They're definitely potent but I don't know how the total emitted mass compares to CO2, or how their atmospheric lifespans affect the impact. I would bet the inf

They're definitely potent but I don't know how the total emitted mass compares to CO2, or how their atmospheric lifespans affect the impact. I would bet the information is out there and has already been analyzed in IPCC reports or peer-reviewed studies. But the writing can be quite dense and I don't have time at the moment to do more than skim the documents that turn up in search. Given how they're constantly referred to as transition chemicals in reference to the banning of CFCs, I would expect that the warming potential of HCFCs is regarded as dangerous but necessary, and therefore a bad outcome but less bad than continued degradation of the ozone layer. FWIW, this document indicates that failing to abate the emission of methane, black carbon aerosols, ozone, and HFCs (note, a bigger class of gases than merely HCFCs) will result in an extra 0.5 degree C of warming by 2100. But I'm not sure what proportion of that belongs to each substance individually. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15112799/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15112799/