Climate Compass Blog
International negotiators made significant progress last week in Geneva at the first of several meetings this year aimed at phasing down hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) through an amendment to the Montreal Protocol.
HFCs are fast growing, powerful greenhouse gases used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances in refrigeration and air conditioning, as blowing agents, and as aerosol propellants.
In a stark departure from meetings in previous years, a number of key issues essential to reaching agreement on an HFC amendment were tentatively resolved and substantial progress was achieved on others.
For example, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Gulf states had raised concerns about the lack of proven substitutes for air conditioning that are suitable for the extreme heat experienced in their countries. A proposal to allow a time-limited and geographically targeted exemption until substitutes have been demonstrated was proposed and tentatively agreed to at the meeting. (See our brief on how to structure an exemption.)
Another issue raised in the past by a number of parties concerns the potential conflict between actions on HFCs taken under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and any HFC amendment under the Montreal Protocol. In Geneva, there was broad agreement that the treaties were independent of each other, that they could be implemented in a way that would be complementary, and that an HFC amendment would not in any way require a prior authorizing act by the climate treaty.
A good deal of time was spent discussing issues related to funding associated with HFC controls in developing countries. While agreement exists that the Protocol’s Multilateral Fund would continue to be the primary vehicle for providing financial support for emission reduction projects, issues concerning guidelines detailing what projects would be funded were left unresolved. Among these issues is payment for licensing of intellectual property rights for patent-protected technologies to produce and use some of the substitute chemicals. (See our brief: Ten Myths About Intellectual Property Rights and the Montreal Protocol.)
The Tesla Model 3 has surged onto electric vehicle (EV) scene, with more than 325,000 hopeful customers placing $1,000 deposits in less than a week.
Since all-electric vehicles can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the second largest emissions sector, greater interest in EVs could result in meaningful progress in addressing climate change. Looking past the initial wave of excitement, though, what does the Model 3 really mean to the EV market?
The Tesla Model 3 is a next-generation EV with a base price of $35,000 and an expected battery range of 215 miles. The vehicle is noteworthy because it reduces two primary barriers to EV adoption: price premium and range anxiety. Currently, all-electric vehicle models only allow prospective owners to reduce one of those barriers – you can choose between a relatively inexpensive vehicle with a limited range or an expensive luxury vehicle with a long range. The Chevy Bolt, which is slated for production in late 2016, will be the only vehicle with comparable range and performance when the Model 3 is released.
So how much of a game-changer is the Model 3?
Well, 325,000 deposits for a vehicle that will not begin production for another 18 months is surely an eye-opener, given that the number of deposits equals about two thirds of global EV sales for all of last year. Domestically, the leading all-electric model so far this year has been the Tesla Model S, accounting for just over 6,000 vehicles. So far this year, consumers have bought just over 15,000 all-electric vehicles that they could drive now, without an 18-month waiting period, which speaks volumes about the excitement for the Model 3.
Scientists have typically been cautious when discussing the link between a single extreme weather event and climate change, preferring to focus on broader trends. Previous work, including a paper I wrote with Jay Gulledge four years ago, described a framework for how to think about the link.
But a new report from the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) is making the connection more clear by defining the relative contributions of climate change and other natural sources to the risk of individual weather events. The NAS report – an exhaustive, systematic examination of the peer-reviewed literature – finds high confidence in attribution studies linking individual extreme heat and cold events and climate change, and a more moderate confidence level for several other types of events.
Climate change is making extreme weather more likely. But individual weather events like heat waves or hurricanes are always the product of several risk factors, such as El Nino, climate change or other natural variability, akin to how a poor diet and smoking increase the risk of poor health later in life.
Extreme event attribution attempts to quantify the influence of climate change in comparison to other factors. Determining to what extent climate change strengthened or weakened the event can further our understanding of how much impact climate change is having on our weather.The NAS report assigns a confidence level to the climate impact for a variety of weather events based on three supporting lines of evidence:
- The physical mechanisms that link climate change to a particular extreme
- The length and quality of the observational record showing the baseline risk level and changes to date
- Computational climate modeling showing an increase in risk for a class of extreme event
The report finds the strongest links to climate change for extreme heat and cold, with the highest level of confidence across all three lines of evidence. Drought and extreme rainfall have medium confidence for physical understanding, observation and modeling. Extreme snowfall has medium conference for two out of three, physical understanding and modeling, while the observational record for snowfall is poor.
We’re seeing new movement toward phasing down the fastest-growing group of greenhouse gases – hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs. These chemicals are widely used in refrigerators, air conditioners, foam products, and aerosols. And while they don’t stay in the atmosphere long, they can trap 1,000 times or more heat compared to carbon dioxide.
This week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed new regulations demonstrating its commitment to limiting the use of HFCs domestically. It proposed changes to its significant new alternatives program (SNAP) aimed at expanding the list of acceptable alternatives that minimize impacts on global warming while also restricting the use of HFCs in sectors where alternatives are now available. EPA estimates the proposed rule could avoid up to 11 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2030, which is equal to the energy-related emissions from about one million homes for one year.
Internationally, one sign of growing support for acting on HFCs came this month during the first visit by a U.S. president to Argentina in almost two decades. President Obama and newly elected Argentinian President Mauricio Macri explored opportunities to partner to address global challenges like climate change.
They affirmed their commitment to take action this year to amend the Montreal Protocol to phase down HFCs, which are substitutes for ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that were successfully phased out under the 1989 Montreal Protocol. The two leaders also endorsed the understandings reached at the Dubai Montreal Protocol meeting in November 2015 on financial support for developing countries to implement an HFC phasedown.
A key opportunity will come next week when Montreal Protocol negotiators meet in Geneva to build on the progress made toward reaching agreement this year on an HFC phasedown amendment.
|Josh Wiener of MetLife, Kevin Rabinovich of Mars Inc., Rusty Hodapp of Dallas-Fort-Worth International Airport and Rob Bernard of Microsoft share the strategies that helped them win Climate Leadership Awards with David Rosenheim of The Climate Registry at the fifth annual Climate Laedership Conference, March 10 in Seattle.|
Climate action can start with an idea, but it takes a goal and a plan to get there to make that idea a reality.
When the folks at Microsoft began their current sustainability journey in 2007, “There was well-intentioned chaos,” according to Rob Bernard, the company’s chief environmental strategist. When the Clinton Foundation asked the software maker for a tool to monitor carbon in cities, “That made us think that, internally, we needed to have a strategy on sustainability,” Bernard said in his remarks at the fifth annual Climate Leadership Conference (CLC) in Seattle earlier this month.
That strategy led Microsoft to set and achieve its first public greenhouse gas goal, a 30 percent reduction within five years. Once that was met, the company then set -- and met -- an even more ambitious goal: carbon neutrality.
Microsoft was one of 13 organizations, three partnerships, and one individual honored with 2016 Climate Leadership Awards for accomplishments in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and driving climate action. The were given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA), in collaboration with C2ES and The Climate Registry.