Thus, server farms and datacenters around the world—spaces most people never see—are equipped with protective systems most people rarely think about, full of substances most people have never heard of. Like so many sustainability challenges, this one is largely invisible.

HFCs are man-made compounds used in refrigeration, air conditioning, insulating foam, aerosols, medical devices, semiconductors, solvent cleaning, and fire suppression systems.In fire suppression systems, they are a replacement for halons, the ozone-depleting substances (ODS) commonly used before their production was regulated under the Montreal Protocol, which entered into force in 1989. Composed of hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon, HFCs do not contain bromine or chlorine, and as such do not destroy the ozone layer. Like halons, they are relatively inexpensive and suppress fire without damaging equipment (such as computers and electronics), or halting essential processes or services (such as emergency response/911 call centers), or causing immediate harm to people. HFCs are common in fixed-system, building-integrated applications like the sprinkler-head systems in offices and apartment buildings. While HFCs have certain characteristics that make them effective coolants and fire suppressors, they also absorb infrared radiation very effectively so that even small amounts can have a significant global warming impact.

There is little doubt that the economic performance of HFC systems is compelling. But the potential climate impacts are real, and the level of uncertainty around the ability to control HFC emissions from such systems is significant. Moreover, effective, commercially competitive alternatives exist. Consumed as we are with the dangerous rates of emissions from fossil fuels and deforestation, the HFCs in fire protection systems may seem like a footnote in the global struggle to avert climate disruption and disaster for humanity. But they are an avoidable footnote—a pollutant that we can eliminate with very little personal sacrifice in our daily lives, and a relatively low cost to industry.  Under the pending climate regulations currently being considered by Congress, the production and consumption of HFCs, often referred to as “super greenhouse gases,” would  be phased down.  But those that are being used as ODS replacements are set aside from the other greenhouse gases in a separate pool with its own system for allocating, auctioning,and phasing down the number of rights to consume them. Starting in 2012 and ending in 2032, HFC consumption will be reduced 85 percent below a baseline of the average consumption in 2004 – 2006.¹ The primary motivation for doing this is to subdue fears that including specific types of HFCs used in refrigeration and air-conditioning applications in the broader pool would be too costly, and these costs would be passed on to households. Although alternatives exist, some claim that they could not be made immediately available on the necessary scale and at affordable prices—a subject of ongoing current debate.

The HFCs used in fire protection systems—primarily HFC-227ea—are lumped into this same group as those for refrigerationand air conditioning, and set aside from the general pool, despite the fact that commercially viable alternatives are already competing in the market. Because these HFCs would be regulated as one broad group with an overall limit, and HFCs for fire suppression are a comparatively small percentage of that group, the industry anticipates that there will be access to sufficient credits even after the 85 percent reduction in supply, and that associated cost increases will be modest and unlikely to influence customer demand.² The alternatives to HFCs could virtually eliminate the need for their continued consumption in fire suppression immediately, but it’s expected that including them in this special group will have minimal effect in reducing their production, consumption,and ultimately their release into the atmosphere.

On September 15, 2009, the U.S. State Department announced that, along with Canada and Mexico, it supported amending the Montreal Protocol to cover HFCs.3 The Montreal Protocol is often cited as the most successful internationalenvironmental agreement. The industries affected by HFC regulations are largely the same as those that dealt with the ozone depletion threat and are familiar with the Montreal Protocol. Avoiding the potential confusion and delays of reducing the use of HFCs through climate legislation and international climate agreements by instead amending the Montreal Protocol to cover HFCs is the most direct and likely the most effective route to take.

For HFCs in fire suppression the Montreal Protocol option is a no-brainer. The alternatives exist at acceptable cost-premiums that will come down further over time. With regard to other HFC applications, like air conditioning and refrigeration, alternatives also exist, although in some cases their commercialization has been delayed due to industry inertia and a lack of clear incentives and price signals to drive these innovations to market.4 But for all HFCs, the clear constraints provided by the Montreal Protocol will drive investment and innovation and lead to superior products and performance. This is particularly necessary as huge segments of the world’s population (e.g. China and India) demand more of the air conditioners and refrigerators, cars and fire suppression systems that use HFCs. With their outsized global warming impact, failing to take advantage of the opportunity to leapfrog a massive distribution of these substances in the developing world would be a costly and potentially catastrophic mistake.

The Big Picture

Our global society faces an unprecedented challenge—and opportunity—of redesigning and recreating the systems we use to satisfy our needs. Simply put, our current systems—energy systems, industrial systems, transportation systems, building systems, agriculture systems, etc.—are not sustainable. They are designed in such a way that they are systematically undermining the social and ecological systems upon which our civilization depends. The complex process that is undermining our social and natural systems is like a disease with many interrelated symptoms, each of which is complex in its own right: climate change, terrorism, deforestation, poverty, topsoil loss, failed states, toxins, cancer epidemic, hyper-consumerism, depression, and on and on.

The root causes of these symptoms of the underlying ‘unsustainability disease’ can be articulated in four basic categories of activities that collectively undermine the social and ecological systems upon which we depend:

1. Systematically increasing concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth’s crust (e.g. heavy metals, fossil fuels, etc.) in natural systems;

2. Systematically increasing concentrations of substances produced by society (e.g. CFCs, DDT, HFCs, etc.) in natural systems;

3. Systematically increasing degradation of natural systems by physical means (e.g. deforestation, overfishing, paving, etc.);

4. Systematically undermining people’s capacity to meet their needs (e.g. exploitative labor, unfair trade agreements, abuses of power, etc.).⁵ *

By stating these activities in the negative, they turn into four “principles for sustainability” that an individual, an organization, a community, or an entire industry can use and aspire to for “success” in terms of sustainability. In other words, only by not contributing to systematic degradation of natural systems and human communities can we create a sustainable society.When an organization, such as a company in the fire suppression business, works to systematically eliminate its contributions—both direct and indirect, now and in the future—in all four of these aspects, it moves toward “sustainability.” The collective impact of all organizations, groups, and individuals moving toward sustainability is the only way to shift our current unsustainable systems to a sustainable future. The good news is that we can generate unprecedented opportunities for innovation and creativity in the process. By developing more effective ways to satisfy our needs we will be able to lead more fulfilling lives without compromising the ability of future generations to do the same.

 Emissions and Impact

There are six major greenhouse gases (GHGs) that are covered under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol, including hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) (see figure 1). To enable “apples-to-apples” comparison, these substances are measured in tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) units, based on their relative global warming potentials (GWP) over a 100-year time period. Carbon dioxide is the benchmark with a GWP of 1. Others are shown in Figure 1.

In other words, emitting one metric ton of HFC-227ea (the most common HFC used in fixed systems) has about the same contribution to global warming as emitting 3,220 metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere (considering a time-horizon of 100 years). However, in the case of HFC-227ea, which has a lifespan of 34.2 years, spreading out its impact over 100 years yields a deceptively low figure—its GWP over a 20-year time horizon is 5,310.⁶

When evaluating the potential climate impact of emissions of HFCs from fire suppression systems there are two important points to consider. First, HFCs represent a relatively small portion of total GHG emissions. While available data is far from perfect, most estimates put the current contribution at less than 3 percent. However, they are projected

to grow considerably over the next 40 years as they continue to replace ozone-depleting substances like CFCs and HCFCs. A recent study suggests that by 2050 global HFC emissions could be from 9 percent to 19 percent of projected CO2 emissions in business-as-usual scenarios; and could be as high as from 28 percent to 45 percent of  projected CO2 emissions in a scenario where atmospheric CO2 is stabilized at 450 parts per million.7 Second, although it is difficult to accurately measure emissions for HFCs from fire suppression systems, it is clear that they represent only a small fraction of total HFC emissions: less than 1 percent or 2 percent. So, estimated HFC emissions from fire suppressionare on the order of less than 1 one-thousandth of 1 percent of current total GHG emissions.

Bucket Full of Drops

Clean agents in fire suppression systems are only released into the atmosphere (i.e. emitted) in a few, often difficult to account for situations: (1) when a fire occurs and the system fulfills its purpose to suppress it; (2) when an accidental discharge occurs; (3) when there are leakages during the installation or transport of the agent; and/or (4) when a building is destroyed or changes use or ownership and the agent is released instead of being properly recycled or destroyed (through negligence, ignorance, or willful efforts to avoid costs).

Unlike most other GHG emissions, such as CO2 from burning fossil fuels or industrial gases from manufacturing processes, these events that emit HFCs from fire suppression systems are relatively infrequent and hence emissions rates seem relatively low, for now. But given there are no clear systems of accountabilityfor recapturing and destroying these HFCs at the end of their useful life, it is necessary to consider and account for not only the emissions, but also the entire installed base of HFCs in fire suppression systems. Some industry observers believe that it is safe to assume that capture and reuse or destruction of HFCs will occur as a result of normal market forces and industry culture,⁸ but others contend that even with controls in place such as cost incentives and enforcement, there is a significant risk that a large percentage of the installed base will eventually be released into the atmosphere, citing anecdotal evidence from the case halons in Europe and Australia.⁹

It remains to be seen if a sufficiently robust system can be designed to control these emissions, but without such a system, and in observance of the precautionary principle, we must assume that a significant portion of the installed base will be emitted within a time frame relevant to the climate crisis (50 – 100 years). In 2005, the total installed base globally was estimated to be within the range of 26,360 – 43,321 metric tons of HFCs, which translates to an emission potential of 82 – 126 million metric tons of CO2e¹⁰—the equivalent of adding 7,192,982 – 11,052,631 Hummers to the roads for a year.¹¹

This installed base represents a sustainability liability for society as a whole given the potential social, economic, and environmental costs associated with it, but it also represents a financial liability for individual property owners. Last year, a high-profile case in Vancouver, British Columbia made this reality all too clear. A well-known Vancouver figure purchased a property with a vacant industrial building before learning that 3,810 kilograms of ozone-depleting Halon 1301 had been discharged via its fire suppression system days before while under the previous ownership. Because the building was vacantduring the move, no one was there to abort the discharge during a false alarm. Still, the new owner was charged and could face $1.2 million in fines.¹²