC‘s scientific work, risk assessment and scenarios on climate change are extremely

relevant for policy makers. The projection of the 2°C Degree scenario implies a strong

government intervention in cutting emissions.

The important of the IPCC scientific work is considered by the UNFCCC itself in this way:

“The 1995 Second Assessment Report, in particular its statement that "the balance of evidence

suggests … a discernible human influence on global climate", stimulated many governments

into intensifying negotiations on what was to become the Kyoto Protocol. The Third

Assessment Report, released in 2001, confirmed the findings of the Second Assessment

Report, providing new and stronger evidence of a warming world. The Fourth Assessment

Report (AR4), released in 2007, provided the scientific foundation for the Marrakech Accords.

The Fifth Assessment Report, finalized in October 2014, informs the negotiations and policy

formulation towards the Paris Agreement” (http://unfccc.int/)

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

2008: first commitment

period started

Dec. 1997: Kyoto

Agreement

34

Conclusions

The updates on recent regulations that address HFCs under the Montreal Protocol is one of

biggest changes on the Climate Change effort of the last years. The difficulty of addressing

policy to achieve results under the common but differentiated responsibilities is probably one

of the topics on the table of the next Paris Conference. It difficult to predict which policy

countries will agree upon, but it is clear that there is a need of a coordinate effort on the

reduction of GHGs. The effort required to meet the 2-degree scenario is increasing and soon

it may reach the point where it will not be economically sustainable anymore. The efforts in

reducing SLCFs and HFCs specifically can contribute significantly to this effort and the recent

amendment of the Montreal protocol is moving in this direction. As previously highlighted,

reduction of these types of gases is always becoming more relevant. Climate Change has been

under evaluation of the Stern Review – a report by Sir Nicholas Stern designed to examine

economic impacts of Climate Change. In the report, Stern establishes that “The costs of action

were estimated at some 1-2% of global GDP per year, and the costs of inaction were estimated

to be equivalent to losing something in the region of 5-20% of global GDP each year.” (King,

et al. 2015).

The effort of countries in preventing climate change can be seen in various policy and

regulation that are in our day by day life without people noticing. As an example, for reducing

BC, CO2 and other pollutants, countries like the EU and the US are addressing different but

similar specific regulations on automotive industries. New higher standards are periodically

made such that automotive companies have to comply to be able to sell new products on the

market. As a recent example, thanks to the effort and investigation of the EPA, US

Environmental Protection Agency, the Volkswagen “DieselGate” was revealed. This raised

the awareness of the general population on the impacts and the relevance of these policies on

an individual scale.

Some climatologists are still more focused on long-term climate forcers and the cutting down

of the emissions of CO2, not fully recognizing the relevance of HFCs and SLCFs. As discussed

35

throughout this paper, from an economics perspective, the increased emissions of HFCs and

SLCFs are always becoming more relevant due to the fact that the projected impact of these

gases may eventually, if not addressed properly, counteract the current efforts in policies that

are reducing CO2 emissions. Without fully considering and focusing efforts on the reduction

of HFCs and SLCFs, prevention of climate change will be much more difficult in the future.

The step taken by countries to address HFCs under the Montreal Protocol is, hopefully, the

first of many steps and policies we take in reducing emissions from HFCs and SLCFs.

36

Appendix A

GWP comparison between main GHG Gases

Global Warming Potential For Given Time Horizon

Industrial

Designation or

Common Name

Chemical Formula Lifetime(ye

ars)

Radiative

Efficiency

(W m–

2 ppb–1)

SAR‡ (1

00-yr) 20-yr 100-yr 500-yr

Carbon dioxide CO2 See belowa b1.4x10–5 1 1 1 1

Methane CH4 12c 3.7x10–4 21 72 25 7.6

Nitrous oxide N2O 114 3.03x10–3 310 289 298 153

Substances controlled by the Montreal Protocol

CFC-11 CCl3F 45 0.25 3,800 6,730 4,750 1,620

CFC-12 CCl2F2 100 0.32 8,100 11,000

10,900

5,200

CFC-13 CClF3 640 0.25 10,800

14,400

16,40

0

CFC-113 CCl2FCClF2 85 0.3 4,800 6,540 6,130 2,700

CFC-114 CClF2CClF2 300 0.31 8,040 10,000

8,730

CFC-115 CClF2CF3 1,700 0.18 5,310 7,370 9,990

Halon-1301 CBrF3 65 0.32 5,400 8,480 7,140 2,760

Halon-1211 CBrClF2 16 0.3 4,750 1,890 575

Halon-2402 CBrF2CBrF2 20 0.33 3,680 1,640 503

Carbon

tetrachloride

CCl4 26 0.13 1,400 2,700 1,400 435

Methyl bromide CH3Br 0.7 0.01 17 5 1

Methyl

chloroform

CH3CCl3 5 0.06 100* 506 146 45

37

HCFC-21 CHCl2F 1.7 0.14 530 151 46

HCFC-22 CHClF2 12 0.2 1,500 5,160 1,810 549

HCFC-123 CHCl2CF3 1.3 0.14 90 273 77 24

HCFC-124 CHClFCF3 5.8 0.22 470 2,070 609 185

HCFC-141b CH3CCl2F 9.3 0.14 600 2,250 725 220

HCFC-142b CH3CClF2 17.9 0.2 1,800 5,490 2,310 705

HCFC-225ca CHCl2CF2CF3 1.9 0.2 429 122 37

HCFC-225cb CHClFCF2CClF2 5.8 0.32 2,030 595 181

Hydrofluorocarbons

HFC-23 CHF3 270 0.19 11,700 12,000

14,800

12,20

0

HFC-32 CH2F2 4.9 0.11 650 2,330 675 205

HFC-41 CH3F 2.4 0.02 150 323 92 28

HFC-125 CHF2CF3 29 0.23 2,800 6,350 3,500 1,100

HFC-134 CHF2CHF2 9.6 0.18 1000 3,400 1,100 335

HFC-134a CH2FCF3 14 0.16 1,300 3,830 1,430 435

HFC-143 CH2FCHF2 3.5 0.13 300 1,240 353 107

HFC-143a CH3CF3 52 0.13 3,800 5,890 4,470 1,590

HFC-152 CH2FCH2F 0.60 0.09 187 53 16

HFC-152a CH3CHF2 1.4 0.09 140 437 124 38

HFC-161 CH3CH2F 0.3 0.03 43 12 3.7

HFC-227ea CF3CHFCF3 34.2 0.26 2,900 5,310 3,220 1,040

HFC-236cb CH2FCF2CF3 13.6 0.23 3,630 1,340 407

HFC-236ea CHF2CHFCF3 10.7 0.3 4,090 1,370 418

HFC-236fa CF3CH2CF3 240 0.28 6,300 8,100 9,810 7,660

HFC-245ca CH2FCF2CHF2 6.2 0.23 560 2,340 693 211

38

HFC-245fa CHF2CH2CF3 7.6 0.28 3,380 1,030 314

HFC-365mfc CH3CF2CH2CF3 8.6 0.21 2,520 794 241

HFC-43-10mee CF3CHFCHFCF2CF3 15.9 0.4 1,300 4,140 1,640 500

Perfluorinated compounds

Sulphur

hexafluoride

SF6 3,200 0.52 23,900 16,300

22,800

32,60

0

Nitrogen

trifluoride

NF3 740 d0.21 12,300

17,200

20,70

0

PFC-14 CF4 50,000 e0.10 6,500 5,210 7,390 11,20

0

PFC-116 C2F6 10,000 0.26 9,200 8,630 12,200

18,20

0

PFC-218 C3F8 2,600 0.26 7,000 6,310 8,830 12,50

0

PFC-318 c-C4F8 3,200 0.32 8,700 7,310 10,300

14,70

0

PFC-3-1-10 C4F10 2,600 0.33 7,000 6,330 8,860 12,50

0

PFC-4-1-12 C5F12 4,100 0.41 7,500 6,510 9,160 13,30

0

PFC-5-1-14 C6F14 3,200 0.49 7,400 6,600 9,300 13,30

0

PFC-9-1-18 C10F18 >1,000f 0.56 >5,500

>7,500

>9,50

0

trifluoromethyl

sulphur

pentafluoride

SF5CF3 800 0.57 13,200

17,700

21,20

0

Perfluorocyclopro

pane

c-C3F6 >1000 0.42 >12,70

0

>17,34

0

>21,8

00

39

Fluorinated ethers

HFE-125 CHF2OCF3 136 0.44 13,800

14,900

8,490

HFE-134 CHF2OCHF2 26 0.45 12,200

6,320 1,960

HFE-143a CH3OCF3 4.3 0.27 2,630 756 230

HCFE-235da2 CHF2OCHClCF3 2.6 0.38 1,230 350 106

HFE-245cb2 CH3OCF2CF3 5.1 0.32 2,440 708 215

HFE-245fa2 CHF2OCH2CF3 4.9 0.31 2,280 659 200

HFE-254cb2 CH3OCF2CHF2 2.6 0.28 1,260 359 109

HFE-347mcc3 CH3OCF2CF2CF3 5.2 0.34 1,980 575 175

HFE-347pcf2 CHF2CF2OCH2CF3 7.1 0.25 1,900 580 175

HFE-356pcc3 CH3OCF2CF2CHF2 0.33 0.93 386 110 33

HFE-449sl (HFE-

7100)

C4F9OCH3 3.8 0.31 1,040 297 90

HFE-569sf2 (HFE-

7200)

C4F9OC2H5 0.77 0.3 207 59 18

HFE-43-

10pccc124 (H-

Galden 1040x)

CHF2OCF2OC2F4OC

HF2

6.3 1.37 6,320 1,870 569

HFE-236ca12

(HG-10)

CHF2OCF2OCHF2 12.1 0.66 8,000 2,800 860

HFE-338pcc13

(HG-01)

CHF2OCF2CF2OCHF

2

6.2 0.87 5,100 1,500 460

(CF3)2CFOCH3 3.4 0.31 1204 343 104

CF3CF2CH2OH 0.4 0.24 147 42 13

(CF3)2CHOH 1.8 0.28 687 195 59

HFE-227ea CF3CHFOCF3 11 0.40 4,540 1,540 468

40

HFE-236ea2 CHF2OCHFCF3 5.8 0.44 3,370 989 301

HFE-236fa CF3CH2OCF3 3.7 0.34 1,710 487 148

HFE-245fa1 CHF2CH2OCF3 2.2 0.30 1,010 286 87

HFE 263fb2 CF3CH2OCH3 0.2 0.1 38 11 3

HFE-329mcc2 CHF2CF2OCF2CF3 6.8 0.49 3,060 919 279

HFE-338mcf2 CF3CH2OCF2CF3 4.3 0.43 1,920 552 168

HFE-347mcf2 CHF2CH2OCF2CF3 2.8 0.41 1,310 374 114

HFE-356mec3 CH3OCF2CHFCF3 0.94 0.30 355 101 31

HFE-356pcf2 CHF2CH2OCF2CHF2

2.0 0.37 931 265 80

HFE-356pcf3 CHF2OCH2CF2CHF2

3.6 0.39 1,760 502 153

HFE 365mcf3 CF3CF2CH2OCH3 0.27 0.11 41 11 4

HFE-374pc2 CHF2CF2OCH2CH3 5.0 0.25 1,930 557 169

- (CF2)4CH (OH) - 0.3 0.85 258 73 23

(CF3)2CHOCHF2 3.1 0.41 1,330 380 115

(CF3)2CHOCH3 0.25 0.30 94 27 8.2

Perfluoropolyethers

PFPMIE CF3OCF(CF3)CF2OC

F2OCF3

800 0.65 7,620 10,300

12,40

0

Hydrocarbons and other compounds – Direct Effects

Dimethylether CH3OCH3 0.015 0.02 1 1 <<1

Chloroform CHCl3 0.51 0.11 4 108 31 9.3

Methylene

chloride

CH2Cl2 0.38 0.03 9 31 8.7 2.7

Methyl chloride CH3Cl 1.0 0.01 45 13 4

CH2Br2 0.41 0.01 5.4 1.54 0.47

41

Halon-1201 CHBrF2 5.8 0.14 1,380 404 123

Trifluoroiodomet

hane

CF3I 0.005 0.23 <1 1 0.4 0.1

a The CO2 response function used in this report is based on the revised version of the Bern Carbon cycle model

used in Chapter 10 of this report (Bern2.5CC; Joos et al. 2001) using a background CO2 concentration value of 378

ppm. The decay of a pulse of CO2 with time t is given by

Where a0 = 0.217, a1 = 0.259, a2 = 0.338, a3 = 0.186, τ1 = 172.9 years, τ2 = 18.51 years, and τ3 = 1.186 years.

b The radiative efficiency of CO2 is calculated using the IPCC (1990) simplified expression as revised in the TAR,

with an updated background concentration value of 378 ppm and a perturbation of +1 ppm (see Section 2.10.2).

c The perturbation lifetime for methane is 12 years as in the TAR (see also Section 7.4). The GWP for methane

includes indirect effects from enhancements of ozone and stratospheric water vapour (see Section 2.10.3.1).

d Robson et al. (2006)

e Hurley et al. (2005)

f Shine et al. (2005c), updated by the revised AGWP for CO2. The assumed lifetime of 1,000 years is a lower limit.

‡ Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1996)

* Compound in SAR (Table 2.8) was erroneously listed as CH3Cl3.

(IPCC, AR4 )

42

Bibliography

Aamaas, B., G. P. Peters, and J. S. Fuglestvedt. "Simple Emission Metrics for Climate

Impacts." Earth Syst. Dynam. Earth System Dynamics 4.1 (2013): 145-70. Web.

"Benefits of Mitigating Short-Lived Climate Pollutants." Benefits of Mitigating Short-Lived

Climate Pollutants. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.

<http://www.unep.org/ccac/ShortLivedClimatePollutants/BenefitsofMitigation/tabid/130286/

Default.aspx>.

Bond, T. C., S. J. Doherty, D. W. Fahey, P. M. Forster, T. Berntsen, B. J. Deangelo, M. G.

Flanner, S. Ghan, B. Kärcher, D. Koch, S. Kinne, Y. Kondo, P. K. Quinn, M. C. Sarofim, M. G.

Schultz, M. Schulz, C. Venkataraman, H. Zhang, S. Zhang, N. Bellouin, S. K. Guttikunda, P.

K. Hopke, M. Z. Jacobson, J. W. Kaiser, Z. Klimont, U. Lohmann, J. P. Schwarz, D. Shindell,

T. Storelvmo, S. G. Warren, and C. S. Zender. "Bounding the Role of Black Carbon in the

Climate System: A Scientific Assessment." Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres J.

Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118.11 (2013): 5380-552. Web.

Canada's Action on Climate Change. The Government of Canada, n.d. Web.

<www.climatechange.gc.ca>.

"C’EST QUOI LA COP21 ?" COP21. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.

<http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/>.

"The Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants." The Climate

and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.

<http://www.ccacoalition.org/>.

"Climate-friendly Alternatives to HFCs and HCFCs." - European Commission. N.p., n.d. Web.

25 Nov. 2015. <http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/f-gas/alternatives/index_en.htm>.

"Cooperation with the IPCC." Cooperation with the IPCC. UNFCCC, n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.

<http://unfccc.int/science/workstreams/cooperation_with_the_ipcc/items/8542.php>.

Department of the Environment. Australian Government, n.d. Web.

<www.environment.gov.au>.

Dunbar, Brian. "Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change." NASA. NASA,

18 Nov. 2008. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.

<http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html>.

Elkins, James W. "Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)." ESRL Global Monitoring Division -

Halocarbons and Other Atmospheric Trace Species. N.p., 1999. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.

<http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/hats/publictn/elkins/cfcs.html>.

"ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network." ESRL Co2

Trends RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2015. <http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/>.

43

"EU Legislation to Control F-gases." - European Commission. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.

<http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/f-gas/legislation/index_en.htm>.

"FACT SHEET: Obama Administration Partners with Private Sector on New Commitments

to Slash Emissions of Potent Greenhouse Gases." The White House. The White House, n.d.

Web. 25 Nov. 2015. <https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/16/fact-sheet-

obama-administration-partners-private-sector-new-commitments->.

"Hydrofluorocarbons to Be Addressed Under the Montreal Protocol." U.S. Department of

State. U.S. Department of State, 05 Nov. 2015. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.

<http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/11/249230.htm>.

Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone. Rep. N.p.: UNEP & WMO, 2011.

Print.

"International Carbon Market." - European Commission. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.

<http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/linking/index_en.htm>.

Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2012. Rep. US EPA, 15 Apr. 2014.

Web. 25 Nov. 2015. <http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-

GHG-Inventory-2014-Main-Text.pdf>.

"IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.

<https://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml>.

IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). Rep. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2015. <http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/index.shtml>.

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Climate Change 2007. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change, 2007. Print.

IPCC Third Assessment: Climate Change 2001. Geneva: WMO, 2001. Print.

King, David, Daniel Schrag, Zhou Dadi, Qi Ye, and Arunabha Ghosh. CLIMATE CHANGE A

RISK ASSESSMENT. N.p.: n.p., 2015. N. pag. CLIMATE CHANGE A RISK ASSESSMENT.

UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Web.

King, David, Daniel Schrag, Zhou Dadi, Qi Ye, and Arunabha Ghosh. CLIMATE CHANGE A

RISK ASSESSMENT. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. CLIMATE CHANGE A RISK ASSESSMENT.

Web. <http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/media/uploads/files/1/climate-change--a-risk-assessment-

v9-spreads.pdf>.

"Kyoto Protocol." Kyoto Protocol. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.

<http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php>.

44

Morgenstern, Olaf, Peter Braesicke, Margaret M. Hurwitz, Fiona M. O'Connor, Andrew C.

Bushell, Colin E. Johnson,, and John A. Pyle. "The World Avoided by the Montreal Protocol."

(n.d.): n. pag. Web. 28 Aug. 2008.

Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol. Secretariat of the Multilateral

Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol, n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.

<http://www.multilateralfund.org/>.

Opportunities To Minimise Emissions Of Hydrofluorocarbons (Hfcs) From The European Union.

Rep. UK: March Consulting Group, 1998. Print.

"Overview of Greenhouse Gases." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.

<http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html>.

Ravishankara, A.R., Guus J.M. Velders, M.K. Miller, and Mario Molina. HFCs: A Critical Link

in Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer. N.p.: UNEP, 2011. N. pag. Print.

"South Sudan Joins Montreal Protocol and Commits to Phasing Out Ozone-Damaging

Substances." United Nations Environment Programme. UNEP, 23 Jan. 2012. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.

<http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=2666&ArticleID=

9010&l=en>.

Stohl, A., B. Aamaas, M. Amann, L. H. Baker, N. Bellouin, T. K. Berntsen, O. Boucher, R.

Cherian, W. Collins, N. Daskalakis, M. Dusinska, S. Eckhardt, J. S. Fuglestvedt, M. Harju, C.

Heyes, Ø. Hodnebrog, J. Hao, U. Im, M. Kanakidou, Z. Klimont, K. Kupiainen, K. S. Law, M.

T. Lund, R. Maas, C. R. Macintosh, G. Myhre, S. Myriokefalitakis, D. Olivié, J. Quaas, B.

Quennehen, J.-C. Raut, S. T. Rumbold, B. H. Samset, M. Schulz, Ø. Seland, K. P. Shine, R. B.

Skeie, S. Wang, K. E. Yttri, and T. Zhu. "Evaluating the Climate and Air Quality Impacts of

Short-lived Pollutants." Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Atmos. Chem. Phys. 15.18 (2015):

10529-0566. Web.

"Taiwan into United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC)."

Taiwan into United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC). N.p., n.d.

Web. 25 Nov. 2015. <http://unfccc.epa.gov.tw/unfccc/english/>.

UNEP. Information Note. United Nations Environment Programme. UNEP, 16 Nov. 2008. Web.

UNEP Ozone Secretariat -Workshop on HFC Management: Technical Issues. Rep. Bangkok:

UNEP, 2015. Print.

Velders, G. J. M., D. W. Fahey, J. S. Daniel, M. Mcfarland, and S. O. Andersen. "The Large

Contribution of Projected HFC Emissions to Future Climate Forcing." Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences 106.27 (2009): 10949-0954. Web.

45

Velders, Guus J. M., Stephen O. Andersen, John S. Daniel, David W. Fahey, and Mack

McFarland. "The Importance of the Montreal Protocol in Protecting Climate." PNAS 2007

(n.d.): n. pag. Web.

Volz-Thomas, Andreas, and Brian A. Ridley. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion, 1994.

Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization, 1995. Print.

"The White House." The White House. The White House, n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.

<https://www.whitehouse.gov/>.

World Development Indicators. World Bank, n.d. Web. <http://data.worldbank.org/data-

catalog/world-development-indicators>.

Zeiger, Bastian, Barbara Gschrey, and Winfried Schwarz. "Alternatives to HCFCs/HFCs in

Developing Countries with a Focus on High Ambient Temperatures." (n.d.): n. pag. Nov.

2014. Web.

FIGURE 1 RECENT CH4 CONCENTRATIONS AND TRENDS. (IPCC, AR4) 14

FIGURE 2 SLCP INFOGRAPHIC (HTTP://WWW.CCACOALITION.ORG/) 16

FIGURE 3 HFCS SCENARIOS (RAVISHANKARA, 2011) 20

FIGURE 4 HFCS CONSUMPTION(RAVISHANKARA, 2011) 20

FIGURE 5 HFCS INFOGRAPHIC (HTTP://WWW.CCACOALITION.ORG/) 21

FIGURE 6 CONCENTRATION OF CO2 PPM – (HTTP://WWW.ESRL.NOAA.GOV/) OCTOBER 2015 32

FIGURE 7 CO2 EQUIVALENT GAS EMISSION (MT) FROM 1960-2011 – DATA: WORLD DEVELOPMENT

INDICATORS (WORLD BANK) 33