Uncertainties in the proposed Regulation on F-gases 

Fluorinated greenhouse gases (F-gases) are synthetic compounds used as refrigerants, solvents, aerosol propellants, and other things. There are three sets of F-gases controlled under the Kyoto Protocol: perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). They form part of a basket of six gases, which the EU has committed to reducing by 8% below 1990 levels in the 2008-2012 commitment period. 

By far the main set of substances at issue are HFCs – and in particular, one compound known as HFC- 134a. This is used in refrigeration, including automobile air conditioning. HFCs were introduced as a replacement for chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and to some extent for hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), which are being phased out under the Montreal Protocol because they damage the ozone layer. They are also powerful greenhouse gases (GHGs). So while HFCs do no damage to the ozone layer (lacking chlorine or bromine atoms), they are still strong greenhouse gases. The standard measure of comparison, global warming potential (GWP), shows that a similar amount of HFC-134a causes 1300 times more warming than CO2 (see Annex 1 for GWPs). 

There are two main alternatives to deal with f-gas emissions. The first is to make sure equipment is leak-tight, that installation and servicing personnel are well trained, and that refrigerants are carefully handled and transferred at all stages through the refrigerant’s life – this is known as ‘containment’. The second option is to use different substances with far less serious global warming potentials. In the phase-out from CFCs, many applications have done just that: for example the wide use of hydrocarbons in aerosol cans, foam blowing and domestic refrigeration. For the great majority of other applications there are replacements, and many equipment manufacturers make a range of products using both HFCs and their alternatives. Often there are issues of cost, familiarity, or safety standards that inhibit more substantial uptake.

Alternatives to F-gases and associated equipment in refrigeration are increasingly popular; the question is how to introduce them into the market. Containment regulations do little to promote alternatives in the market when these are subject to similar requirements – as they ought to be, given they have safety considerations that require oversight. Other major possibilities include taxes and charges on F-gases that make alternatives more attractive, and phaseouts of F-gases. The former have been applied in Denmark and Norway with success – however, taxes are difficult to agree at European level and are unlikely to be considered. Phaseouts, on the other hand, are already part of the Regulation under consideration, albeit for minor applications. The question is whether the same approach would be appropriate to major uses in refrigeration and air conditioning.

Please click here to read the IEEP paper in full.