HFC Phasedown Under the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol Is Less Costly if Fast Than if Slow

This paper makes the case that faster phasedown of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) to help avert nearterm climate tipping points will be less costly than the existing schedule for both non-Article 5 and Article 5 Parties. In particular, the paper demonstrates that a faster HFC phasedown is less costly for: 1) non-Article 5 donors to the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol (MLF); 2) new owners of cooling equipment who will benefit from lower cooling and service costs that offset the slightly higher purchase price for which the cost difference can be minimized by a bulk procurement or buyer’s club; 3) neighbourhoods and cities that will experience reduced pollution from fossil fuel power plants, leading to lower health care costs and increased productivity; 4) families and communities who will benefit from electricity savings spent locally on goods and services that support quality of life and prosperity and circulate through the economy; and 5) national governments that will incur lower compliance costs for stratospheric ozone and climate treaty obligations and will fiscally benefit from an improved balance of payments and lower interest rates on borrowing for renewable energy and other public investments. The paper also makes the case that accelerating the HFC phasedown can be less costly to manufacturers of HFC replacement technology through enhancements to brand reputation; environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ranking; and fulfilment of public pledges.

Additionally, the paper finds that lifecycle refrigerant management (LRM) supports the case for a faster phasedown of HFCs, which avoids unnecessary sales of cooling equipment with obsolete HFC refrigerants that requires servicing, and prevents perverse incentives that unintentionally prolong the use of high-global warming potential (GWP) HFCs.