Non-CO2 Pollutants Are Promising Target in Cancun

A group of low-lying islands and other vulnerable countries are calling for fast action on the approximately 50% of global warming that is caused by pollutants other than carbon dioxide (CO2).

The scientific case for such a strategy was laid out on the eve of the UN climate negotiations in Cancun, in an Op Ed in The New York Times by Professor Veerabhadran Ramanathan, from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, and his colleague, Professor David Victor.

Ramanathan and Victor highlight the importance of aggressively reducing CO2 emissions, but note that the road ahead will be long, difficult, and expensive, and that “in the meantime, a fast-action plan is needed.”

The authors go on to say that reducing the non-CO2 pollutants can delay additional climate warming by several decades. Among the non-CO2 pollutants are hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), methane, tropospheric ozone, and black carbon soot.  Technology is already available to reduce these climate-forcing agents, and doing so would produce strong collateral benefits. 

For example, reducing emissions from open cooking and diesel vehicles could save many of the 1.9 million lives lost each year due to black carbon soot. Reducing tropospheric ozone can improve public health as well as agricultural productivity. Methane is another potent climate warmer that needs to be targeted; capturing emissions from sources such as landfills and coal mines would benefit the climate system and the gas could then be used as a source of energy.

The tiny Pacific island of the Federated States of Micronesia submitted a proposal last year to address these very climate warmers–black carbon, methane, and tropospheric ozone–under the UN climate treaty. Micronesia re-submitted their “Programme of Work on Opportunities for Near-Term Climate Mitigation” this year and it will be considered by Parties at the Cancun meetings over the next two weeks.

“This is a critical opportunity that all of the Parties in Cancun need to be aware of now,” said Durwood Zaelke, President of the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development, whose group supports action on non-CO2 and will be attending the Cancun meetings. “CO2 is the main game, but it’s pretty clear that progress on CO2 is not going to be quick or easy, and we still need to do something fast on climate to buy time–this is what reducing non-CO2 emissions can do for the world.”

In addition to the Micronesia’s proposal on near-term mitigation, there is another major opportunity for climate progress in Cancun: phasing down HFCs under the Montreal Protocol ozone treaty. This has been a parallel effort of Micronesia’s for the last few years under the ozone regime, where HFCs are the current substitute for substances that deplete the ozone layer. The U.S., Canada, and Mexico provided their support for this strategy through a separate, but similar “North American” proposal. At the treaty’s meeting earlier this month in Bangkok, 91 countries signed onto a declaration supporting the use of low-global warming potential substitutes instead of HFCs which can have hundreds to thousands the warming potential of CO2. The Parties included Micronesia and other small island nations, the Philippines, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Egypt, Congo, Nigeria, the 27 countries of the EU, as well as Japan, the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.

The Parties in Cancun can ensure success with this effort–and win a major climate prize of up to 100 billion tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent in mitigation–by directing the Montreal Protocol to take responsibility for production and use of HFCs (emissions are controlled by the Kyoto Protocol).

“Fast action on HFCs and the other near-term climate warmers is essential for the survival of low-lying islands and other vulnerable States,” said Andrew Yatilman, Director of Micronesia’s Office of Environment and Emergency Management. “This is the time for action and we can do it now, right here in Cancun.”

400 Companies To Phase Out HFCs

In a separate announcement, a consortium of over 400 companies agreed to implement climate-friendly refrigeration using natural refrigerants, instead of HFCs, beginning in 2015.

HFCs are currently being used by many companies for refrigeration.

Greenpeace applauded the initiative announced Monday by the Consumer Goods Forum (CGF). “This is an extremely important first step, and will pave the way for major changes across the industry. We expect each of these companies to set forth a timeline by 2015 for complete phase out of HFCs,” said Amy Larkin Greenpeace Solutions Director. “Now national and international policy makers must match these corporations’ targets by outlawing HFCs and making the transition to climate friendly alternatives both cheap and easy.”

Natural refrigeration solutions exist today, using hydrocarbons, ammonia and carbon dioxide. In 1992, Greenpeace developed the first hydrocarbon refrigerator as a solution to avoid HFCs, since then, 400 million have sold globally. Some natural refrigeration options are in widespread use, others nascent in the marketplace. As countries around the world ban HFCs, these newer technologies are expected to become the standard for cooling.

The multi-company team charged with delivering the pledge is co-chaired by Unilever (NYSE: UN) and Tesco (Nasdaq: TESO) and comprised of Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO), Carrefour (CA.PA), Ahold (AHO.DE), Nestle (NESN.VX), Pepsico (NYSE: PEP), Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG), Kraft (NYSE: KFT), General Mills (NYSE: GIS), L’Oreal (0HSQ.L), Walmart (NYSE: WMT) and many others.

The CGF also released a Deforestation Resolution today wherein it pledged to mobilise resources to achieve zero "net" deforestation by 2020. With a focus on tackling specific commodities in the supply chain, and support for work to improve yields on existing cropland, the CGF work could be key in stopping deforestation globally. However, Greenpeace believes that CGF must put company actions at the heart of its work on deforestation and confirm that this is about stopping deforestation in natural forests, not about “net” reductions that leave the door open to replace forests with plantations.

(Visited 9,570 times, 5 visits today)

Post Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *