Abstract
Hydrofluorocarbons are a potent greenhouse gas, yet there remains a lack of quantitative estimates of their social cost. The present study addresses this gap by directly calculating the social cost of hydrofluorocarbons (SC-HFCs) using perturbations of exogenous inputs to integrated assessment models. We first develop a set of direct estimates of the SC-HFCs using methods currently adopted by the United States Government and then derive updated estimates that incorporate recent advances in climate science and economics. We compare our estimates with commonly used social cost approximations based on global warming potentials to show that the latter is a poor proxy for direct calculation of hydrofluorocarbon emissions impacts using integrated assessment models. Applying our SC-HFCs to the Kigali Amendment, a global agreement to phase down HFCs, we estimate that it provides US$202037 trillion in climate benefits over its lifetime. Expediting the phase-down could increase the estimated climate benefits to US$202041 trillion.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Complete data for this study are freely available via Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/records/10081241 ref. 59.
Code availability
Complete replication code for this study is freely available via Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/records/10081241 ref. 59.
References
IPCC Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).
Carleton, T. et al. Valuing the global mortality consequences of climate change accounting for adaptation costs and benefits. Q. J. Econ. 137, 2037–2105 (2022).
Cromar, K. R. et al. Global health impacts for economic models of climate change: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann. Am. Thorac. Soc. 19, 1203–1212 (2022).
Pistochini, T., Dichter, M., Chakraborty, S., Dichter, N. & Aboud, A. Greenhouse gas emission forecasts for electrification of space heating in residential homes in the US. Energy Policy 163, 112813 (2022).
Rosenow, J. et al. Heating up the global heat pump market. Nat. Energy 7, 901–904 (2022).
Montzka, S. A. et al. In Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018 Ch. 2 (eds Kuijpers, L. J. M. & Sturges, W. T.) (WMO, 2018).
Regulatory Impact Analysis for Phasing Down Production and Consumption of Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) (EPA, 2021).
Velders, G. J., Fahey, D. W., Daniel, J. S., McFarland, M. & Andersen, S. O. The large contribution of projected HFC emissions to future climate forcing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 10949–10954 (2009).
Biardeau, L. T., Davis, L. W., Gertler, P. & Wolfram, C. Heat exposure and global air conditioning. Nat. Sustain. 3, 25–28 (2020).
Purohit, P., Borgford-Parnell, N., Klimont, Z. & Höglund-Isaksson, L. Achieving Paris climate goals calls for increasing ambition of the Kigali Amendment. Nat. Clim. Chang. 12, 339–342 (2022).
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide: Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 (USG, 2021).
Sarofim, M. C. & Giordano, M. R. A quantitative approach to evaluating the GWP timescale through implicit discount rates. Earth Syst. Dyn. 9, 1013–1024 (2018).
Mallapragada, D. S. & Mignone, B. K. A theoretical basis for the equivalence between physical and economic climate metrics and implications for the choice of global warming potential time horizon. Clim. Change 158, 107–124 (2020).
Marten, A. L. & Newbold, S. C. Estimating the social cost of non-CO2 GHG emissions: methane and nitrous oxide. Energy Policy 51, 957–972 (2012).
Ricke, L. K. & Caldeira, K. Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 124002 (2014).
Dietz, S., van der Ploeg, F., Rezai, A. & Venmans, F. Are Economists Getting Climate Dynamics Right and Does it Matter? Working Paper No. 8122 (CESifo, 2020).
Rickels, W. & Schwinger, J. Implications of temperature overshoot dynamics for climate and carbon dioxide removal policies in the DICE model. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 104042 (2021).
NASEM Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide (National Academies Press, 2017).
EPA External Review Draft of Report on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases: Estimates Incorporating Recent Scientific Advances (EPA, 2023).
Sarofim, M. C., Waldhoff, S. T. & Anenberg, S. C. Valuing the ozone-related health benefits of methane emission controls. Environ. Resour. Econ. 66, 45–63 (2017).
Schmalensee, R. Comparing greenhouse gases for policy purposes. Energy J. 14, 245–256 (1993).
Shine, K., Fuglestvedt, J., Hailemariam, K. & Stuber, N. Alternatives to the global warming potential for comparing climate impacts of emissions of greenhouse gases. Climatic Change 68, 281–302 (2005).
Purohit, P. et al. Electricity savings and greenhouse gas emission reductions from global phase-down of hydrofluorocarbons. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 20, 11305–11327 (2020).
Wei, Y. M. et al. Self-preservation strategy for approaching global warming targets in the post-Paris Agreement era. Nat. Commun. 11, 1624 (2020).
Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2015). https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf
Rennert, K. et al. Comprehensive evidence Iimplies a higher social cost of CO2. Nature 610, 687–692 (2022).
Rennert, K. et al. The social cost of carbon: advances in long-term probabilistic projections of population, GDP, emissions, and discount rates. Brookings Pap. Econ. Act. 2021, 223–305 (2022).
Nordhaus, W. & Boyer, J. Warming the World: Economic Models of Global Warming (MIT Press, 2000).
Tol, R. Estimates of the damage costs of climate change. Part I: benchmark estimates. Environ. Resour. Econ. 21, 47–73 (2002).
Tol, R. Estimates of the damage costs of climate change. Part II: dynamic estimates. Environ. Resour. Econ. 21, 135–160 (2002).
Anthoff D, C., Hepburn & Tol, R. Equity weighting and the marginal damage costs of climate change. Ecol. Econ. 68, 836–849 (2009).
Hope, C., Anderson, J. & Wenman, P. Policy analysis of the greenhouse effect: sn application of the PAGE model. Energy Policy 21, 327–338 (1993).
Hope, C. The marginal impact of CO2 from PAGE2002: an integrated assessment model incorporating the IPCC’s five reasons for concern. Integr. Assess. J. 6, 19–56 (2006).
Hope, C. Optimal carbon emissions and the social cost of carbon under uncertainty. Integr. Assess. J. 8, 107–122 (2008).
Clarke, L. et al. International climate policy architectures: overview of the EMF 22 international scenarios. Energy Econ. 31, S64–S81 (2009).
Fawcett, A., Calvin, K., de la Chesnaye, F., Reilly, J. & Weyant, J. Overview of EMF 22 US transition scenarios. Energy Econ. 31, S198–S211 (2009).
Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866 (USG, 2010).
Marten, A. L., Kopits, E. A., Griffiths, C. W., Newbold, S. C. & Wolverton, A. Incremental CH4 and N2O mitigation benefits consistent with the US government’s SC-CO2 estimates. Clim. Policy 15, 272–298 (2015).
Velders, G. J. et al. In Special Report on Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System (eds Metz, B. et al.) Ch. 2 (IPCC and TEAP, 2005).
Heyes, C., Klimont, Z., Wagner, F. & Amann, M. Extension of the GAINS Model to Include Short-Lived Climate Forcers (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 2011).
Purohit, P. & Höglund-Isaksson, L. Global emissions of fluorinated greenhouse gases 2005–2050 with abatement potentials and costs. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 17, 2795–2816 (2017).
Wagner, F., Heyes, C., Klimont, Z. & Schöpp, W. The GAINS Optimization Module: Identifying Cost-Effective Measures for Improving Air Quality and Short-Term Climate Forcing (IIASA, 2013).
Myhre, G. et al. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T.F. et al.) Ch. 8 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
Ramaswamy, V. et al. In Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (eds Houghton, J.T. et al.) 349–416 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001).
IPCC Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report (eds Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K. & Reisinger, A.) (IPCC, 2007).
Smith, C. J. et al. FAIR v1.3: a simple emissions-based impulse response and carbon cycle model. Geosci. Model Dev. 11, 2273–2297 (2018).
Smith, C. et al. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) Ch. 7SM (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).
Forster, P. et al. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) Ch. 7 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).
Millar, R. J., Nicholls, Z. R., Friedlingstein, P. & Allen, M. R. A modified impulse–response representation of the global near-surface air temperature and atmospheric concentration response to carbon dioxide emissions. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 17, 7213–7228 (2017).
Meinshausen, M. et al. The shared socio-economic pathway (SSP) greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions to 2500. Geosci. Model Dev. 13, 3571–3605 (2020).
Leach, N. J. et al. FaIRv2.0.0: a generalized impulse response model for climate uncertainty and future scenario exploration. Geosci. Model Dev. 14, 3007–3036 (2021).
Hänsel, M. C. et al. Climate economics support for the UN climate targets. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 781–789 (2020).
American Innovation and Manufacturing Act S.1059 (USG, 2021); https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1059
Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (UN, 2016).
Clark, E. & Wagner, S. The Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol: HFC Phase-down (UNEP, 2016).
The Montreal Protocol Evolves to Fight Climate Change (UNIDO, 2017).
Bezanson, J., Edelman, A., Karpinski, S. & Shah, V. B. Julia: a fresh approach to numerical 830 computing. SIAM Rev. 59, 65–98 (2017).
Anthoff, D., Kingdon, C., Plevin, R., Rennels, L. & Rennert, K. Mimi: An Integrated Assessment Modeling Framework (Mimi, 2017); https://www.mimiframework.org/
Parthum, B., Rennels, L. & Tan, T. bryanparthum/schfc-paper: NCC Publication. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10081241 (2023).
Newell, R., Pizer, W. & Prest, B. A discounting rule for the social cost of carbon. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 9, 1017–1046 (2022).
Acknowledgements
The views expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and no official agency endorsement should be inferred. We thank F. Errickson, D. Anthoff, A. Marten, E. Kopits, C. Griffiths and D. Smith for their helpful feedback and interesting conversations.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
T.T. and B.P. developed the study idea and the application and implemented the modifications into the three MimiIWG integrated assessment models (DICE/FUND/PAGE). B.P. and L.R. developed and implemented the modifications to the MimiGIVE integrated assessment model. B.P. estimated the integrated assessment models. B.P. and L.R. developed the replication code and data. T.T., L.R. and B.P. contributed equally to evaluating the results and writing the paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Climate Change thanks Jiacan Yuan and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data
Extended Data Fig. 1 The Social Cost of Hydrofluorocarbons by IAM.
The direct estimates developed in this study are noticeably different under the USG approach (MimiIWG) compared to the updated GIVE model (MimiGIVE). The mean SC-HFCs (lines) from each of the underlying IAMs, along with their 5th to 95th percentile ranges (shaded ribbons), are shown, representing the distribution of estimated SC-HFC values over the 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations. The SC-HFCs from MimiIWG adopt a 3% constant discount rate, the USG’s central value, while MimiGIVE adopts a calibrated Ramsey-like framework with a near-term target discount rate of 2%, the central value in Ref. 27.
Extended Data Fig. 2 The Social Cost of Hydrofluorocarbons with MimiIWG-FaIR Pairing.
The estimates using the paired approach (MimiIWG-FaIR) differ from those using the USG approach (MimiIWG), although their relationship differs noticeably by gas. The mean SC-HFCs (lines) from each underlying approach, along with their 5th to 95th percentile ranges (shaded ribbons), are shown, representing the distribution of estimated SC-HFC values over the 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations. The SC-HFCs from MimiIWG and MimiIWG-FaIR adopt a 3% constant discount rate, the USG’s central value, while MimiGIVE adopts a calibrated Ramsey-like framework with a near-term target discount rate of 2%, the central value in Ref. 27.
Extended Data Fig. 3 Additional radiative forcing from 1 tonne pulse of hydrofluorocarbons in 2030.
Paths of additional radiative forcing for under MimiIWG are the result of the one-box model. The paths shown for MimiGIVE includes the mean (solid line) and the 5th to 95th percentile ranges (shaded ribbons) across 10,000 Monte Carlo Simulations that account for uncertainty underlying its simple climate model (FaIRv1.6.2). The x-axis of this plot spans the years 2025-2300 for a pulse of emissions in 2030.
Extended Data Fig. 4 The ratio of SC-HFC to global warming potential estimation.
Direct estimation of the social cost of greenhouse gases pairs time-dependent growth, total forcing, climate warming, damages, and discounting, allowing for more integrated estimates of the SC-HFCs. The ratio of GWP-based estimates to directly estimated SC-HFCs is estimated as \({ratio}={SC}C{O}_{2}{\rm{\times }}{GW}{P}^{{HFC}}/{SC}{HFC}\) and varies by HFC species and direct estimation methodology—underscoring the importance of the direct estimation of social costs and the suite of improvements contained within our modified MimiGIVE.
Extended Data Fig. 5 Kigali Amendment Hydrofluorocarbon Phasedown Schedule.
The Kigali Amendment defines different phasedown schedules for each of the four Article 5 groupings. Article 5 Group 1 countries have their baseline HFC production/consumption levels calculated from 2020-2022 averages and are required to reduce production/consumption starting in 2029, reaching 20% of baseline levels by 2045. Article 5 Group 2 countries have their baselines calculated from 2024-2026 averages and are expected to decrease production/consumption by 85% by 2047, starting reductions in 2028. Non-Article 5 parties have their baseline levels calculated from 2011-2013 averages and must reduce production/consumption by 85% by 2036. Reductions start in 2019 for Non-Article 5 Group 1 and 2020 for Non-Article 5 Group 2.
Extended Data Fig. 6 Hydrofluorocarbon emissions projections under various scenarios from Ref. 23.
HFC emissions were projected out to 2100 as per the methodology described in Ref. 23. Three scenarios are presented: emissions under a baseline, “business-as-usual” scenario, emissions under full compliance with the Kigali Amendment phasedown schedule and emissions under a maximum technologically feasible reduction schedule.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Discussion.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tan, T., Rennels, L. & Parthum, B. The social costs of hydrofluorocarbons and the benefits from their expedited phase-down. Nat. Clim. Chang. 14, 55–60 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01898-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01898-9