Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page
]]]]] IS SCIENCE, OR PRIVATE GAIN, DRIVING OZONE POLICY? [[[[[[
By George Melloan (12/17/1989)
[From The Wall Street Journal, 24 October 1989, p. A25:3]
[Kindly uploaded by Freeman 10602PANC]
Remember those bulky, thick-walled refrigerators of 30 years
ago? They, or at least something less efficient than today's
thin-walled units, may soon be making a comeback. That
something, whatever it is, could add as much as $100 to the $600
or so consumers now pay for lower-priced refrigerators.
These and other expensive changes in products ranging from
auto air conditioners to foam cushioning to commercial solvents
are in prospect because of something called the Montreal
Protocol, signed by 24 nations in 1987. In one of the most
sweeping environmental regulatory efforts to date -- involving
products with an annual value of $135 billion in the U.S. alone
-- the signatories agreed to curtail sharply the use of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Worldwide production would be cut in
half by 1998. The U.S. Senate liked the treaty so well it
ratified [July 1986] it by a vote of 89 to 0. Not to be outdone,
George Bush wants CFCs banished altogether by the year 2000, a
goal endorsed at an 80-nation U.N. environmental meeting in
Helsinki in the spring.
That's a lot of banishment, as it turns out. CFCs are the
primary ingredient in a gas, often referred to by the Du Pont
trade name Freon, which is compressed to liquid form to serve as
the cooling agent in refrigeration and air-conditioning
equipment. Gases containing CFCs are pumped into polyurethane to
make the foam used in pillows, upholstery and insulation.
Polyurethane foam is a highly efficient insulator, which accounts
for why the walls of refrigerators and freezers can be thinner
now than they were back in the days when they were insulated with
glass fiber.
But even though by some estimates it might cost the world as
much as $100 billion between now and the year 2000 to convert to
other coolants, foaming agents and solvents and to redesign
equipment for these less efficient substitutes, the Montreal
Protocol's legions of supporters say it is worth it. They insist
that CFCs are damaging the earth's stratospheric layer, which
screens out some of the sun's ultraviolet rays. Hence, as they
see it, if something isn't done earthlings will become ever more
subject to sunburn and skin cancer.
Peter Teagan, a specialist in heat transfer, is running a
project at Arthur D. Little Inc., of Cambridge, Mass., to find
alternative technologies that will allow industry to eliminate
CFCs. In addition to his interest in ozone depletion he has
extensively studies the related topic of global warming, a theory
that mankind's generation of carbon dioxide through increased
combustion of fossil fuels is creating a ``greenhouse effect''
that will work important climatic changes in the earth's
atmosphere over time.
``I would be the first to admit that there is not a complete
consensus in the scientific community on either one of these
problems,'' says Mr. Teagan. ``In the kind of literature I read
I come across countervailing opinions quite frequently. But the
nature of the problem is such that many others feel it has to be
addressed soon, before all the evidence is in. We can't afford
to wait.''
But does it have to be so soon? Some atmospheric scientist
think that even if CFCs were released into the atmosphere at an
accelerating rate, the amount of ozone depletion would be only
10% by the middle of the next century. It's easy to get
something comparable by simply moving to a higher altitude in the
U.S.
Moreover, there are questions, particularly among atmospheric
scientists who know this subject best, about the ability of
anyone to know what in fact is happening to the ozone layer. It
is generally agreed that when CFCs rise from earth to
stratosphere, the chlorine in them is capable of interfering with
the process through which ultraviolet rays split oxygen molecules
and form ozone. But ozone creation is a very large-scale natural
process and the importance of human-generated CFCs in reducing it
is largely a matter of conjecture. The ozone layer is constantly
in motion and thus very hard to measure. What scientists have
known since the late 1970s is that there is a hole in the layer
over Antarctica that expands or contracts from year to year. But
it is at least worthy of some note that there are very few
refrigerators in Antarctica. Moreover, surely someone has
noticed that household refrigerators are closed systems, running
for many years without either the CFC gas or the insulation ever
escaping.
Another argument of the environmentalists is that if
substitutes are available, why not use them? Mr. Teagan cites a
list of substitutes but none, so far, match the nonflammable,
nontoxic CFCs. Butane and propane can be used as coolants, for
example, but are flammable. Moreover, new lubricants will be
needed to protect compressors from the new formulations, which,
as with CFCs, are solvents. Mr. Teagan points out as well that
if the equipment designed to get along without CFCs is less
efficient than current devices, energy consumption will rise and
that will worsen the greenhouse effect. Folks in the Midwest who
just suffered a mid-October snowstorm may wonder where the
greenhouse was when they needed it, but let's not be flippant
about grave risks.
As it happens, Arthur D. Little is not at all interested in
throwing cold water on ozone depletion and global warming
theories. It is interested in making some money advising
industry on how to convert to a world without CFCs. There is,
after all, big money in environmentalism.
Maybe we should ask why it was that Du Pont so quickly
capitulated and issued a statement, giving it wide publicity,
that it was withdrawing CFCs. Freon, introduced in 1930,
revolutionized America by making refrigeration and air
conditioning practical after all. One answer is that big
companies are growing weary of fighting environmental movements
and are instead trying to cash in on them, although they never
care to put it quite that way. Du Pont, as it happens, has a
potential substitute for CFCs. Imperial Chemical Industries of
the U.K. also has one, and is building a plant in Louisiana to
produce it. Japanese chemical companies are at work developing
their own substitutes and hoping to conquer new markets, of
course.
There are still others who don't mind seeing new crises arise.
Environmental groups would soon go out of business were they not
able to send out mailings describing the latest threat and asking
for money to fight it. University professors and consultants
with scientific credentials saw a huge market for their services
evaporate when price decontrol destroyed the energy crisis [1972-
1980] and thus the demand for ``alternative energy.'' They
needed new crises to generate new grants and contracts.
In other words, environmentalism has created a whole set of
vested interests that fare better when there are many problems
than when there are few. That tends to tilt the public debate
toward ``solutions'' even when some of the most knowledgeable
scientists are skeptical of the seriousness of the threats and
the insistence of urgency. There is an element of make-work
involved.
Consumers pay the bill for all this in the price of a
refrigerator or an air-conditioned car. If they were really
getting insurance against environmental disaster, the price would
be cheap. But if there is no impending threat, it can get to be
very expensive.
* * *
Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page