HFC Phase down negotiations to continue in Geneva

“The Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer” is an international treaty designed to protect the ozone layer. It was originally meant to phase out the production of numerous substances that are responsible for ozone depletion and not Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) which do not cause any harm to ozone. But HFCs have very high global warming potential (GWP) and were introduced as replacement for chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFC) which are harmful for the ozone layer. So, most parties believe that it is the responsibility of the Montreal Protocol to phase down or phase out the HFCs as well.

In the Meeting of the Parties (MOP 27) in Dubai last year, a contact group was established on the feasibility and ways of managing Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) to negotiate the way forward. The outcome of the conference was termed as the Dubai pathway. A list of challenges was compiled and solutions provided for a few by the parties in Dubai.

The next meeting, which is the 37th Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG 37) of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol will be held in Geneva, Switzerland from April 4-8, 2016. It is expected that the meeting will continue to mainly discuss feasibility and ways of managing HFCs in the contact group. The remaining challenges that have been identified and not discussed by parties in Dubai in the contact group are expected to be discussed and resolved by generating solutions on the feasibility of managing HFCs.

The four amendment proposals to the Montreal Protocol made by various countries including India are also expected to be deliberated in detail only after all the challenges are discussed. Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), the only non-governmental organisation to have come up with a proposal to phase out HFCs, has suggested an equitable division of HFCs in its proposal as a way out to break the deadlock between the issues that the current proposals cover. The four amendment proposals put forward by parties to be discussed are:

• Joint proposal by US, Canada and Mexico (North American proposal)
• Joint proposal by Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, Philippines, Samoa and Solomon Islands (the Micronesian or Island States Proposal)
• Proposal submitted by India (Indian proposal)
• The European Union proposal (European proposal)

Also expected is a discussion on the report from the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) on alternatives to ozone depleting substances (ODS). The report submitted primarily focuses on the refrigeration and air conditioning sector. A second report covering all the other major remaining sectors is expected to be submitted by TEAP in the Vienna meeting in July which will also address comments received in Geneva.

All the challenges and concerns by the parties and the proposals are expected to be negotiated in the series of conferences by the end of this year. And if a consensus is achieved by all the 196 countries who are parties on phasing down HFC, there is a potential to reducing more than 100 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent or up to 0.5 degrees Celsius by 2050.

Originally published in Down to Earth

Is the US on a bilateral agreement spree over climate change?

The White House released a U.S.-China Joint Presidential Statement on climate change on Thursday, marking a significant step in this direction.

It is interesting to note that the United States has also released a joint statement with Canada and signed bilateral agreements with Cuba and Argentina on the same issue.

As per the statement available on the White House website, the US and China have entered a bilateral pact to sign the Paris Agreement on April 22.

The heads of both the nations are also committed to work together as well as with other countries this year to achieve successful results in related multi-lateral fora, including an HFC amendment under the Montreal Protocol pursuant to the Dubai Pathway, and on a global market-based measure for addressing greenhouse gas emissions from international aviation.

Is the US serious?

A report, Capitan America, released by Delhi-based non-profit Centre for Science and Environment before the Paris climate deal was hailed by the developing countries and ignored by the western media, experts said. The report had termed the US climate action plan “unambitious and inequitous”.

A leaked note released by a NGO called the Third World Network (TWN) to a limited audience urged developing countries not to “rush” to sign the Paris Agreement in New York in April.

The note also stated that developing countries should not rush into signing the Paris Agreement this year, as the COP 21 decision provides one year to all the Parties to do so from April 22, 2016 to April 21, 2017.

TWN has been facing a lot of flak for the leaked document. According to sources, it was misrepresented in the western media for urging developing nations to boycott the signing whereas it had only sounded a cautious note.

Prior to the deal signing, the US is on a bilateral signing spree with countries to make certain that it can push through its proposal on HFC amendment in the Montreal Protocol negotiations to begin in Geneva next week,experts feel.

It would be a great success if only the proposal put forward by the US on HFC amendment was equitable and addressed the concerns of the developing countries, experts feel. According to the analysis done by the CSE, the US proposal on HFC amendment to the Montreal Protocol is the most “inequitable” among the four proposals that have been submitted for discussion.

Instead of fulfilling their existing commitments and reworking on their proposal to accommodate the concerns of the developing countries, experts feel that the US is using pressure tactics and ignoring the voices of civil society organisations.

Published in Down to Earth on Friday 01 April 2016

America's HFC game plan

How the US is gaining support in apportioning of carbon space in the Montreal Protocol with bilateral agreements

Last week, the United States had two bilateral deals with Argentina and Cuba. Both the deals mention the Paris climate deal and need to fight climate change. The US-Argentina deal has a section which specifically mentions that they are committed to adopting an amendment to the Montreal Protocol on hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) phase downin 2016.

It is a welcome sign that HFC phase down is being looked as a major way to mitigate climate change and efforts are being made to make sure that an amendment to the Montreal Protocol is made in 2016. According to some estimates, HFC phase down has the ability to prevent an equivalent of 100 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions by 2050 and avoid up to 0.5°C warming by the end of the century.

Currently, there are four proposals put forward by different groups to discuss the HFC phase down and US is leaving no stone unturned to have support for the proposal put forward by them by getting into bilateral deals and understanding with some countries. But according to the analysis done by Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), the US proposal would appropriate the emissions in the most inequitable manner of all the four proposals. All the four proposals put forward are expected to be discussed in Geneva this April, so having an understanding between A2 (developed) countries with a select few A5 (developing) countries would mean lesser unity among A5 countries.

Fig: Analysis on equitable consumption

It now looks like a trend as to how the US is having bilateral summits to discuss climate change and HFC phase down as the US also had a similar understanding with Pakistan last year for cooperation. Developing countries need to take a clue from the negotiations in the Paris agreement where not having unity has costed them with an ambiguous deal which looks like everyone has something in the deal but with little clarity on most of the issues that really mattered to them otherwise before the summit. If there is no unity, there comes a point where some countries might be termed as blockers like it happened in Paris and even the genuine concerns might have to be let gone because of the international pressure.

Originally published in Down to earth on 29-3-2016

Charge size matters

By Umang Jalan and Rakesh Kamal

An increase in maximum charge size limits for hydrocarbon refrigerants is needed for effective HFC phase down in India 

With the upcoming negotiations at the 37th Meeting of the Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol from April 4 - 8, 2016 which will deal with the Dubai pathway to formulate a HFC phase down agreement, natural refrigerants have been gaining ground over high Global Warming Potential (GWP) Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC).

Natural refrigerants or the "gentle five" include ammonia, carbon dioxide, water, hydrocarbons and air. Perhaps, the most appropriate in an Indian context are hydrocarbon refrigerants. This is because these refrigerants have low GWP, are freely available and have high energy efficiency in high ambient temperature conditions. With the ever-growing need for Refrigeration and Air Conditioning (RAC) in India, moving from HFCs to natural refrigerants provides an opportunity to mitigate emissions and avoid a warming of 0.5 degrees globally.

There are, however, safety concerns related to hydrocarbons because of relatively higher flammability than traditional HFC based refrigerants These concerns, however can now be dealt with new technologies that can be used to make such systems safe enough for wide scale implementation. The only major restriction is the lack of accommodating safety standards.

The amount of refrigerant needed to run a refrigeration cycle of a certain cooling capacity is known as “charge size”. According to reports, the maximum allowed “charge size” of hydrocarbons in RAC systems needs to be increased to 1 kg in order to accomplish large scale implementation of the technology. This amount would be sufficient for large scale implementation of the technologies in the most popular RAC sectors, i.e. medium (2-2.5 tonnes) scale domestic air conditioning. Industry estimates suggest that the domestic air-conditioning sector is expanding in India by 20 per cent per year and accounts for 35 per cent of global emissions from HFCs. More accommodating standards are therefore crucial to achieve an effective HFC phase down in India.

The only suppliers of hydrocarbon-based refrigerators and air conditioners in India currently comply with European standards. These standards mandate construction, design, testing for the safe use of flammable refrigerants. The standards however restrict the maximum charge size to 350-360 g of hydrocarbons. This corresponds to a maximum cooling capacity of around 1.5 tonnes. A change in the standards would allow Indian manufacturers to expand their production line to Hydrocarbon RAC systems with higher cooling capacity.

Currently, there are no standards available in India for the use of hydrocarbon-based refrigerants. The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) takes its cues from the international community for the formulation of most of its standards. This poses a problem in standard development for hydrocarbons as no country allows more than a fraction of the requisite 1 kg maximum charge size limit. There are however leak detection, mechanical system shutdown and ventilation (in case of leaks) technologies available now that may make the case for increasing the charge size in most RAC applications. Currently, the EU, US and China are in the process of revisiting some of these standards in light of the technological improvements.

Perhaps, standards should necessitate safety features that will allow for universal use of the RAC systems without room size limits in Indian conditions. This is important, as oversight over implementation of such limits would be difficult in India. Developing an Indian standard to ensure safe wide scale implementation of hydrocarbon RAC systems is therefore important. Such a standard will help place the local refrigeration industry in a better position globally. It will also help in having an edge in the current negotiations as it will give confidence to the markets/industry that the Indian government is working on providing the framework for transition to natural refrigerants.

Originally published in Down to earth on 22-3-2016

Short story: In-house garden

Please find my short story published in Gobar times, a suppliment for children in Down to earth magazine on 1st March 2016

A new report: “Capitan America.”

By Tom Ewing

I recently received an email with the following question in the subject line: “What will be the outcome of scrapping the US Clean Power Plan on its INDC?” (Note: INDC = “intended nationally determined contributions.” “Contributions” in this context is not a positive amount, so to speak. Rather it is what you, as a nation, or representing a nation, will “contribute” towards efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, most commonly CO2. It is one of many awkward acronyms and phrases that are part of the climate change lingo; possibly a result of a search for some commonality among so many languages.)

As you likely know if you’ve signed up for announcements about COP21 and the Paris Framework or Agreement there’s no shortage of groups sending out stuff. For some, climate change will prove to be very lucrative, indeed, what with endless conferences, consultancy contracts, new legal and graduate courses, burgeoning travel budgets with endless expenses for travel, meals, hotels, car rentals, oh, the struggle of it all. So this e-mail with the wonky rhetorical question about scrapping the US Clean Power Plan was really just one of about 10 climate emails that day.

Wow. I’m glad I opened it! And then sat unmoved, reading it. I know your time is valuable but you need to read this report, too.

It’s got the deliberately smart-alecky name of “Capitan America,” published by the Centre for Science and Environment in New Delhi. It’s got cartoons of a fat Uncle Sam sort of sitting on and squashing the rest of the world. Its general thesis: that the US ain’t doin’ much about this ol’ climate change thing. Yes, there was plenty of graceful dancing cheek-to-cheek at the recent Paris cotillion. But that hot dance floor was just a lot of sizzle and not much steak from Capitan America.

Here are some out-takes:

* “The electricity sector emissions in the US reduced 1.8 per cent annually (2005-2014) mainly due to the switch from coal to natural gas. Under the CPP, it will reduce only by 1.6 per cent from now on till 2030 which is worse than the business as usual. Even in 2030, about 60 per cent of US electricity will be produced from coal and gas.” (Emphasis added.)

* “We present a few inconvenient truths — one per chapter — that might throw cold water on the celebration. The US climate action plan is dramatic. But it is neither ambitious nor equitable. Worse, it is but business-as-usual. If implemented, we have analysed, emissions reduction will be marginal.”

* “We also know that if Americans continue their guzzle, it is not possible to expect the rest will not follow in their footsteps. The world — the US and us — cannot combat climate change without changing the way we drive, build homes or consume goods. The C-word is the C-word.”

Note the reference above to one inconvenient truth per chapter. The report starts with a close analysis of the US’ INDC, which the authors conclude is neither fair nor ambitious, that the US has so bullied the metrics that reductions from 2005 can look quite robust, but, in fact, are intentionally misleading. Subsequent chapters deliver a body blow to Americans’ unchanged investments and behaviors regarding private automobiles, conspicuous and bloated consumption, including many food issues, shopping malls, huge houses and buildings, in short, everything that, uh, pretty much most people just take for granted, and, critically, take it for granted that none of that activity and stuff will ever have to change! Even if you want to lower the temperature of a planet!

As important and provocative as this report is, it’s not the be-all and end-all of climate debates and whether or not certain activities are meaningful or not. The authors do not reference and cover some important and critical issues. But their basic reference and concern – that the US is hogging the final remaining “space” for carbon emissions, space desperately needed for development in very poor parts of the world – forms a critical presentation, one that needs to be read and thought about, particularly by people who are patting themselves on the back regarding US decisions and directions so far.

After you read Capitan America and if you want to start a dialogue on its critical tenets, please send a note – I’ll add it to the blog. You can stay anonymous if you want.

Oh by the way, just a few minutes after finishing my read I noticed the following headline on a so-called Internet “news site:”

“Why A Swimming Pool Needs An Internet Connection.”

Ahhh, living in the US and fighting climate change…! It’s tough!

Originally published in Regulatory Clarity on 18-02.2016



What will be the outcome of scrapping the US Clean Power Plan on its INDC?

It is interesting to see how the sudden demise of Antonin Scalia affects the US Supreme Court’s decision on the implementation of the US Clean Power Plan (CPP). Scalia was one of the five out of nine judges who had ruled in favour of blocking the CPP.

The Supreme Court’s decision means that the Environment Protection Agency will not be able to enforce the rules listed under the CPP until and unless the court decides on its legality. If the court decides to scrap the CPP, it would be major blow to President Barack Obama’s climate legacy.

The CPP is crucial for the US to meet its emissions reduction targets of 26-28 per cent by 2030 from the 2005 levels. The plan aims to reduce power sector emissions by 30 per cent below the 2005 levels by 2030 while delivering US $ 55-93 billion in annual net benefits from reducing carbon pollution and other harmful pollutants.

It is estimated that the CPP accounts for about 10 per cent of the reductions (see figure1) committed under the US INDC (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) submitted in 2015.

Scrapping this plan may mean an increase in the global emissions by 680 million tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent. This is equal to about a fourth of India’s emissions in 2012. Most of the energy efficiency and emission reduction improvements under this plan will be economically motivated. These would include technological improvements and fuel changes from coal to gas in a number of power plants across the US.

CSE’s analysis

Delhi-based non-profit Centre for science and Environment had earlier published a detailed report on the US climate action plan titled Capitan America. According to the report, the electricity sector emissions in the US reduced 1.8 per cent annually (2005-2014) mainly due to the switch from coal to natural gas.

Under the CPP, it will reduce only by 1.6 per cent from now on till 2030 which is worse than the business as usual. Even in 2030, about 60 per cent of US electricity will be produced from coal and gas.

In addition to the CPP, the US INDC also relies on energy efficiency improvements in its transport and manufacturing sectors. These include the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards and standards for fuel efficiency in heavy-duty vehicles. These improvements in efficiency have, however, led to an increase in consumption trends.

Another key proposal that Obama has made in his so-called climate legacy involves reducing emissions by moving away from high global-warming gases—hydrofluorcarbons (HFCs) used mainly in refrigeration and air conditioning systems industry across the world.

It is proposed that phasing down HFCs will help in reducing 0.5 degrees Celsius by end of the century. Last year in Dubai, the US has been a major player in pushing hard for implementing the HFC phase down. The US stand on climate change is largely based on business interests of the associated industries and will not necessarily mitigate the emission impacts.

Originally published on Monday 15 February  2016 in Down to Earth