At 14:04 11-06-1998 -0500, somebody wrote (I think it was Bob Allen):
>
>3) Although not produced (much) anymore, R12 <snip>
NOT TRUE!
It is my understanding that developing countries (including e.g., China)
are exempt from ALL the limiting measures on R12 (etc) production and
distribution, under the relevant (Tokyo? Montreal?) treaties. They WILL
produce it, as it is cheaper.
+++
[rant mode ON]
I think this is OUTRAGEOUS!
Just try to imagine how many refrigerators will be marketed into China in
the coming
ten years.
Assume that there are one billion Chinese.
Assume that there are a negligible number of fridges there at all, nowadays,
as the majority of the people are still poor.
Assume therefore that about two hundred million will be produced locally, of
course.
Meaning about 200,000,000 litres of R12 will be produced there in the future?
These will all use R12, as this is cheap and production and use is NOT
forbidden under the treaties.
The same applies to India and, probably in a far lesser extent, Indonesia etc.
In twenty years, the same will apply to Africa.
+++
IMHO, this is where politicians should be much more concerned about AFTER
R12 has been
outlawed locally.
Much more result is to be obtained from preventing others (other countries)
to make the same mistake WE (in the industralized world) may already have made.
After all, we're still talking about ONE AND THE SAME ozone layer.
What's the POINT of being overly anal-retentive about the remaining quantity
of R12 in our fridges, a/c etc. when we KNOW for sure that a MULTITUDE of that
quantity will be produced AND released eventually into the atmosphere over
the coming years?
+++
Only a few years ago, I was in Buenos Aires, Argentina. By coincidence,
this was during the Mardi Gras season. Children dressed up and guised like
cats (hmmm.. a cat thread again on the MG list? :-)) like everywhere else in
the world.
Part of the fun was to spray each other liberally with artificial snow (in
honour of
"Rey Momo", [King Snow?] Admittedly, my American Spanish is not THAT well so
that I didn't fully grasp it).
Spray cans with artificial snow were sold for about $1 by the 10,000s by
sellers on the streets. I picked up an empty one to read what had been in there.
The spray can said SHAMELESSLY something like:
"Propellant: Freon; 10% of the contents".
I was flabbergasted!
This was only a few years ago, but YEARS AFTER the Montreal treaty!
How about some environmental control, guys?
+++
One of the U.S. presidents said once, very memorably: "I am NOT a crook".
I would like to point out that I am (not a US president, of course..., and)
NOT a chemical engineer and NOT a meteorologist and NOT a physisicist (sp?).
Quite frankly, when the ozone layer is concerned, I may safely admit that I
really know virtually NOTHING about it. And I'm probably not the only one.
I think it is OK to assume that OPINIONS presented to the general public by
our politicians are not always the FACTS that they are presented as.
I'm only an engineer. I appreciate the fact that building a calculation model of
the climate is very difficult and that the outcome may be uncertain.
However, IMHO people, including (but not solely) politicians are repeating
what they hear about the environment like PARROTS without ever
THINKING if it is true what they are saying.
A captain of industry here in Holland said once: "The environment is no longer
a PROBLEM over here, it has is by now become a RELIGION". I tend to agree.
In this respect you may, at least over here, have as little freedom of
expression as
on the subject of religion when you happen to live in Iran!
Two examples:
1. The Black Forest, nearby in Germany (with GREAT roads, REALLY to
enjoy driving an MG) has problems with deforestation (at least,
isolated parts. I managed to drive through the BF in my MGB
a full day WITHOUT seeing the terrible sights as seen on TV).
Acid rain is the stated cause, originating from air pollution
[probably mainly from neighbouring Eastern Europe, where
environmental control is simply unknown until recently].
OK, now this is the generally accepted opinion; pollution is the cause
of the problem. Very welcome for the relevant single-issue
political parties etc.
Then, a historian discovers that the same problem has existed earlier;
about 200 years ago.
Note this was before the Industrial Revolution so the stated cause
(air pollution from cars, industry etc.) CAN NOT have been true THEN
AND probably it isn't even the cause NOW.
Environmentalists are AWFULLY quiet about this embarassing discovery.
"It simply "CAN'T be true. Must be an error in the historical research".
2. There is a hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole. This is monitored.
A few years ago, it is discovered that the size of this hole has diminished.
Environmentalists are AWFULLY quiet about this embarassing discovery.
"It simply CAN'T be true. Must be a measurement error".
So, I advise everyone to be critical about this or any other issue and NOT
to accept
as the plain truth everything you hear and see.
Having said that, it's probably best to err on the safe side and take the
measures
that are likely to have the most effect.
And then to look at your neigbour, of course.
Banning R12 for NEW applications may be fine, but there's no point in being
overly
concerned about disposal of the remaining quantities when new R12 factories
will still be built in China etc.
The first part of environmental control is always the cheapest.
E.g. Removing 95% of emissions may cost you 50%, removing the remaining 5%
may cost you the other 50%.
What is not always appreciated by politicians is that it is IMHO wiser to
spend the second half of the available budget to help your poor neighbour
(read: India, China, Mexico, Poland, whatever) control his 95% rather than
spend it on your last 5%.
+++
I'm 45, I've seen crises come and go, like e.g. the Energy Crisis of the
Seventies.
That has totally gone, nothing left of it nowadays.
IMHO it is best to err on the safe side.
At best, we are doing the right thing controlling CFC's, at worst, we will
be doing something to be laughed about later in the history books!
Something like the Prohibition in the 1920s (or the RIDICULOUS debates at
the beginning of this century in the U.S. Congress about the introduction of
the distribution of
electrical power: Should it be AC or DC?)
+++
[rant mode OFF]
Sorry guys and gals, had to get this off my chest.
YMMV.
Bert
who is just an engineer; not DISHONEST enough to be a politician!
|