Interlinear to the Executive Summary

“As the world warms, and as incomes and populations grow, demand for cooling is rapidly growing and it is increasingly being recognized as a critical service. People need cooling to protect themselves from rising temperatures and to keep food fresh, vaccines viable and economies viable.”

The second sentence is conceptually incomplete and irrelevant. The first sentence justifies the need for the report, if the rapid growth cited was quantified and the recognition for the need for cooling is now a global recognition and demand, thus a UN problem. Any modern era human knows that environmental impact will then rise precipitously, but maybe say it to introduce the following two graphs.

[The next three paragraphs are unnecessary committee-babble. Anyone reading this sort of report would generally know the information (and the caveats on the information) and also what is being left unsaid in those paragraphs. I can just imagine the squabbling over that wording, when it should have been left out of an Executive Summary.]

1. Graph of actual/forecast global cooling demand over time, broken out by developed world/developing world.
2. Graph of cooling tech contributions to global air pollution over time actual/forecast, broken out by category of pollutant SO2/NOx/CO2/PM2.5.

I assume both of these graphs will show dramatic global growth over the next few decades.

“Integrated action is needed in three key areas:

1) Passive strategies to address extreme heat and reduce cooling demand in buildings and in the cold chain.

2) Higher energy efficiency standards and norms for cooling equipment.

3) A phase down of climate-warming hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants at a faster rate than is required under the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, while improving the energy efficiency of cooling equipment.”

“Integrated” has no meaning in this context. What isn’t “integrated”? Only these three key areas? A few words on the need for immediate funding of science and engineering R&D should be part of this Executive Summary, along with indigenous manufacturing and training of local populations in current and new technologies. A fourth key area? A key area that would lead to direct middle-term benefits for many millions of sweltering people.

Is a “strategy” an “action”? Do they mean developing and implementing a strategy? This would be a place to put in words that were wasted in the three paragraphs describing features of the strategy or the development process to develop the strategy.

The same criticism applies for “standards” and “norms”. A few more words about how these are to be developed globally (and met) would be a great contribution. Affordability/reliability/maintainability requirements of the more efficient equipment (especially in developing countries) is nowhere mentioned. BTW, what’s a “norm” in this context?

Phasing out CFCs at a faster rate is a proposed concrete action, great. While improving efficiency of deployed systems in an affordable manner, umm, what makes you think that is feasible? That question should be answered with a few words explaining why it is now eminently feasible to do both at the same time. New enabling technology, scientific discovery, slave labor in manufacturing? And isn’t the efficiency improvement proposal here the same as the second efficiency proposal?

I’m so glad I’m not creating these sorts of documents anymore.