This paper documents that air conditioners sold in Brazil and most other A5 Parties have far lower energy efficiency than the products sold by the same companies in developed countries (non-A5 Parties). The study is original and unique because a certification laboratory contrasts the energy performance of brands for the same size ductless mini-split room air conditioners.
Like other studies, this paper shows that the added cost of higher efficiency would be rapidly paid back to residential AC owners in lower electricity costs, and that clean air, health, and agricultural co-benefits of energy efficiency are in the national and global interest. Like other studies, this paper shows residential AC buyers are being more influenced by purchase price without proper consideration of higher ownership costs and global environmental damage avoided by higher energy efficiency.
Unlike other studies that try to encourage self-interest with labelling, this paper investigates more comprehensively the special circumstances of the Brazilian market situation and recommends: 1) accelerated top-down revision of current minimum energy performance standards (MEPS), and 2) accelerated local manufacture of inverter compressors with superior energy efficiency for lower-global warming potential (GWP) refrigerants.
In addition, this paper recommends an investment strategy for government organizations in Brazil that: 1) sets the MEPS at the level justified by electricity savings plus social co-benefits, 2) procures residential ACs on the basis of Life Cycle Climate Performance (LCCP), 3) finances the added cost in the first year for low-GWP ACs with superior energy efficiency, and 4) finances the higher cost of superior energy efficiency and low GWP in subsequent years from the savings in electricity that accrue over the life of the superior ACs.
Finally, this paper makes the case for voluntary government/industry partnerships to orchestrate the transition from ACs using high-GWP refrigerants with poor energy efficiency to superior energy efficiency ACs using lower-GWP refrigerants.
Note: This paper, along with a PowerPoint presentation, was presented in July 2016 at a Side Event during the Resumed Session of the 37th Meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG 37 & 38) and 3rd Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, which was a pivotal moment for the Kigali HFC Phasedown Amendment and Kigali Energy Efficiency Decision, which was adopted 15 October 2016 in Rwanda. The paper and PowerPoint presentation from the Side Event were lost from UNEP’s website, so we updated our author’s copy with replacement of links that had expired and with paragraph reformatting.
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.
Note: The authors thank readers for their crowd-sourced peer review and particularly for suggestions of elaboration. The paper has been submitted for publication in an open-access journal and will be back on the IGSD website as soon as published.
The framework, introduced in 2009 by co-author Professor Johan Rockström and colleagues, defines Planetary Boundaries as the safe operating thresholds for nine critical processes that maintain Earth system stability and resilience. The stratospheric ozone layer is one of the nine processes, and it is highlighted as the first and only example of a planetary system imperiled by humans yet pulled back towards health in the coming decades by collective action of scientists, consumer boycotts, public policy, and technical innovation. This paper explains how policymakers, facing an existential risk from fluorocarbon emissions, listened to science and acted at a global level with adoption of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol) that, along with complementary actions by citizen and corporate leaders, avoided health and environmental hazards of stratospheric ozone depletion. The paper also explains how the Montreal Protocol has delayed climate tipping points through:
1) the phaseout of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) that are also powerful greenhouse gases (GHGs),
2) the ongoing phasedown of non-ozone-depleting hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) GHGs, and;
3) the associated protection of aquatic and terrestrial carbon sinks from ultraviolet (UV) radiation.
The Montreal Protocol is proof that humans can organize to protect the global commons against exceeding planetary boundaries. The paper shows how it is possible to restore the health of other planetary boundaries beyond stratospheric ozone and climate by using the Montreal Protocol’s successful model of trusted scientific and technical wisdom, deep human connections, and a commitment to fairness.
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol) can be further strengthened to control ozone-depleting substances and hydrofluorocarbons used as feedstocks to provide additional protection of the stratospheric ozone layer and the climate system while also mitigating plastics pollution. The feedstock exemptions were premised on the assumption that feedstocks presented an insignificant threat to the environment; experience has shown that this is incorrect. Through its adjustment procedures, the Montreal Protocol can narrow the scope of feedstock exemptions to reduce inadvertent and unauthorized emissions while continuing to exempt production of feedstocks for time-limited, essential uses. This upstream approach can be an effective and efficient complement to other efforts to reduce plastic pollution. Existing mechanisms in the Montreal Protocol such as the Assessment Panels and national implementation strategies can guide the choice of environmentally superior substitutes for feedstock-derived plastics. This paper provides a framework for policy makers, industries, and civil society to consider how stronger actions under the Montreal Protocol can complement other chemical and environmental treaties.
The Montreal Protocol has halted 99% of global production of chemical substances that deplete stratospheric ozone, which protects life on earth from the harmful effects of ultraviolet (UVB) radiation. UVB causes skin cancer and cataracts, suppresses the human immune system, destroys plastics, and damages agricultural crops and natural ecosystems. Because ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) are powerful greenhouse gases, the Montreal Protocol also protects climate. From the authors’ perspectives in multiple roles as environmental entrepreneurs, practitioners, and authorities, this paper explains how individuals, companies, and military organizations researched, developed, commercialized and implemented alternatives to ODSs that are also safer for climate. With the benefit of hindsight, the authors reflect on what was neglected or done badly under the Montreal Protocol and present lessons learned on how Montreal Protocol institutions can be renewed and revitalized to phase down hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).
Environmental dumping is a practice historically associated with the export of hazardous product waste from a developed country for irresponsible and often illegal disposal in a developing country. Now, with the industrialization and globalization of China and other developing countries, environmental dumping can involve both developing and developed countries as origin and destination. This dumping can be especially harmful to attempts to control under the Montreal Protocol ozone-depleting and climate-forcing chemical substances and/or products requiring unnecessarily high energy consumption. While developing country Parties to the Montreal Protocol are allowed to delay their phasedown of climate-forcing and ozone-depleting hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) during a multi-year grace period, there are advantages to earlier implementation when superior alternatives are already available at reasonable costs, as is the case for many uses of HFCs today. Thus, developing countries can benefit under the Protocol from setting controls for environmental dumping. This article aims to give policymakers, especially those in developing countries, a legal and policy “toolkit” that can be used to stop unwanted environmental dumping. It includes an examination of the history of environmental dumping, illustration of such dumping in practice, a detailed explanation and examination of the legal and policy tools, and a summary of the consequences of environmental dumping.
This assessment report aims to give a concise and accessible picture of the current availability of alternatives to high-global warming potential (GWP) hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in their main uses with the elaboration of their efficiency, cost-effectiveness, safety, environmental impacts, and technical performance, as well as their applicability at high ambient temperatures, with the goal of better informing decision-makers about the future of HFCs in a fast-evolving market and regulatory context.
