The debate over refrigeration gases and their global warming potential is heating up again

The debate over refrigeration gases and their global warming potential is heating up againThe Montreal protocol was once considered an unparalleled success story. Former United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan called it “perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date”.

Its objective was to phase out ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and this it has more or less done. According to the UN, 99% of CFC use had stopped by 2005. A slower phase-out of the less dangerous HCFCs is on track.

But there is a large spanner in the works. The gases are mainly used for refrigeration and air conditioning. To a great extent they have been replaced by a third substance, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). HFCs are not covered by the Montreal protocol, but they are considered a greenhouse gas under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The fear is that their use will rise exponentially, especially in poorer countries as demand for refrigeration grows, exacerbating global warming.

Rajendra Shende of the UN Environment Programme, speaking at a recent conference in Brussels, said the Montreal protocol could still be considered a shining example of international cooperation. CFCs have been “put in the history books”, and a properly working financial mechanism has been set up to fund the switch to alternatives in poorer countries.

Benefits back on track

But the protocol is “heading towards extraordinary collective failure unless it delivers an urgent rescue package to get the climate benefits back on track,” Shende warns.

There are alternatives to HFCs. Greenpeace promotes “natural refrigerants” such as ammonia, hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide, which though itself a greenhouse gas is many times less harmful than HFCs. Greenpeace even developed, in the early 1990s, the Greenfreeze technology, which is now used for about 40% of new domestic fridges and freezers.

But a huge amount remains to be done. Greenpeace’s Janos Maté says that “the fluorocarbon era needs to end” and countries must make “sustainable decisions” on refrigeration gases by adopting legislation and standards.

This is a slow process. The US Environmental Protection Agency, for example, has dithered over allowing hydrocarbon-based refrigerants, on the basis of their potential flammability. Greenfreeze technology, which uses the hydrocarbons cyclopentane and isobutane, has not been authorised in the US. Greenpeace says that hydrocarbon refrigerants are safe if properly used, and incidents of them igniting are very rare.

So companies must step in, Greenpeace argues. In commercial and industrial refrigeration, natural refrigerants remain little used. If companies make the switch, the market for natural refrigerants could expand rapidly, pushing out more damaging substances.

The biggest firms are taking action. For example, Coca-Cola – which with Carlsberg, McDonalds, Pepsi and Unilever is part of a group called Refrigerants Naturally – has pledged to make its new vending machines and coolers HFC-free by 2015. Many supermarkets are alert to the issue, having realised that action will also help them meet their climate goals. UK retailer Sainsbury’s says it will phase out HFCs by 2030, which will have the side-effect of cutting the company’s carbon footprint by a third.

But there is pressure to go faster. In the UK, the Environmental Investigation Agency accuses retailers Iceland, The Co-operative and Aldi of lagging. The EIA says Iceland has a “totally inadequate approach” with no plan to phase out HFCs.

This could be short-sighted. As the issue heats up, legislation to ban refrigerants with high global warming potential cannot be ruled out.