The problem with waiting for catastrophes

The problem with waiting for catastrophes – The Climate change (HCFC) debacle?

A recent publication in the Technology Review on cyber security dwelled on some very interesting human characteristics which I have found relatable to how a large group of society approaches the issues of climate change. Jason Pontin said that human systems are not infinitely adaptable [6].  I admit that I am probably one of the contributors to the problem but it struck me how true his observations were. Are we all doomed to ignore the signs of climate change and continue with Business As Usual (BAU) as it just makes economical sense? I enjoyed the response I read, "Well, that would be consistent with human nature."

Should we be shocked or instead have frowns drawn into our faces at this snide remark? Pontin believes that many economists consider it respectable to wait until a catastrophe strikes. He states that until something goes wrong, you don’t know the scale of a problem: any preemptive action will tend to allocate resources inefficiently. Are we to interpret his thoughts that unless science can prove beyond reasonable doubt that global warming and climate change will affect our lives that only then should we take any action? The scientific community was divided on global warming and has had the problem of proving their theories. For the scientific community to alert and apply some form or precautionary principle, the burden of proof that it is not harmful rests with its proponents, and economists have always been suspicious of it.

Pontin goes on to cite Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (2005), where a UCLA geographer by the name of Jared Diamond describes how a series of societies, from the Viking settlements in Greenland to the population of Easter Island, collapsed because their environmental strategies, appropriate at one time and place, were maladapted when circumstances changed.

The screams and cries on climate change and global warming should be no stranger to those astute to the media and press. I hope the world is finally listening as the former World Bank chief economist and the author of the 2006 Stern Review argued in his 700 page analysis that the cost of climate change if not addressed, will be equivalent to losing 5 to 20 percent of global gross domestic product “each year, now and forever.” Climate change is the greatest market failure the world has ever seen and could threaten hundreds of millions of people with hunger, water shortages and poverty.

The world acknowledges that the damage caused by Chloroluorocarbon (CFC) and green house gases is irreversible for a long time. It is for this reason all 196 countries in the world have ratified the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

The Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol (MLF) is the financial mechanism which was created in 1990 by the London Amendment to help developing countries meet the agreed incremental cost of fulfilling the Montreal Protocol's control measures [1]. The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) is one of four implementing agencies with which countries can partner to access MLF funding. Malaysia is currently embarking to phase out Hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) subsequent to the phase out of CFC in 2010.

HCFCs are transitional CFC replacements, used as refrigerants, solvents, blowing agents for plastic foam manufacture, and fire extinguishers. HCFCs were suitable replacements for CFC in terms of Ozone Depleting Potential (ODP), unfortunately HCFCs, do contribute to global warming. On a molecule-for-molecule basis, these compounds are up to 10,000 times more potent greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide (CO₂). In term of ODP, in comparison to CFCs that have ODP 0.6 – 1.0, these HCFCs have less ODP, i.e. 0.01 – 0.5. Whereas in term of Global Warming Potential (GWP), although HCFCs (GWP 76 – 2,310) outperform CFCs (GWP 4,680 – 10,720), HCFCs do cannot compare to CO₂ (GWP 1).

Outreaching HCFC phase out in Asia Pacific region is a challenging task. 70% of the global HCFC production and consumption are in the region [7]. Malaysia is lagging behind in implementing the HCFC phase out agenda. Parties to this Protocol agreed to set year 2013 as the time to freeze the consumption and production of HCFCs. They also agreed to start reducing its consumption and production in 2015. Public support and awareness on these issues are imperative to the successful implementation of the HCFC phase out program in Malaysia.

The most noticeable item in the daily life is the refrigerator and air conditioning. Most foam products used in daily life go unnoticed. Foams are typically used to insulate your refrigerator and cushions of your furniture. Solvents used to clean circuit boards and precision instruments, dry cleaning, detergents, paint thinners, nail polish remover can contain HCFC. HCFCs are also present in some fire-fighting equipment. The reality is such that we are unlikely to live without these items however you can make thoughtful before purchasing. The three (3) most important HCFCs imported and consumed in the country are HCFC-22, HCFC 141b and HCFC-123. While no mandatory “Eco” or sustainable labeling exists please look out and ask if these chemicals were used in the equipments or products that you purchase.

A range of alternatives are available and have been developed for the air conditioners, refrigerators, chillers, foam products and fire-fighting equipment industry. These alternatives include hydroflourocarbons (HFC) and natural refrigerants such as Carbon dioxide, ammonia and hydrocarbons. The Montreal Protocol currently calls for a complete phase-out of HCFCs by 2030; unfortunately it does not place any restriction on HFCs (which is likely to be the next cheapest alternative) which also have a significant GWP 124-14800. Natural refrigerants do not harm the ozone layer and neither does it contribute to global warming (GWP 0-3).

One of the largest corporate initiatives for the promotion of alternative refrigerants is http://www.refrigerantsnaturally.com/. Together the group promotes a shift in the point-of-sale cooling technology in the food and drink, food service and retail sectors towards F-gas-free refrigeration technologies that do not harm the Earth's climate and ozone layer and to do this whilst improving or (at least) equaling energy efficiency compared to existing fluorocarbon-based technology [6].

While industries are made to switch to environmentally friendly alternatives, the general public can chip in to this initiative as well. A quick audit around the house can alert you to equipments which contain HCFC. By careful considering the lifespan left on your appliances, it may be prudent to consider retrofitting or replacing the appliances with something newer and energy efficient. The public should also remind themselves to service their old appliances with ozone and green house friendly products.

Similar to all technological transitions, consumers may face short terms costs. We have to remember that stabilizing green house emissions is a worthwhile insurance strategy for the world. The Stern Review on The Economics of Climate Change commissioned by the United Kingdom Government concluded from a cost benefit analysis based on long run economic modeling that incurring a modest annual mitigation cost is cheaper than the long run inactions.

While there are initiatives funded by the multilateral fund bridge the gap between investment risks and rewards, it is impossible to fund all sectors and obtain the necessary cooperation required. The general public has a major role in the successful implementation of the HCFC phase out program.

For more information on Malaysia’s work on HCFC and CFC phase out, visit http://www.doe.gov.my/portal/public/montreal-protocol/general-information/

References:

[1]	http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/ENVIRONMENT/EXTTMP/0,,contentMDK:20502611~menuPK:1246963~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:408230,00.html access on the 11th of August 2011
[2]	http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/country_profiles/cli_cou_458.pdf access on the 11th of August 2011
[3]	http://www.miros.gov.my/web/guest/archives?p_p_id=101_INSTANCE_64mN&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=rightbar&p_p_col_pos=1&p_p_col_count=4&_101_INSTANCE_64mN_struts_action=%2Ftagged_content%2Fview_content&_101_INSTANCE_64mN_redirect=%2Fweb%2Fguest%2Farchives&_101_INSTANCE_64mN_assetId=111244 access on the 11th of August 2011
[4]	http://unfccc.int/files/national_reports/non-annex_i_natcom/submitted_natcom/application/pdf/malaysia_snc.pdf Figure 2.9 access on the 11th of August 2011
[5]	Centre for Environmental Technologies, HCFC Phase out management plan (HPMP), Malaysia, 2010
[6]	http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/37778/ access on the 6th of September 2011