Energy Department Super Enthused For International Agreement To Phase Out HFCs ‘Cause ‘Climate Change’

by William Teach | July 21, 2016 8:39 am

The Cult of Climastrology has been gunning for the phase out of HFCs for years, slowly ramping up their opposition, and now they are going for an international agreement, as we see from Gina McCarthy, head of the EPA, and Earnest Moniz, head of the Energy Dept, in a post written at the Energy Dept blog

A “Cool” Way to Combat Climate Change under the Montreal Protocol[1]

World climate leaders are meeting this week in Vienna for the next stage of international discussions about a global phase-down of climate-damaging hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).

This meeting should lay the foundation for a 2016 amendment to the Montreal Protocol – a hugely successful global agreement that has put Earth’s fragile ozone layer on track to full restoration. A 2016 amendment would leverage the same proven mechanisms that helped fix the “ozone hole” to address another serious risk to the planet – HFCs.

When scientists discovered the “ozone hole” in the 1980s, they uncovered a tangible health risk to people and the environment. The ozone layer of our upper atmosphere is a natural sunscreen that protects us from harmful ultraviolet rays. A massive and growing “hole” in the ozone layer threatened to drive up skin cancer rates, harm marine life, ruin crops and even degrade wood, plastic and other construction materials.

The 1987 Montreal Protocol mandated that countries phase out ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) and similar chemicals used widely at the time for air conditioning and refrigeration. With 197 countries signing on, it was the first UN treaty to achieve universal ratification in the United Nations.

Getting rid of CFCs was the right thing to do, as they were damaging. HFCs, as I’ve noted before, are also damaging, being a bit more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. So, hey, let’s run full bore into forcing the use of alternatives!

However, to phase out CFCs, countries needed viable alternatives. As ozone-depleting chemicals were phased out, many sectors began moving toward hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) – chemicals that performed well as refrigerants and were significantly healthier for the ozone layer. But like the chemicals they replaced, HFCs are still damaging to our climate system. In fact, they are hundreds to thousands of times more powerful in warming the planet than carbon dioxide. Rapid growth in the use of HFCs threatens to undo much of our progress in reducing other carbon emissions under the Paris Climate Agreement.

The problem here is that most of the alternatives are Unacceptable!!!!!!!! to Warmists/Enviroweenies, and many of the ones that are Acceptable!!!!!! to them are either much more expensive, dangerous in other ways, or don’t exist at this time.

If we succeed, we could avoid up to 0.5 degree centigrade of warming by the end of the century by shifting towards other, less harmful alternatives. Avoiding that half-degree is crucial for limiting global temperature rise to below 2 degrees centigrade and avoiding the most severe impacts of climate change.

Um, Obama’s entire energy plan will only avert[2] temperature rise by 0.001 Celsius per year. If all the nations of the world did this, would it actually add up to .5C? Highly doubtful.

U.S. leaders will take the results of a newly-published Department of Energy report, The Future of Air Conditioning for Buildings, to Vienna. It documents air conditioning’s explosive growth worldwide, especially in developing nations, which could lead to huge increases in the use of HFCs and emissions of greenhouse gases. The report finds that air conditioning energy consumption in countries not part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) could rise 4-1/2 times 2010 levels by 2050 – emitting more HFC greenhouse gases and undercutting the Paris Agreement. Substitute chemicals are available to avoid the use of HFCs and their global warming impacts.

Warmists who live in HFC cooled homes with HFC refrigerators and drive to work places with HFC cooling systems in vehicles which use other refrigerants (which are also on the Warmist chopping block) seem pretty upset that people in 3rd World Nations might get the same benefit. Why won’t these big wigs, who also fly in airplanes with HFC cooling systems, give up their own use of A/C and refrigerators?

From back in 2015[3]

A global deal is proving elusive, however. Poorer countries and those in warmer climates have concerns about the reliability and expense of substitutes, which can cost ten times as much as the climate-threatening chemicals they replace. Advocates fear a new ban may boost the black market for HFCs. Chemical makers including Chemours Co. have found a significant amount of the refrigerants in use in some regions are labeled as the newer, safer products, but are actually older, cheaper products harmful to the environment.

HFCs are used in refrigerators, fire suppression systems, air conditioners, and other systems. But, hey, on the bright side, these Warmists are also looking to kill off the use of low cost old-school energy methods in the developing nations, so, there’s little to no energy for fridges and AC systems to start with.

The smart thing to do would be to develop low cost, viable, dependable alternatives first. But, Warmists like putting the cart before the horse, and the horse is still in the barn.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove[4]. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach[5].