TY - JOUR
T1 - Climate change and industrial F-gases
T2 - A critical and systematic review of developments, sociotechnical systems and policy options for reducing synthetic greenhouse gas emissions
AU - Sovacool, Benjamin K.
AU - Griffiths, Steve
AU - Kim, Jinsoo
AU - Bazilian, Morgan
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors thank Professor Mark J. Jacobson from Stanford University and Professor Michael Evan Goodsite from the University of Adelaide for very helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript, along with three anonymous peer reviewers. They would also like to acknowledge pending support from the Industrial Decarbonisation Research and Innovation Centre in the United Kingdom , which is expected to begin later in 2021.
Funding Information:
Another study noted significant technology transfers and capacity building related to 11 HFC projects, 3 PFC projects, and 10 SF6 projects funded by the CDM, projects that saw France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom share with developing countries knowledge and expertise concerning HFC abatement using thermal oxidation technology, PFC reduction techniques for aluminum smelting, and SF6 recovery and thermal and catalytic oxidation techniques.5 As shown in Table 15, cross the entire cache of 7749 CDM projects registered at the end of the initiative, 154 of them (1.98%) targeted F-gas emissions reductions and these saved collectively 147.56 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent [207].Given the financial and economic barriers mentioned in Section 8.1, especially the additional capital costs and investment needed to install F-gas abatement technologies, stakeholders have identified the need for financing. One study discusses how a mix of private and public finance can accelerate emissions reductions, and proposes how auctions that underwrite the value of emissions reductions could provide price certainty over long time horizons and also incentivize private investment in abatement options [239]. Another study proposes auctions and then tradable credit schemes [240]. The World Bank adds that while the net economic costs of abatement can be zero to negative, given the benefits discussed in Section 7 (especially related to energy savings and carbon savings), the financial costs and lack of finance often prevents these options from being realized [241]. For HFCs particularly, the World Bank notes that project-based carbon finance has been “instrumental” at driving large emissions reductions of some F-gases. 486 Other work has called for economic stimulus packages in response to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic to incorporate support for climate-friendly cooling technologies and practices. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, such stimulus could result in the mitigation of up to 460 Gtons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2060 [242].The Montreal Protocol, technically the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, is an international agreement that regulates ozone depleting substances.22 Under the Montreal Protocol, there are three Assessment Panels: The Scientific Assessment Panel (SAP, which explains how the atmosphere is changing), the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP, which explains why ozone depletion is important to human health and natural ecosystems), and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP, which explains what is feasible and what can be done to avoid and mitigate undesirable consequences). The three panels conduct a full assessment every four years and integrate the findings in a Synthesis Report [245]. The Montreal Protocol was signed by 24 Parties in 1987 and had the initially modest ambition to freeze halon production and reduce CFC production by 50% over 12 years gradually. Over time, however, it increased its ambition and coverage and expanded to control a dozen new ozone depleting substances through amendments, which accelerated both emissions reductions and phase-out schedules. Developing countries agreed to the binding agreements of the Protocol in exchange for financing from the Multilateral Fund, governed by a committee of seven developed and seven developing country parties with a history of operating by consensus [246]. The Protocol is special insofar as every United Nations member state is a party—meaning it is the only environmental treaty with universal membership—and every party is in full compliance (with temporary exemptions for some developing countries).These international agreements are buttressed by some networks or hybrid initiatives. In February 2012, the international Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) was launched by six governments and the United Nations Environment Program to promote the mitigation of Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (SLCPs), one of which was explicitly HFCs. 14 22 As of 2020, the coalition had 67 member states as partners, 18 intergovernmental organizations, 57 nongovernmental organizations and hundreds of actors from civil society groups. Supported by a Scientific Advisory Panel, the CCAC has launched several projects involving the private sector as an implementing partner, such as the Oil & Gas Methane Partnership and the Global Green Freight Project [252].The Rapid Climate Mitigation Campaign, developed by the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development (IGSD), proposes action strategies that can be launched within 2–3 years to reduce HFC emissions. The Consumer Good Forum, a global network of over 400 retailers, manufacturers, service providers, and other stakeholders from over seventy countries pledged to begin phasing out HFCs in new equipment beginning in 2015.14 The International Energy Agency is a partner organization in the Kigali Cooling Efficiency Programme (K-CEP), providing analytical insights and other information on cooling-related policy and technology data and information via the IEA site known as the Kigali Tracker [253]. K-CEP itself has a membership of 17 foundations and individuals that have pledged $51 million to support measures aimed at increasing the energy efficiency of cooling in developing countries through the use of more efficient cooling equipment, phasing down the production and use of HFCs and replacing them with newer, climate-safe coolants [254]. These efforts are all backed by voluntary reductions of high-GWP F-gases at companies shown in Table 18. The authors thank Professor Mark J. Jacobson from Stanford University and Professor Michael Evan Goodsite from the University of Adelaide for very helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript, along with three anonymous peer reviewers. They would also like to acknowledge pending support from the Industrial Decarbonisation Research and Innovation Centre in the United Kingdom, which is expected to begin later in 2021.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2021/5
Y1 - 2021/5
N2 - Humanity has come to depend on synthetic, factory made gases that have extremely significant global warming potential. Fluorinated greenhouse gases, or F-gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) have been termed “super pollutants” and “super greenhouse gases” given their severe and powerful impact on the climate. They are the most potent greenhouse gases known to modern science, with global warming potentials far greater than carbon dioxide, some up to almost 24,000 times more so. Troublingly, they are also the fastest growing class of greenhouse gas emissions around the world, especially in developing countries. Research suggest that almost 40% of their emissions by 2050 will fall outside the scope of international agreements such as the Paris Accord, Montreal Protocol and Kigali Amendment. Without comprehensive and sustained interventions, uncontrolled growth in F-gas emissions could offset all of the gains made by the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, or the cornerstone of existing international climate governance, the Nationally Determined Contributions of the 2015 Paris Accord. This review asks: What options are available to mitigate the environmental impacts of F-gases and thus make their manufacturing or disposal far more sustainable? What technical solutions and innovations exist to make their industrial usage low to zero carbon? What benefits will accrue from F-gas mitigation, and what barriers will need addressed? It undertakes a comprehensive and critical review of more than 140,000 sources of evidence, and a short list of 855 studies on the topic. It utilizes a sociotechnical lens that examines the manufacturing and use of F-gases across multiple sectors (including refrigeration, electronics manufacturing, non-ferrous metals processing, and applications in consumer goods) and components of its lifecycle (including not only manufacturing, but also use, disposal and destruction). We find that there are several policies and regulations that can be employed to address this already serious and growing climate change challenge.
AB - Humanity has come to depend on synthetic, factory made gases that have extremely significant global warming potential. Fluorinated greenhouse gases, or F-gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) have been termed “super pollutants” and “super greenhouse gases” given their severe and powerful impact on the climate. They are the most potent greenhouse gases known to modern science, with global warming potentials far greater than carbon dioxide, some up to almost 24,000 times more so. Troublingly, they are also the fastest growing class of greenhouse gas emissions around the world, especially in developing countries. Research suggest that almost 40% of their emissions by 2050 will fall outside the scope of international agreements such as the Paris Accord, Montreal Protocol and Kigali Amendment. Without comprehensive and sustained interventions, uncontrolled growth in F-gas emissions could offset all of the gains made by the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, or the cornerstone of existing international climate governance, the Nationally Determined Contributions of the 2015 Paris Accord. This review asks: What options are available to mitigate the environmental impacts of F-gases and thus make their manufacturing or disposal far more sustainable? What technical solutions and innovations exist to make their industrial usage low to zero carbon? What benefits will accrue from F-gas mitigation, and what barriers will need addressed? It undertakes a comprehensive and critical review of more than 140,000 sources of evidence, and a short list of 855 studies on the topic. It utilizes a sociotechnical lens that examines the manufacturing and use of F-gases across multiple sectors (including refrigeration, electronics manufacturing, non-ferrous metals processing, and applications in consumer goods) and components of its lifecycle (including not only manufacturing, but also use, disposal and destruction). We find that there are several policies and regulations that can be employed to address this already serious and growing climate change challenge.
KW - Anthropogenic emissions
KW - Climate change
KW - Climate mitigation
KW - Fluorinated greenhouse gases
KW - Fluorocarbons
KW - Fugitive emissions
KW - HFC-23
KW - High-global warming potential emissions
KW - Industrial decarbonization
KW - NF3
KW - Perfluorocarbons
KW - PFCs
KW - SF6
KW - Short lived climate pollutant
KW - Synthetic greenhouse gas
KW - Trace emissions
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85100634912&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.rser.2021.110759
DO - 10.1016/j.rser.2021.110759
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85100634912
SN - 1364-0321
VL - 141
JO - Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
JF - Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
M1 - 110759
ER -