World leaders poised to seal landmark emissions deal in Vienna

An international agreement to reduce hydrofluorocarbons could prevent 0.5 degrees of warming by the end of the century, officials say.

Michael Bonfigli/The Christian Science Monitor
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy speaks at the St. Regis Hotel, in Washington, D.C., during an April breakfast hosted by The Christian Science Monitor.

In 1987, the Montreal Protocol set the ozone layer on the path to recovery. In 2016, it could take a bite out of greenhouse gas emissions.

Officials convened in Vienna this week to amend the Montreal Protocol, which phased out ozone-killing refrigerants called CFCs nearly three decades earlier. Now the delegation is nearing an international deal to reduce HFCs, says EPA administrator Gina McCarthy.

“We are seeing all countries coming into this meeting with an incredibly positive and collaborative energy level,” Ms. McCarthy said at a press conference on Thursday. “There is no country that appears to be standing on the sidelines in this discussion.”

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are organic compounds composed of carbon, chlorine, and fluorine. CFCs, which were commonly used in air conditioners and aerosol cans, catalyze the conversion of ozone (O3 ) to oxygen (O2 ). In the 1970s, researchers found that atmospheric CFC levels were weakening Earth’s protective ozone layer.

The Montreal Protocol, signed by all UN and EU member nations in 1987, laid out plans to phase out CFCs. But in doing so, it created a new problem.

Manufacturers replaced CFCs with hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). By comparison, these compounds were ozone-friendly and worked about as well in refrigerants. But later research indicated that HFCs are potent greenhouse gases, contributing significantly to climate change.

International officials have reconvened in hopes of amending the Montreal Protocol to include HFC limits. The EPA has stated that a global reduction in HFCs could prevent 0.5 degrees Celsius in warming over the next century. It doesn’t sound like much, but it’s a moderate step in suppressing climate change.

Before the Paris climate agreement, Earth was on track to warm 4.5 degrees Celsius by 2100. If the measures of that agreement are fully implemented, that number drops to 3.5 degrees. According to some climate scientists, significant environmental implications will result from an increase of 2 degrees. Others say the safe number is an even lower 1.5 degrees.

“A half degree is a substantial chunk of that, but obviously it doesn’t solve the problem,” says Noelle Eckley Selin, a professor at MIT’s Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, in an interview with The Christian Science Monitor. At MIT, Professor Selin leads a research group that uses atmospheric chemistry models to inform policy decisions.

“I would characterize it as a moderate step,” Selin says. “It is quite a chunk of the emissions reduction we need, but we’re not going to get there without attacking CO2.”

In a warming world, limiting HFCs won't be easy. Air conditioners are a rapidly growing market in some smaller and developing nations – a transition away from HFCs could have a critical impact on the economies of those countries. And in countries like India, where summer climates can push 120 degrees, cost efficient air conditioners are essential. As warming trends continue in coming years, demand for cooling technology will only increase.

“These are very real issues that countries face in implementing climate action,” Selin says. “At what speed can you require industries to make changes? How does that affect the economy? Even if you agree with every analysis that scientists put forward, it’s still a very difficult thing to agree on when balancing other priorities.”

The delegation has yet to find a solution that will satisfy both science and commerce. The Island States, which include the Marshall Islands, Kiribati, and the Solomon Islands, recommended a slower reduction rate for developing nations. India proposed a 15 year grace period before smaller countries were required to begin weaning off HFCs.

McCarthy has stated that negotiators are nearing a mutual agreement, and could reach an agreement by Saturday. A major goal, McCarthy says, is to complete the amendment in 2016 – before President Obama leaves office.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.