'Historic' climate change deal reached in Rwanda

Luke Barber

 

 

An historic accord has been reached by over 150 nations to cut back on greenhouse gases used in refrigerators and air conditioners.

 

At a meeting in Rwanda, representatives from the countries agreed to reduce emissions of factory-made Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) gases, a major milestone in combatting climate change.

 

The new deal divides countries into three groups depending on their economic status, with each having a different deadline.

 

Economies such as the EU and the US will start to reduce their us of HFCs soon with the aim to make a cut of at least 10 percent by 2019.

 

Some developing countries like China, Latin American nations and island states have been given longer to reduce emissions, while India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and the Gulf states will not freeze their use until 2028.

 

‘More damaging that coal’

 

HFCs were introduced in the 1980s as an alternative to ozone-depleting gases that create holes in the region of Earth’s stratosphere that absorbs most of the Sun’s ultraviolet (UV) radiation.

 

They are found in refrigerators, air conditioning units, household aerosols and inhalers among other items.

 

In recent times, however, air conditioner and refrigerator sales have soared in emerging economies such as China – the world’s top carbon emitter – and India – the world’s third worst polluter – leading to a sharp spike in HFC emissions.

 

The gases have been said to emit as much pollution as 300 coal fired power plants every year.

 

Experts estimate that the measures will remove 70 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by 2050.

 

 

-- © Copyright Euronews 2016-10-16

 

Bit confusing the last couple of lines as coal fired power stations don't emit HFCs and although HFCS global warming potential is measured in CO2 equivalents it doesn't mean banning them will actually reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.  Unfortunately the time scale proposed is quite generous (to the manufactures) and HFCs tend to be persistent.  CFCs were a much different matter as they were proven to deplete the ozone layer, which is much more clear cut than the environmental effect of HFCs. Pretty ironic that HFCs were introduced to replace the "bad" CFCs.   What isn't made clear is what they will replace HFCs with ???

Just an aside, why was the meeting held in Rwanda and how much CO2 was emitted flying all those so environmentally concerned delegates to such an exotic location, never mind the accommodation and "entertainment" provided.

A drop in the ocean that will do nothing to halt the steady march to self-destruction, courtesy of the greedy fossil fuels lobby.

1 hour ago, eliotness said:

Just an aside, why was the meeting held in Rwanda and how much CO2 was emitted flying all those so environmentally concerned delegates to such an exotic location, never mind the accommodation and "entertainment" provided.

And what about when you build a solar cell factory or a wind turbine factory?  That consumes fossil fuel, too.  I guess by your reasoning that's also activity that will, on balance, be environmentally damaging.

2 hours ago, eliotness said:

Just an aside, why was the meeting held in Rwanda and how much CO2 was emitted flying all those so environmentally concerned delegates to such an exotic location, never mind the accommodation and "entertainment" provided.

 

Please don't ask embarrassing questions. The Anthropogenic global warming junkets must go on...

 

Great picture on the OP: condensing unit for latest Indian a/c unit.

 

Good thing but too generous to third world as replacement freon gases are already available. I see the evil EU has signed up to 2019. No doubt the newly developing country, the U.K., will be given extra time. ?

 

Now here's a thing, in Thailand, 70% of domestic electrical energy consumption is for a/c. Why? Crap insulation of walls, windows, ceilings and roofs. Now there's something useful for the Thai government to take action on to avoid building two more coal fired plants ?

45 minutes ago, JetsetBkk said:

 

Please don't ask embarrassing questions. The Anthropogenic global warming junkets must go on...

 

Embarrasing in the sense that a thoughtful person should be embarrassed to ask such a question.  Compared to the huge reduction in global warming, an infinitesimal amount of CO2 was generated.  What comments likeJetssetBkk demonstrate is mathematical cluelessness.  I don't know if you are in business or not, but if so, I certainly hope you don't use a similar criterion to evaluate cost vs. benefit.

35 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Embarrasing in the sense that a thoughtful person should be embarrassed to ask such a question.  Compared to the huge reduction in global warming, an infinitesimal amount of CO2 was generated.  What comments likeJetssetBkk demonstrate is mathematical cluelessness.  I don't know if you are in business or not, but if so, I certainly hope you don't use a similar criterion to evaluate cost vs. benefit.

 

Ah ! surely you mean Climate Change.  Global Warming has been on hold for a few decades, climate change is now the new religion.  But one would hope that all the high priests of "climate change" would use something like a video link to hold such meetings instead of a few days junket in Rwanda.  If they ever hold a meeting in Sheffield (UK) or Detroit (USA) then I'd listen, but the list of exotic destinations for such meetings show these priests have absolutely no shame.

I love the picture they always use when talking of Global Warming and climate change. A great picture to highlight the nasty CO2 and pollution. Just another part of the scam because the picture they tend to use like the one here shows nothing more than water vapour coming out of cooling towers.

Water vapour is by far the biggest greenhouse gas problem, if you can call it that  in the world but as the politicians have yet to figure out how to tax people for this they are sticking with taxing CO2

Oh and if you want some fun try asking people you know how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere as they try not to tell the little people whenever they talk about it they just say it is getting worse 

7 hours ago, eliotness said:

8 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Embarrasing in the sense that a thoughtful person should be embarrassed to ask such a question.  Compared to the huge reduction in global warming, an infinitesimal amount of CO2 was generated.  What comments likeJetssetBkk demonstrate is mathematical cluelessness.  I don't know if you are in business or not, but if so, I certainly hope you don't use a similar criterion to evaluate cost vs. benefit.

 

Ah ! surely you mean Climate Change.  Global Warming has been on hold for a few decades, climate change is now the new religion.  But one would hope that all the high priests of "climate change" would use something like a video link to hold such meetings instead of a few days junket in Rwanda.  If they ever hold a meeting in Sheffield (UK) or Detroit (USA) then I'd listen, but the list of exotic destinations for such meetings show these priests have absolutely no shame.

 

You gotta love these GW Believers.  

 

Meaningless climate change propaganda. Without Senate ratification, this means nothing. One may as well wipe their you-know-what with this "Accord".