Was the CFC Scare a Scam?

After spending Billions and Billions of Dollars?

This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.
The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago2 (see graphic). If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.
Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum
is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. “Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart,” says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.
“Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely,” agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. “Now suddenly it’s like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.” …

So now 20 years after CFC’s have been banned there’s some doubt as to the science that led them to be banned. Now to be honest I was always skeptical of the science behind that because it’s my nature to be so when they use scare tactics to sell their theories.
Suppose that this research stand up and it turns out that this was all a bunch of whale dung. Who’s responsible for the fraud? The scientists that predicted it? The politicians that jumped on the bandwagon? The international nanny-staters?
The fact is that the costs of banning CFC’s probably amounted to hundreds of Billions of dollars. (I made the number up). If this research shows that we were misled then those people responsible should be asked to come up with the cash to make it right.

Tags: ,


«
»
  • http://Array robert108

    Absolutely true, DD. In fact, the Third World fallout was probably and unintended result of the DDT ban; the real target was the USA.

  • robert108

    kbiel: I think the real agenda of environmentalism is not to do anything about the environment, but to damage technology and Western free-enterprise economics. They have already succeeded with the ban on R12. It almost doesn’t matter that the truth has been revealed. They will simply go on to something else, like “global warming”, for instance. Oh, wait! That’s already happened.

  • docdave

    DDT scam revisited in another substance. I agree, robert, virtually all eco causes are scams. Proves the old saying that the way to hell is paved with good intentions.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    I think that it would start in some country and snowball from there. It’s the better mousetrap thing.

  • robert108

    First, R-134A is not a blended refrigerant, it is 1,1,2,2 tetrafluoroethane (F2H1C – F2HC). R-22 is being replaced by R-410A which is a blend of R-32 &
    R-125.

    It might interest you to know that R410A is a better refrigerant than R22A; in fact, SEER levels higher than 13 are only possible by using R410A. On the other hand, R12 is a better refrigerant than R134.
    R22A and R410A are used in home air conditioning, while R12 and R134 are used in auto air conditioning and in refrigerators and freezers.

  • 2Hotel9

    Funny part is that our agri industry was boosted by the DDT ban. It is the poor of the 3rd world who are being murdered by the environazis. And yet we refuse to hold these murdering fucks accountable for their crimes against humanity.

    Exactly why is that?

  • robert108

    If ever we get over this stupid CFC scare, the market will decide what is most cost effective.

    Only if the restrictive regulations are removed. That’s the difficult part.

  • dn0121

    You can get a seer higher then 13 with R22. Look at the Trane SL19i. Hishgest seer of 19 and its running R22.

  • robert108

    Greg: After many years of denial and obstruction, the CFC ban may go away. If you’re still alive by then, you might be able to get R12, but it will be very expensive. I remember when you could get a 12 ounce can of it for 99 cents.
    The real goal of environmentalism is to make technology so expensive we can’t afford it.

  • Greg

    You mean I’ll be able to put R12 back in the older cars? That R134 blended refrigerant is so finnicky, not knowing whether it wants to be a liquid or a gas.

  • robert108

    Glue: My point was that, even though R22 is still available, an increase in minimum SEER will effectively remove it before the deadline. Could be next year.

  • robert108

    While 410A is a better mousetrap, it also runs at a much higher pressure which tends to lend
    itself to more fugitive emmissions, compressor failures etc. given the choice, I’d rather stay with R22.

    Well, you can talk tradeoffs, and the problems with R410A that you list are all solvable with increased technology, but if minimum SEER goes to 14 or more, R22 will be off the market.
    Personally, I don’t buy the environmental scareology, but the govt does.

  • robert108

    Was the CFC Scare a Scam?

    Maybe that’s the wrong question. Maybe we should be asking if any environmental “causes” are not scams.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com/ Bike Bubba

    Probably good to define what we mean by a “better” refridgerant. One could theoretically maintain an arbitrarily high efficiency ratio (e.g. SEER) with just about any compound with a liquid to gas phase change, and what we’re really getting at with a “good” compound is that it does so at a reasonable temperature and pressure vs. where we live.

    And Gluemanchu, well put on how ill-chosen regulations can simply move emissions from one nation to another. One warning for you; you’re coming awfully close to what I’d have to guess is disclosing your company’s confidential information, and your employer might be able to track you down via IP address.

    You make a great point; I just don’t want to see you fired for it.

  • robert108

    kbiel: Very good point, but I’m not so optimistic about making the change quickly. Even though the silicone breast implant scare was revealed to be a big lie, it took years to implement reintroducing them, and they have never regained their market share.

  • kbiel

    Secondly even if R-12 were okayed, not many companies would want to invest the capital in it when they’ve invested so much capital $$ in the replacements.

    I know that this is an academic exercise as the environuts will never admit that any of their sacred cows might be a worthless idol (DDT, anthropogenic global warming, holes in the ozone, endangered species, etc.), but let me say this. If ever we get over this stupid CFC scare, the market will decide what is most cost effective. If R12 has significant savings in manufacturing and handling costs over R134a or anything they have in the research pipeline now, you can bet that car manufacturers will switch back in a heartbeat.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com/ Bike Bubba

    Keep in mind here that what the article says is that it’s possible that the rate of ozone destruction is about 10x less from R12 and other “light” CFCs than earlier believed. So they’re still saying that there is an effect, but it’s not as big as they believed earlier.

    I actually took a look at the data, and here’s what it said IMO:

    1. They do have soundings of CFC levels (not just Cl2O2) into the stratosphere, and they are consistent with diffusion of a heavy molecule upwards; exponentially less as you go upwards. CFCs are getting up there.

    2. The soundings of ozone levels do indicate a decline; the hypothesis is not without support, though it’s been a short time period.

    At any rate, we’ll get a repeal and an apology about the same time we get the same for DDT and other things. Keep a watch on the weather in Hell if you’re hopefull.

  • robert108

    kbiel: Since I have no way of determining whether you meant it or not, I tend to assume you meant it unless you indicated otherwise. My mindreading program is down right now. /humor

  • kbiel

    Greg: After many years of denial and obstruction, the CFC ban may go away.

    I know how we can make the CFC scare go away immediately. All we have to do is point out how replacing CFCs with “safer” refrigerants and propellants causes us to use more fossil fuels. We already know that R134a is less efficient than R12. Just think about how much extra gasoline has been burned and how much extra evil CO2 has been emitted since all cars were switched over to R134a in the mid 90s.

  • kbiel

    Of course, r108. I’m not that naive. That was typed with tongue planted firmly in cheek.

  • docdave

    I think the real agenda of environmentalism is not to do anything about the environment, but to damage technology and Western free-enterprise economics.

    While partially true, that isn’t the entire picture. i.e. the banning of DDT mostly affected 3rd world countries where malaria is rampant. I believe the ‘real’ real agenda of the environ wackos is the elimination of us wasteful beings from the planet. They want the global populations to be drastically smaller and what is left of humanity after the population reduction eking out an existance stone age style.

  • robert108

    That should be: “an unintended result…” It was meant to cripple our agriculture industry.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    Secondly even if R-12 were okayed, not many companies would want to invest the capital in it when they’ve invested so much capital $$ in the replacements.

    I think you are mistaken there. All it takes is one company who’s willing to invest in a cheaper more effective technology. If one business in one part of the world were to start manufacturing the world would beat a path to their door.

  • The Quadfather

    The point is not whether R22 is more or less efficient than R401, but that just about every business and home in Ammerica and the world uses R22. The replacement costs would be tremendous, and many would resort to unsafe flammable refrigerants. We need the ban lifted as well as the stupid licensing requirements. Let us all write to our congress critters.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000063054320 Jim Simonin

    I remember the issues with holes in the atmosphere, but I also remember that DuPont’s patents on R-12 where about to expire! Hey feed felonious information to enough attorneys and you have a congressional action in the brewing. Look up the efficiencies for R-134a vs. R-12, if I recall correctly you’ll find the R-134a heat exchangers had to be larger to handle the same heat load. As many say, “Follow the money”! Want to invest in carbon tax credits? Maybe true science doesn’t lie but politicians sure know how to work any situation to their advantage.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development