The Costs of Cooling
August 05, 2020
Scientists have since estimated that HFCs account for up to 1% of the warming caused by all GHGs, which is a big deal considering they have only been around since the early 1990s. Because of this, governments came together to add the Kigali amendment to the Montreal Protocol. The Kigali Amendment, which came into force on January 1, 2016, has the aim of reducing the use of HFCs by more than 80% over the next 30 years. Beginning in 2016, a specified group of developed countries began a phase-down of HFCs. Two groups of other countries will have until 2024 (China, Brazil, African countries) or 2028 (Bahrain, India, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) to freeze their levels. The graph below shows what this phase out would look like for GHG emissions compared to a business as usual scenario.
HFC emission scenarios by source and location with and without the Kigali amendment
If the 100 countries that have ratified the Kigali amendment begin their phase down and freeze, as instructed, we can avoid as much as 0.5°C warming by the end of the century. To achieve this, we have to ensure that energy efficient and lower global warming potential (GWP) alternatives are implemented and that they are not financially out of reach for those living in energy poverty.
Energy Poverty and AC Efficiency
Exacerbated by the sweltering effects of the heat dome in Canada, the cost of cooling a home in the middle of summer can make many Canadians sweat. Over the summer, air conditioners can account for up to 50% of your electricity bill. Considering that, it’s no wonder that households with an annual income of less than $20,000 are most likely to keep their AC turned off even when they are at home and awake. However, trying to get through the summer season without a working AC unit can lead to increased heat-related public health issues, which are more likely to be borne by lower-income Canadians. These are the costs of energy poverty, in relation to the high costs of cooling.
Energy poverty refers to individuals and households who are unable to afford the energy needed for day-to-day life. It is quantifiably measured by those households who spend more than 6% of their income on energy. Energy poverty can also be considered a public health issue—it is directly and indirectly associated with cardio-vascular and respiratory diseases, negative implications for mental health, and frequent occurrences of minor illnesses. In Canada, energy poverty is a growing issue due to rising energy prices, with the cost of electricity rising over 100% from 2006-2016. As of 2015, 8% of households in Canada were considered energy poor, with northern territories dealing with significantly higher electricity prices than the rest of Canada. Lower-income households across Canada are most affected by energy poverty. In 2013, almost 16 per cent of households earning $27,000, and almost 17 per cent of households earning between $27,000 and $47,700, were in energy poverty. Although access to utilities is a necessity, in 2015, 60, 000 homes were disconnected for failure to pay utilities, with a whopping $172.5 million total in outstanding hydro bills.
The energy poverty of individual provinces for 2015
On top of all that, the costs of cooling also extend to increasing the temperature of cities. Air conditioning units tend to not only be energy-intensive but emit waste heat that makes the city hotter. Households who live in less efficient homes have higher energy costs than their counterparts in more efficient homes, as this ties into energy consumption. To address the energy poverty implications related to the high costs of cooling, while also lowering the high emissions of air conditioning units, Canada can work to make energy-efficient air conditioners that consume less energy, and those that use alternative, more environmentally friendly coolants, more accessible to lower-income and other vulnerable Canadians.
What are the alternatives to HFCs?
As the phase down on HFCs has already begun in select developed countries, alternatives are needed for cooling. Thankfully, we already have alternatives to HFCs in place: natural refrigerants, and “unsaturated” HFCs. Natural refrigerants, such as ammonia, hydrocarbons, and carbon dioxide, have a lower GWP and can be effectively swapped for HFCs. There are also chemicals called HFOs, which are less potent GHGs than their HFC counterparts. Embracing these kinds of alternatives, while also improving the energy efficiency of AC units, is the best way to go and in compliance with the Kigali amendment.
