Scientists Baffled By Unknown Source of Ozone-Depleting Chemical 303
schwit1 writes: Scientists have found that, despite a complete ban since 2007, ozone-depleting chemicals are still being pumped into the atmosphere from some unknown source. "Carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), which was once used in applications such as dry cleaning and as a fire-extinguishing agent, was regulated in 1987 under the Montreal Protocol along with other chlorofluorocarbons that destroy ozone and contribute to the ozone hole over Antarctica. Parties to the Montreal Protocol reported zero new CCl4 emissions between 2007-2012. However, the new research shows worldwide emissions of CCl4 average 39 kilotons (about 43,000 U.S. tons) per year, approximately 30 percent of peak emissions prior to the international treaty going into effect. "We are not supposed to be seeing this at all," said Qing Liang, an atmospheric scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study published online in the Aug. 18 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union. "It is now apparent there are either unidentified industrial leakages, large emissions from contaminated sites, or unknown CCl4 sources."
Easy, India or China (Score:4, Insightful)
Who else would, unapologetically, give the middle finger to the environment?
Old drums leak (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Easy, India or China (Score:1, Insightful)
I can think of a certain group of American Republicans who would do exactly that...
Re:Easy, India or China (Score:4, Insightful)
and I can think of a certain group of American Democrats who despite whatever noises they make at the end of the day are equally mega-corporate bitches same as the Republicans. Obama and 90% of Democrats in Congress for starters....
Re:Source is HVAC Contractors (Score:1, Insightful)
ensure blowing off straight to atmosphere every time.
Its a liquid. Please make arguments that at least show that you have a clue.
Re:Easy, India or China (Score:3, Insightful)
So why has every environmental initiative in the past 40 years been pushed by the Democrats and resisted by the Republicans?
Why did "mega-corporate bitch" Obama introduce new carbon emissions rules in June that will cost energy producers a fortune?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/02/us/politics/epa-to-seek-30-percent-cut-in-carbon-emissions.html
Re:Easy, India or China (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we just agree on greed being the culprit? Democrat, Republican, where's the difference? As long as there's money to be made by ignoring the law and as long as breaking a law and getting caught is cheaper than heeding it, greed trumps "doing the right thing" any time.
Re:Easy, India or China (Score:4, Insightful)
haha, under what president was the EPA created? and the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Environmental Pesticide Control Act, and the Endangered Species Act become law? DDT banned? why Tricky Dicky Richard Nixon, of course.
HW Bush made Clean Air Act tougher and that reduced acid rain and smog at the time
Obama is for fracking, some key Democrats just pulled support for anti-fracking laws, Obama allowed starting drilling in sensitive arctic areas, Obama caved in and didn't allow new smog/ozone levels as being too expensive on industry (even though Bush in 2008 made tough new ground level ozone/smog standards)
Re:china did it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No data, so choose your favorite villain (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Easy, India or China (Score:5, Insightful)
I can think of a certain group of American Republicans who would do exactly that...
Privately there are many Republicans that do believe in the scientific method and would like to see action on climate change but are reluctant to admit it because of fear of being labeled as traitors. On the Democratic camp there are many that realize that cap and trade, and so called "renewables" cannot be a complete solution to halting global warming but are simply afraid to support low or 0 carbon, but uncool power generation technologies, such as Nuclear for fear of being labeled the same.
Re:Easy, India or China (Score:4, Insightful)
Who controlled Congress for all of those things?
Re:Easy, India or China (Score:1, Insightful)
Easy.
Democrats are right-center moderately pro-buisness, socially liberal.
Republicans are corporate whores controlled by a handful of privately funded think tanks that are actively out to destroy the wealth, social mobility, rights, and lives of anyone who's not rich. They are literally trying to upturn the last few hundred years of social progress and establish a modern aristocracy. They use religion and fear-based propaganda to whip up an uneducated voter base. They are monsters. Manipulative. Amoral. Evil in the purest sense.
The former has problems that can be solved. The later will be the end of everything you love and hold dear.
Re:Easy, India or China (Score:5, Insightful)
So just because a bill is called the Clear Skies Act, you think it helps the environment and hurts corporations? Apparently you're the reason that consultants like Frank Luntz make the big bucks. My friend worked for him when he came up with that name. It was a total giveaway to corporate interests. That does nothing to contradict my post.
Nixon was much more centrist and pragmatic on a lot of issues than people remember. Also, that EPA bill was passed by a Democratic Congress. The GOP really started their anti-environment push with Reagan- who immediately had the solar panels removed from the White House. It went into high gear starting in 1994 with Newt Gingrich.
Re:Easy, India or China (Score:4, Insightful)
Democrat, Republican, where's the difference?
That was literally the entire point of my post that you're replying to.
Re:Easy, India or China (Score:4, Insightful)
Non of that actually makes any damn sense.
This stupid scientist make things up for money meme need to really fucking stop when every expert in the field agrees.
Fuck, you're stupid.
Re:Easy, India or China (Score:4, Insightful)
So why has every environmental initiative in the past 40 years been pushed by the Democrats and resisted by the Republicans?
Why did "mega-corporate bitch" Obama introduce new carbon emissions rules in June that will cost energy producers a fortune?
What happened to your brain in the 60 minutes between your posts? At first you extoll the virtues of the Democrats, and now you claim your original post is about Democrats and Rebulicans being the same. Do you see the discontinuity?
GP has it right. The US was built disregarding the damage we were doing to the environment. Now that we're on top, its easy for us to tell people not to do things. But if anyone else wants to get ahead, they're going to do it the cheap and easy way. Without some sort of alternative financial incentive, greed will drive countries to disregard the environment to ensure their industry evolves. While you can point at Democrats and Republicans and call them angels or devils, the rest of the world is going to do what they want with regards to the environment (and there are a lot more of them than there are of us).
Re:Easy, India or China (Score:5, Insightful)
The Government is basically the worst possible nightmare-scenario giant monopoly evil corporation you can imagine.
Here in the UK, our government has taken steps to prevent there being a monopoly ISP. They didn't start a government-run ISP, they just regulated things to prevent a monopoly. And... it worked. Not all government intervention means shifting things from the private to the public sector. If anything, I imagine there are now more ISP jobs than there would be with a monopoly.
Also, we don't have to suffer truly godawful ISPs, the way you do in the US, which is nice.
But no, you'll go on believing all that government does is evil (that might not be such a worry if it weren't for that your system allows payments that would be classified as bribery in damn near any other country, btw), and that there's no better way to run a country than by letting corporations screw over the average person.
Re:From the wikipedia (Score:4, Insightful)
Industry is much better than individuals at handling chemicals safely.