Halon dumps: a data point

From: Eric J. Korpela <korpela_at_ellie.ssl.berkeley.edu>
Date: Thu Sep 14 19:17:10 2000

> Eric J. Korpela wrote:
> > We might not know exactly what the effects of pumping vast amounts of CO2
> > into the atmosphere will be, but we know there will be effects. Isn't that
> > a good enough reason to exercise caution?
>
> No. It's unlikely that we simply stop producing CO2. More likely we
> replace processes that produce CO2 with processes that produce other
> waste products.

Not quite. The main trick is to stop using sources of carbon dioxide that
are outside of the carbon cycle. Once you get to renewable hydrocarbon
sources, the CO2 problem goes away.

> The environmental impact of those other waste products
> is even *less* understood.

Hell, even nuclear is better than fossil fuels. (A fairly simple risk
assesment shows that nuclear power plants save a lot of lives.)

> > I think you also underestimate the quality of the data regrading the effects
> > of stratospheric chlorine compounds on the ozone layer. No one claims
> > that it is the only thing affecting ozone concentrations, but very few
> > would deny that it is having an effect.
>
> Some of them do deny that it's having an effect. The actual measurements
> do not back up the claim that decreased use of CFCs will reduce the ozone
> hole.

Nor do the measurements indicate that decreased use of CFCs will not reduce
ozone depletion. The link between antarctic ozone depletion and CFC emissions
is pretty well established by in-situ measurements. The effects at lower
latitude are not so obvious. There is no data corresponding to decreased
CFC use given that the effects of decreased CFC use will take 20-30
years to show up in the ozone levels.

> The point isn't that the hypothesis is wrong, but that it's not sufficiently
> tested, and that there is in fact counterevidence. So it's foolish to
> rush out and change from using CFCs with well-known properties to other
> chemicals with less known effects.

The "counterevidence" is probably wishful thinking. Antarctic ozone levels
have been dropping since the 70s, the reactants and the catalysts have been
measured in-situ, and the link to CFCs is well established. Researchers
don't even use "may" in their papers, prefering to now use statements like
"The depletion is caused chiefly by ozone reacting chemically with chlorine
and bromine from industrially manufactured gases."

I promise this my final entry to this discussion. I'm sorry I couldn't let
the rants of those who feel differently go unopposed. My next message will
be about a broken jumper wire on the one of the boards in my Tandy 6000.

Eric
Received on Thu Sep 14 2000 - 19:17:10 BST