8 ms·

Ozone-Depleting Compound Persists, NASA Research Shows

80 points by happyscrappy 12y ago

coder5 12y ago
= China?
userbinator 12y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be China - you can still buy huge barrels of CCl4 from there, at the usual extremely cheap prices.
- josealicarte 12y ago
  why china?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - baq 12y ago
    china industrial sector doesn't care about the environment, their employees or anything at all other than profit.
    - couchdive 12y ago
      Neither does the industrial sector in the Unites States, but thats why sometimes,regulation is important.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    Not OP, but: rapid development, poor regulatory oversight, and a markedly chequered record when it comes to environmental considerations.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      Like it was everywhere else in the now developed world. This is a huge problem, we are so quick to tell others that they can not walk the same road to riches that we did (by polluting the environment with abandon). But that's creating an artificial moat which will simply lengthen the period that non-affluent countries will remain that way. This serves us in all kinds of ways and is actually quite unfair. I don't have a way out of this but I feel there is something quite wrong with telling a country that has some natural resource that they can't deplete it (after depleting our own natural resources) and telling a country that is polluting like mad that they shouldn't do that either (after we did that ourselves and have reaped the benefits of it). Tough problems.
      - tomelders 12y ago
        I don't think it's unfair to impose these rules on developing nations. We have to learn from our mistakes. The industrial revolution may be the only template we have for a developed nation, but there are other routes. I can imagine a world where comparable levels of investment in Education can deliver deliver on the promises of industrialisation without as many of the "bad bits".
        arrrg 12y ago
        Yeah, exactly! The poor have to learn from our mistakes and pay for them! How very, very fair.
        tomelders 12y ago
        I see your point, but I don't think the fairness you want is really fair. I have to ask the question; fair for who? Firstly, the world didn't forge ahead with the industrial revolution in spite of the environmental costs. No one was initially aware of those costs. Now we are, and there's a push for everyone to change their tactics. I think it's fair that everyone has to change, but I acknowledge that it's a bit unfair that the west got to profit on those mistakes. But that's just life. Developing nations now have real solid data on the environmental damage an industrial revolution will inflict not only on their part of the world, but the world as a whole. Is it fair to ask them to factor that new knowledge into their plans? Maybe it's not exactly fair, but it's a reasonable request I think. But then what about a child born today? Is it fair for that child to grow up in a world where the air they will breath becomes more dangerous with each passing second, even though the adults of today know what they are doing and have it in their power to not do it? I think that's unfair. And it's not like China's industrialisation has helped all Chinese. It's helped a few people. Is it fair that all citizens of Shanghai should suffer the health effects of the pollution generated as a result of 1 persons endeavour to maximise a profit? I don't see it. This is not to say it's a black and white issue. Someone somewhere has to get a rough deal. This sadly is the world we've created for ourselves, and the rules we've decided to live by. It's not fair.
- atlantic 12y ago
  Chine is the biggest climate polluter in absolute terms; but per capita, the US and Australia are way ahead, so maybe you should include them in your list of likely candidates.
  - jokoon 12y ago
    climate polluter, yes, but there are many other types of pollution.
  - sjtrny 12y ago
    The regulatory conditions in US/AU are a lot stricter than in China. The pollution per person is higher in these countries but it that pollution is unlikely to contain PFCs.
  - calibraxis 12y ago
    Yes, in terms of actually solving the problem, we should also see where China's customers/influencers come from. Countries can (and do) demand that other countries have certain working standards and regulations. On pain of tariff or sanction. A lot of my goods come from basically slave labor and polluters. They have a competitive advantage over companies who don't, so garbage floats and takes over. Countries are complicit when they support or benefit from other countries which do this.
    - dsirijus 12y ago
      Extremely insightful. The blame is on all of us, even if the pollution did in fact leak from China (fact about which we have no clue about yet). This is exactly the sort of thing where we're all in it, hands dirtied, want it or not.
- sjtrny 12y ago
  Don't forget India, home of the worlds worst industrial disaster: Bhopal.
  - harryf 12y ago
    Don't forget that Union Carbide was responsible for the disaster, who have their HQ in Houston.
    - dunmalg 12y ago
      Multinational businesses aren't that simple. The Bhopal plant was owned by the Indian subsidiary of Union Carbide, UCIL, which was half owned by Union Carbide, and half owned by the Indian government. Among the eight convicted in India in the disaster was the CEO of UCIL, Keshub Mahindra. Indifference to safety by corporations is a global issue. It's not reasonable to pretend Bhopal was caused solely by evil decisions emanating from Texas while innocent foreigners look on helplessly.
      - srean 12y ago
        Others (meaning UCC as owned wholly by Dow) have not been convicted because they continue to be fugitives from justice. They are yet to appear in court where they face criminal charges, they are able to this by taking shelter behind sovereignty laws, the US govt has itself fully supported this. You seem to have conveniently forgotten to mention that, some axe to grind ? I could add more, the Bhopal plant was supposed to be a replica of UCC's MIC plant in West Virginia and UCC was in charge of design and construction. Strangely enough they thought the plant in India could do without most of the safety systems in place in the Virginia plant. Further, discovery process of litigation has brought forth gobs of documentation that shows that cost cutting measures were enforced by the US side of the corporation. Yes the ownership was indeed shared, but as is often the case control and power leaned overwhelmingly on the UCC side. Scientists employed by UCC wrote to Indian counterparts to help deal medically with the tragedy, in particular they mentioned people should be injected with thiocynate salts to chelate out the active poison. This in itself would have saved thousands of lives. However, since the success of this intervention would have proved that the leaked MIC is more than "just tear gas, just wash your face" they not only took a heavy handed approach to totally discredit the advice with FUD but instructed the Indian government to demolish stores of thiocynate that were being used by local clinics, which they did. They were aware of the long term affects of the leaked gas, but concealed all information about it, and knowledge of how the medical effects could be mitigated. They spread rumors about disgruntled employee precipitating the disaster on purpose, but to this day it remains just an allegation, no corroborating evidence of that has been found or substantiated. DOW, as well as the US government officials have several times pressured the Indian government to drop the charges in lieu of setting up a foundation provided that they are absolved of all liability. If you care to know more there are enough resources on the internet and just a few google searches away, or else you can take a 'post a driving ticket' smear approach to it. The Indian govt had little to no real operational control over the plant but they are very far from fee of blame. They worked actively to shield UCC so as to make Indian economy look attractive to foreign investors. Warren Anderson was personally given a safe passage out rather then being detained/arrested. They suppressed, and continue to do so govt funded research on the health effects of the MIC gas conducted by its national medical lab ICMAR, purportedly because the findings are so damaging. They have taken no steps to corral the premises of the plant where children go to play habitually. However the moment there is a spike of interest in the national news the premises are heavily guarded to deny journalists and environmentalists access to the conditions.
- onion2k 12y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if it was China either, but I would also argue that it's very likely used in the production of goods that aren't consumed by the Chinese. This sort of pollution is a side effect of western demand for cheap goods coupled to poorly regulated Chinese production. As such, responsibility for the problem is only partly down to the Chinese. First world consumers have to demand ethically produced, environmentally friendly goods in order to fix these problems, instead of saying "We want it as cheap as possible but the result of that isn't our problem."
  - DougWebb 12y ago
    I don't disagree with you, but part of the reason first world consumers demand cheap Chinese products is because many of their middle-class-income-producing jobs have been exported to China and various third-world countries, so they can't afford the ethically produced environmentally friendly goods anymore. What the first world consumers need is to bring manufacturing back to the first world, so they can get jobs that pay enough to buy the products they help manufacture. That, or basic income, if first world labor is no longer needed because manufacturing has become too efficient.
    - happyscrappy 12y ago
      Manufacturing jobs have fallen not production. https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?graph_id=177007&category_id= https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?graph_id=177007...
      - danielweber 12y ago
        That seems to show production, not employment. The US is making more stuff than ever before, but it's taking less people to do it.
    - dinglefuk 12y ago
      Americans have access to so many social safety nets. I find it hard to believe they would buy ethically produced products had they more money. Also America doesn't need to trade with China, but it does anyway.
- bellerocky 12y ago
  China has a pollution problem, but I think they're serious about trying to do something about it. The rampant corruption and restriction on press freedoms with regard to reporting on pollution doesn't help though.
- perrylaj 12y ago
  I ran a facility for a company that was a wholesaler/reclaimer of CFCs (reclaiming is just pulling gas out of cooling systems that are being disassembled or repaired). We'd buy tanks of dirty refrigerant from HVAC companies, clean it up and resell it. At the time R-12 was the big money, R22 was cheap as dirt but starting to phase out. The company fell apart/was bought out, but not before the firing (and arrest?) of one VP, multiple allegations of trade violations, and the seizing of a substantial amount of refrigerant. Our distribution center was packed up and shipped back to TX, and I never really followed along with what ended up happening. This was about 15 years ago, my memory is a little fuzzy. BUT, a few things have stuck with me... We used to get containers of 30lb cylinders of banned refrigerants (mostly R12, but also R22 and less common CFCs) from China. The BOL and packages themselves stated it was reclaimed refrigerant, which was legal to buy/sell. No idea of it was legal to import/export, but purchasing was done at corporate headquarters and not something I was ever involved with. Anyway, part of my job was overseeing the testing/categorization of reclaimed CFCs. We had a pretty decent little lab we'd use to determine which CFCs were reclaimed, purity, oil content, water content... etc. Part of our company's pitch was that we could make reclaimed refrigerants identical to newly synthesized product ('revirginate') using some advanced distillation and filtration processes. While possible, at the time there was nobody doing true 100% purification of reclaimed products at scale. It was simply too expensive. ALL of the 'revirginated' CFCs had detectable levels of impurities, and we'd frequently do tests with our fancy gas chromatography system for QC. It was close enough that functionality was fine and it was cheaper than virgin gas, so buyers didn't care. But the reclaimed gas that came from China -- guess what impurities/contaminants we found in the Chinese cylinders? Yup... nothing. Remember, this is late 90s/early 00s, and our company was (supposedly) an industry leader using some pretty sophisticated purification techniques. I never bought into the idea that the Chinese product was reclaimed. I could be wrong, perhaps they had better technology, but the reclamation dates were VERY clearly after production was supposed to have ended and I find it hard to imagine they were returning product that was indiscernible from virgin product. I'd be surprised if some enterprising companies in China aren't still making huge amounts of the stuff. It can't all be coming from old systems (it's worth so much money reclaimed) and asthma inhalers.
seren 12y ago
The good question is : is there is a way, with spatial observation or otherwise, to find where the leak comes from ?
- mturmon 12y ago
  You are right, this is the actual question. The mechanism for localizing the emissions is a chemical transport/interaction model, and data from remote sensing and in situ sampling to constrain the model. The model allows you to interpolate temporally/spatially between the observations you have. The linked study (abstract is at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/2014GL060754/ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/2014GL06...) apparently uses this approach. You can't tell from the press release what they have done, and the full-text is not online (which is a shame). (I'm not at work or I could look it up.) But you can find other work that uses the same approach (e.g.: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/10421/2010/acp-10-10421-2010.pdf http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/10421/2010/acp-10-10421-20...). They divided the Earth land surface into gross regions and computed mean source and sink values (the ocean is a sink). Their conclusion: "[...] Although industry data imply that the global industrial emissions were substantially declining with large interannual variations, the optimized results show only small interannual variations and a small decreasing trend. The global surface CCl4 mole fractions were declining in this period because the CCl4 oceanic and stratospheric sinks exceeded the industrial emissions. Compared to the a priori values, the inversion results indicate substantial increases in industrial emissions originating from the South Asian/Indian and Southeast Asian regions, and significant decreases in emissions from the European and North American regions." In short: industry claims that emissions are dropping are contradicted by data showing the gross decrease is explained by higher-than-expected absorption; also, we identify substantial increased emissions from South/Southeast Asia. As atmospheric chemistry models improve, and remote sensing constraints increase, we'll know a lot more about the origins of pollution. E.g., for CO2, the just launched OCO2 (http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov) which is finishing checkout -- it returned its first data last Wednesday.
dsirijus 12y ago
It's all too easy to jump to conclusion and shout "China!", but in spirit of true political correctness (without the usual hubris) - there is nothing so fundamentally different between Chinese and any other dear humans of this world that would, given just slight changes in political/social/economical/religious enviroment, prevent them from doing something like this.
cleglaw 12y ago
It is interesting that, when speaking of ozone depletion, stratospheric geoengineering[0] is never mentioned. A plethora of studies and climate scientists have proved that this public climate-alteration program, that has been going on since the 90's, is influencing the ozone-depletion[1] and other hazardous consequences of weather manipulation. A documentary showing depicting the public conferences with scientists talking about this program[2] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_Particle_Injection_for_Climate_Engineering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_Particle_Injecti... [1] "The aerosols also serve as surfaces for heterogeneous chemistry resulting in increased ozone depletion" http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1882/4007.full http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1882/4007... [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFQ2_0QNiks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFQ2_0QNiks
- jrkatz 12y ago
  From your sources [0] and [1], I am inclined to believe that if such a program were in effect it could influence ozone depletion, but there is no indication this is happening, let alone that it has been since the '90s. If I find a paper telling me the potential side effects of shredding dollar bills in the upper atmosphere* and a video by chemtrail conspiracy theorists, does it follow that the government has been shredding dollar bills in the upper atmosphere for the last 20 years? *Deflation? Rich birds? Wealth trickling down?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
alexjordon27 12y ago
Scrubly groups all compatible duplicate contacts together to be safely merged. http://www.scrubly.com/ http://www.scrubly.com/
istvanp 12y ago
Naïve question: is there a way to replenish the ozone layer?
- brazzy 12y ago
  It's being replenished constantly. Ozone is created when UV radiation hits reguly Oxygen molecules. The problem is that we used to release large so amounts of stuff like the CCl4 mentioned in the article that ozone got destroyed quicker than it was created.
graycat 12y ago
So, we're all supposed to be all concerned about CFCs and ozone, again. Hmm .... Sorry, guys. Net, I just can't accept the null hypothesis and have to reject it. I know; I know; a guy got the Nobel prize in chemistry for his work on CFCs and ozone. Nice. Sounds like really good work in chemistry. So, the null hypothesis is that we must restrict CFCs or we will be destroying the planet, the sky will fall, we will all get skin cancer, in the tropics all life will be destroyed, the ozone layer is the blanket protecting life on our Mother Earth, and we will be destroying it! Evil humans! Evil CFCs! Precious life giving ozone! So go the cries. Sorry, guys, I have to reject that null hypothesis. Why reject? It smells like week old dead fish, that's why. Or, it's the old trilogy: Transgression by sinful, evil humans (using CFCs). Retribution from an angry god (skin cancer). Redemption via sacrifice (destroy old A/C equipment). Old? Sure, back to the old English morality plays. In various versions, for centuries in Europe it had the Roman Catholic church filthy rich. How rich? Look up the Bishop's Residenz in Würzburg (1751-53). To heck with some dirt cheap, $100 million Manhattan apartment; for some real luxury, tough to beat the Bishop's Residenz! Or, at one time, the Roman Catholic church owned a major fraction of all the farm land in France which happens to have a major fraction of all the good farm land in Europe. Did I mention rich? Such a good wheel had to be reinvented: Okay, the Mayan charlatans claimed that they had to kill people (sacrifice) to pour their blood on a rock to keep the sun moving across the sky (redemption). Ah, right, the trilogy from Europe was more sophisticated! Okay, guys: It's a scam. Old England figured it out with the morality plays. The Europeans figured it out with the Roman Catholic church. The Mayans figured it out with pouring blood on a rock. It's a popular scam, reinvented more than once. Don't believe it's not a scam. Instead, as usual, there's a hidden agenda. Or, wise advice, "Always look for the hidden agenda.". Yup, good advice. Here for CFCs, what is the hidden agenda? Sure: Outlaw old Freon, which was getting to be a cheap commodity; sell new refrigeration working fluids at much higher prices; and destroy all existing auto A/C and more refrigeration equipment. Yup, I've got two cars with A/C that doesn't work due to lack of Freon. So, net, what is the really believable real reason for the laws against CFCs? Sure: Sell more working fluid and equipment for refrigeration, especially auto A/C. That the real reason is protecting the ozone layer? Smells like week old dead fish to me. Selling more A/C sounds much more believable. Or, take the other wise advice, "Follow the money.". Still, I'm sure it was some really nice chemistry. For NASA talking about this now? Hmm .... The White House likes to have the Administration talking about green things. Doing things? Not so much. Talking? Yup, lots of it. Why? Get political support from the greenies. Easy political support -- just have, say, NASA issue some press releases and get some support. Nothing real, just some simple politics. Do I believe that the NASA statement is really about the ozone or about White House politics? I come down on the side of White House politics; I'm sure that the White House cares much more about politics than ozone. Sorry 'bout that, but as a citizen I have to form opinions, and eventually I can smell week old dead fish and do believe in the importance of hidden agendas, following the money, and watching out for politics, all much more than ozone. Fool me once; shame on you. Fool me twice; shame on me. I've been fooled more than once already and don't want to be fooled again. By now I don't believe it's really about the ozone; not a chance. If NASA and the White House have some really good evidence, then they can trot it out. Else I will just move on. Now, has rational, engineering, scientific, skeptical Hacker News been converted into naive, sucker, gullible, politically correct,, brain-dead, anxiety-ridden. manipulated greenie news and propaganda? Are are some people getting paid for such propaganda?
CWuestefeld 12y ago
I find this interesting not so much regarding the CCl4 itself, but for its implications with respect to CO2 and climate change. Most of those clamoring for worldwide attention to climate change have as the foundation of their plans, international control on CO2 emissions. And one of the arguments against such plans is that getting all the polluters on-board is rather impractical. Such cooperation is pretty much unprecedented, with the only example I can think of being the treaty on emissions of CFCs. If even that one example - of something that is, in comparison to the burning of fossil fuels, barely a drop in the bucket - then it doesn't bode well for humanity's ability to get a handle on CO2 emissions.
graycat 12y ago
Okay, I'm trying to understand The Rules, rules of HN? (1) No jokes. Ever. (2) Global warming and climate change are real, no matter temperature measurements there are, not just flim-flam, fraud scams, are severe dangers to all life on earth soon, and are caused by evil humans releasing CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. People who disagree are deniers and are ignorant, irresponsible, or paid, say, by Big Oil or other forces of evil. This point is a catechism and is not to be questioned. (3) The ozone hole is also real, a severe danger to all life on earth, and caused by evil humans releasing CFC and maybe also NOx gasses. This point is a catechism and is not to be questioned. (4) The current administration is great and not to be doubted or questioned. Freedom of speech does not apply to the current Administration. More of the catechism. (5) Microsoft is evil. Windows is bad. Visual Basic .NET is silly and for wimps. Linux is good. All code should be open source. C is good. C++ is better; all real men love C++. Otherwise the best languages now are Ruby, Python, and Haskell. More catechism. (6) Electric cars are good. Gasoline powered cars are bad. Just any day now, electric cars with their great advantages will drive gasoline powered cars off the road. Similarly for trucks and buses. (7) For the electric grid, wind and solar are good. Fossil fuels and nukes are bad. Soon the world will have nearly all energy on the grid, for cars, home HVAC, etc. from just wind and solar. (8) Private cars are bad. Trains are good. If the US had any sense at all, then it would have 300+ MPH trains connecting all medium to large cities with really good service and really cheap tickets. Otherwise we just need bicycles, and they are very, very good. There need be only a few years of meager government subsidies to permit such trains, and then the trains would be economically self supporting just from the cheap ticket sales. (9) Gluten is bad. Sugar is much worse, is a poison and should be made illegal. People should drink only pure rain water and pure grain alcohol. Drinking anything else is giving in to a plot to pollute our precious bodily fluids. We should not eat red meat because it is poison, and the animals are ruining the pure, pristine, precious, delicate, 100% natural environment. We should not eat fish because fishing has nearly destroyed the oceans, and when the oceans have been destroyed humans will be destroyed. Instead we should eat only organic fruits and vegetables bought in farmers markets directly from the growers. There should be no brown paper bags; groceries should be carried in reusable sacks from renewable resources. (10) The first rule of HN is never talk about The Rules of HN. The HN audience is well informed, public spirited, fair, reasonable, tolerant, open minded, and objective, and all posts violating The Rules will be voted down to oblivion and not tolerated. I'm trying to understand The Rules. Since I didn't see any such rules in anything written by PG, I am looking for more information. What rules have I omitted?

80 points by happyscrappy 12y ago

= China?

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be China - you can still buy huge barrels of CCl4 from there, at the usual extremely cheap prices.

josealicarte 12y ago
why china?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- baq 12y ago
  china industrial sector doesn't care about the environment, their employees or anything at all other than profit.
  - couchdive 12y ago
    Neither does the industrial sector in the Unites States, but thats why sometimes,regulation is important.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  Not OP, but: rapid development, poor regulatory oversight, and a markedly chequered record when it comes to environmental considerations.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    Like it was everywhere else in the now developed world. This is a huge problem, we are so quick to tell others that they can not walk the same road to riches that we did (by polluting the environment with abandon). But that's creating an artificial moat which will simply lengthen the period that non-affluent countries will remain that way. This serves us in all kinds of ways and is actually quite unfair. I don't have a way out of this but I feel there is something quite wrong with telling a country that has some natural resource that they can't deplete it (after depleting our own natural resources) and telling a country that is polluting like mad that they shouldn't do that either (after we did that ourselves and have reaped the benefits of it). Tough problems.
    - tomelders 12y ago
      I don't think it's unfair to impose these rules on developing nations. We have to learn from our mistakes. The industrial revolution may be the only template we have for a developed nation, but there are other routes. I can imagine a world where comparable levels of investment in Education can deliver deliver on the promises of industrialisation without as many of the "bad bits".
      - arrrg 12y ago
        Yeah, exactly! The poor have to learn from our mistakes and pay for them! How very, very fair.
        tomelders 12y ago
        I see your point, but I don't think the fairness you want is really fair. I have to ask the question; fair for who? Firstly, the world didn't forge ahead with the industrial revolution in spite of the environmental costs. No one was initially aware of those costs. Now we are, and there's a push for everyone to change their tactics. I think it's fair that everyone has to change, but I acknowledge that it's a bit unfair that the west got to profit on those mistakes. But that's just life. Developing nations now have real solid data on the environmental damage an industrial revolution will inflict not only on their part of the world, but the world as a whole. Is it fair to ask them to factor that new knowledge into their plans? Maybe it's not exactly fair, but it's a reasonable request I think. But then what about a child born today? Is it fair for that child to grow up in a world where the air they will breath becomes more dangerous with each passing second, even though the adults of today know what they are doing and have it in their power to not do it? I think that's unfair. And it's not like China's industrialisation has helped all Chinese. It's helped a few people. Is it fair that all citizens of Shanghai should suffer the health effects of the pollution generated as a result of 1 persons endeavour to maximise a profit? I don't see it. This is not to say it's a black and white issue. Someone somewhere has to get a rough deal. This sadly is the world we've created for ourselves, and the rules we've decided to live by. It's not fair.
atlantic 12y ago
Chine is the biggest climate polluter in absolute terms; but per capita, the US and Australia are way ahead, so maybe you should include them in your list of likely candidates.
- jokoon 12y ago
  climate polluter, yes, but there are many other types of pollution.
- sjtrny 12y ago
  The regulatory conditions in US/AU are a lot stricter than in China. The pollution per person is higher in these countries but it that pollution is unlikely to contain PFCs.
- calibraxis 12y ago
  Yes, in terms of actually solving the problem, we should also see where China's customers/influencers come from. Countries can (and do) demand that other countries have certain working standards and regulations. On pain of tariff or sanction. A lot of my goods come from basically slave labor and polluters. They have a competitive advantage over companies who don't, so garbage floats and takes over. Countries are complicit when they support or benefit from other countries which do this.
  - dsirijus 12y ago
    Extremely insightful. The blame is on all of us, even if the pollution did in fact leak from China (fact about which we have no clue about yet). This is exactly the sort of thing where we're all in it, hands dirtied, want it or not.
sjtrny 12y ago
Don't forget India, home of the worlds worst industrial disaster: Bhopal.
- harryf 12y ago
  Don't forget that Union Carbide was responsible for the disaster, who have their HQ in Houston.
  - dunmalg 12y ago
    Multinational businesses aren't that simple. The Bhopal plant was owned by the Indian subsidiary of Union Carbide, UCIL, which was half owned by Union Carbide, and half owned by the Indian government. Among the eight convicted in India in the disaster was the CEO of UCIL, Keshub Mahindra. Indifference to safety by corporations is a global issue. It's not reasonable to pretend Bhopal was caused solely by evil decisions emanating from Texas while innocent foreigners look on helplessly.
    - srean 12y ago
      Others (meaning UCC as owned wholly by Dow) have not been convicted because they continue to be fugitives from justice. They are yet to appear in court where they face criminal charges, they are able to this by taking shelter behind sovereignty laws, the US govt has itself fully supported this. You seem to have conveniently forgotten to mention that, some axe to grind ? I could add more, the Bhopal plant was supposed to be a replica of UCC's MIC plant in West Virginia and UCC was in charge of design and construction. Strangely enough they thought the plant in India could do without most of the safety systems in place in the Virginia plant. Further, discovery process of litigation has brought forth gobs of documentation that shows that cost cutting measures were enforced by the US side of the corporation. Yes the ownership was indeed shared, but as is often the case control and power leaned overwhelmingly on the UCC side. Scientists employed by UCC wrote to Indian counterparts to help deal medically with the tragedy, in particular they mentioned people should be injected with thiocynate salts to chelate out the active poison. This in itself would have saved thousands of lives. However, since the success of this intervention would have proved that the leaked MIC is more than "just tear gas, just wash your face" they not only took a heavy handed approach to totally discredit the advice with FUD but instructed the Indian government to demolish stores of thiocynate that were being used by local clinics, which they did. They were aware of the long term affects of the leaked gas, but concealed all information about it, and knowledge of how the medical effects could be mitigated. They spread rumors about disgruntled employee precipitating the disaster on purpose, but to this day it remains just an allegation, no corroborating evidence of that has been found or substantiated. DOW, as well as the US government officials have several times pressured the Indian government to drop the charges in lieu of setting up a foundation provided that they are absolved of all liability. If you care to know more there are enough resources on the internet and just a few google searches away, or else you can take a 'post a driving ticket' smear approach to it. The Indian govt had little to no real operational control over the plant but they are very far from fee of blame. They worked actively to shield UCC so as to make Indian economy look attractive to foreign investors. Warren Anderson was personally given a safe passage out rather then being detained/arrested. They suppressed, and continue to do so govt funded research on the health effects of the MIC gas conducted by its national medical lab ICMAR, purportedly because the findings are so damaging. They have taken no steps to corral the premises of the plant where children go to play habitually. However the moment there is a spike of interest in the national news the premises are heavily guarded to deny journalists and environmentalists access to the conditions.
onion2k 12y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if it was China either, but I would also argue that it's very likely used in the production of goods that aren't consumed by the Chinese. This sort of pollution is a side effect of western demand for cheap goods coupled to poorly regulated Chinese production. As such, responsibility for the problem is only partly down to the Chinese. First world consumers have to demand ethically produced, environmentally friendly goods in order to fix these problems, instead of saying "We want it as cheap as possible but the result of that isn't our problem."
- DougWebb 12y ago
  I don't disagree with you, but part of the reason first world consumers demand cheap Chinese products is because many of their middle-class-income-producing jobs have been exported to China and various third-world countries, so they can't afford the ethically produced environmentally friendly goods anymore. What the first world consumers need is to bring manufacturing back to the first world, so they can get jobs that pay enough to buy the products they help manufacture. That, or basic income, if first world labor is no longer needed because manufacturing has become too efficient.
  - happyscrappy 12y ago
    Manufacturing jobs have fallen not production. https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?graph_id=177007&category_id= https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?graph_id=177007...
    - danielweber 12y ago
      That seems to show production, not employment. The US is making more stuff than ever before, but it's taking less people to do it.
  - dinglefuk 12y ago
    Americans have access to so many social safety nets. I find it hard to believe they would buy ethically produced products had they more money. Also America doesn't need to trade with China, but it does anyway.
bellerocky 12y ago
China has a pollution problem, but I think they're serious about trying to do something about it. The rampant corruption and restriction on press freedoms with regard to reporting on pollution doesn't help though.
perrylaj 12y ago
I ran a facility for a company that was a wholesaler/reclaimer of CFCs (reclaiming is just pulling gas out of cooling systems that are being disassembled or repaired). We'd buy tanks of dirty refrigerant from HVAC companies, clean it up and resell it. At the time R-12 was the big money, R22 was cheap as dirt but starting to phase out. The company fell apart/was bought out, but not before the firing (and arrest?) of one VP, multiple allegations of trade violations, and the seizing of a substantial amount of refrigerant. Our distribution center was packed up and shipped back to TX, and I never really followed along with what ended up happening. This was about 15 years ago, my memory is a little fuzzy. BUT, a few things have stuck with me... We used to get containers of 30lb cylinders of banned refrigerants (mostly R12, but also R22 and less common CFCs) from China. The BOL and packages themselves stated it was reclaimed refrigerant, which was legal to buy/sell. No idea of it was legal to import/export, but purchasing was done at corporate headquarters and not something I was ever involved with. Anyway, part of my job was overseeing the testing/categorization of reclaimed CFCs. We had a pretty decent little lab we'd use to determine which CFCs were reclaimed, purity, oil content, water content... etc. Part of our company's pitch was that we could make reclaimed refrigerants identical to newly synthesized product ('revirginate') using some advanced distillation and filtration processes. While possible, at the time there was nobody doing true 100% purification of reclaimed products at scale. It was simply too expensive. ALL of the 'revirginated' CFCs had detectable levels of impurities, and we'd frequently do tests with our fancy gas chromatography system for QC. It was close enough that functionality was fine and it was cheaper than virgin gas, so buyers didn't care. But the reclaimed gas that came from China -- guess what impurities/contaminants we found in the Chinese cylinders? Yup... nothing. Remember, this is late 90s/early 00s, and our company was (supposedly) an industry leader using some pretty sophisticated purification techniques. I never bought into the idea that the Chinese product was reclaimed. I could be wrong, perhaps they had better technology, but the reclamation dates were VERY clearly after production was supposed to have ended and I find it hard to imagine they were returning product that was indiscernible from virgin product. I'd be surprised if some enterprising companies in China aren't still making huge amounts of the stuff. It can't all be coming from old systems (it's worth so much money reclaimed) and asthma inhalers.

seren 12y ago

The good question is : is there is a way, with spatial observation or otherwise, to find where the leak comes from ?

mturmon 12y ago
You are right, this is the actual question. The mechanism for localizing the emissions is a chemical transport/interaction model, and data from remote sensing and in situ sampling to constrain the model. The model allows you to interpolate temporally/spatially between the observations you have. The linked study (abstract is at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/2014GL060754/ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/2014GL06...) apparently uses this approach. You can't tell from the press release what they have done, and the full-text is not online (which is a shame). (I'm not at work or I could look it up.) But you can find other work that uses the same approach (e.g.: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/10421/2010/acp-10-10421-2010.pdf http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/10421/2010/acp-10-10421-20...). They divided the Earth land surface into gross regions and computed mean source and sink values (the ocean is a sink). Their conclusion: "[...] Although industry data imply that the global industrial emissions were substantially declining with large interannual variations, the optimized results show only small interannual variations and a small decreasing trend. The global surface CCl4 mole fractions were declining in this period because the CCl4 oceanic and stratospheric sinks exceeded the industrial emissions. Compared to the a priori values, the inversion results indicate substantial increases in industrial emissions originating from the South Asian/Indian and Southeast Asian regions, and significant decreases in emissions from the European and North American regions." In short: industry claims that emissions are dropping are contradicted by data showing the gross decrease is explained by higher-than-expected absorption; also, we identify substantial increased emissions from South/Southeast Asia. As atmospheric chemistry models improve, and remote sensing constraints increase, we'll know a lot more about the origins of pollution. E.g., for CO2, the just launched OCO2 (http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov) which is finishing checkout -- it returned its first data last Wednesday.

dsirijus 12y ago

It's all too easy to jump to conclusion and shout "China!", but in spirit of true political correctness (without the usual hubris) - there is nothing so fundamentally different between Chinese and any other dear humans of this world that would, given just slight changes in political/social/economical/religious enviroment, prevent them from doing something like this.

cleglaw 12y ago

It is interesting that, when speaking of ozone depletion, stratospheric geoengineering[0] is never mentioned. A plethora of studies and climate scientists have proved that this public climate-alteration program, that has been going on since the 90's, is influencing the ozone-depletion[1] and other hazardous consequences of weather manipulation. A documentary showing depicting the public conferences with scientists talking about this program[2] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_Particle_Injection_for_Climate_Engineering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_Particle_Injecti... [1] "The aerosols also serve as surfaces for heterogeneous chemistry resulting in increased ozone depletion" http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1882/4007.full http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1882/4007... [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFQ2_0QNiks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFQ2_0QNiks

jrkatz 12y ago
From your sources [0] and [1], I am inclined to believe that if such a program were in effect it could influence ozone depletion, but there is no indication this is happening, let alone that it has been since the '90s. If I find a paper telling me the potential side effects of shredding dollar bills in the upper atmosphere* and a video by chemtrail conspiracy theorists, does it follow that the government has been shredding dollar bills in the upper atmosphere for the last 20 years? *Deflation? Rich birds? Wealth trickling down?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

alexjordon27 12y ago

Scrubly groups all compatible duplicate contacts together to be safely merged. http://www.scrubly.com/ http://www.scrubly.com/

istvanp 12y ago

Naïve question: is there a way to replenish the ozone layer?

brazzy 12y ago
It's being replenished constantly. Ozone is created when UV radiation hits reguly Oxygen molecules. The problem is that we used to release large so amounts of stuff like the CCl4 mentioned in the article that ozone got destroyed quicker than it was created.

graycat 12y ago

So, we're all supposed to be all concerned about CFCs and ozone, again. Hmm .... Sorry, guys. Net, I just can't accept the null hypothesis and have to reject it. I know; I know; a guy got the Nobel prize in chemistry for his work on CFCs and ozone. Nice. Sounds like really good work in chemistry. So, the null hypothesis is that we must restrict CFCs or we will be destroying the planet, the sky will fall, we will all get skin cancer, in the tropics all life will be destroyed, the ozone layer is the blanket protecting life on our Mother Earth, and we will be destroying it! Evil humans! Evil CFCs! Precious life giving ozone! So go the cries. Sorry, guys, I have to reject that null hypothesis. Why reject? It smells like week old dead fish, that's why. Or, it's the old trilogy: Transgression by sinful, evil humans (using CFCs). Retribution from an angry god (skin cancer). Redemption via sacrifice (destroy old A/C equipment). Old? Sure, back to the old English morality plays. In various versions, for centuries in Europe it had the Roman Catholic church filthy rich. How rich? Look up the Bishop's Residenz in Würzburg (1751-53). To heck with some dirt cheap, $100 million Manhattan apartment; for some real luxury, tough to beat the Bishop's Residenz! Or, at one time, the Roman Catholic church owned a major fraction of all the farm land in France which happens to have a major fraction of all the good farm land in Europe. Did I mention rich? Such a good wheel had to be reinvented: Okay, the Mayan charlatans claimed that they had to kill people (sacrifice) to pour their blood on a rock to keep the sun moving across the sky (redemption). Ah, right, the trilogy from Europe was more sophisticated! Okay, guys: It's a scam. Old England figured it out with the morality plays. The Europeans figured it out with the Roman Catholic church. The Mayans figured it out with pouring blood on a rock. It's a popular scam, reinvented more than once. Don't believe it's not a scam. Instead, as usual, there's a hidden agenda. Or, wise advice, "Always look for the hidden agenda.". Yup, good advice. Here for CFCs, what is the hidden agenda? Sure: Outlaw old Freon, which was getting to be a cheap commodity; sell new refrigeration working fluids at much higher prices; and destroy all existing auto A/C and more refrigeration equipment. Yup, I've got two cars with A/C that doesn't work due to lack of Freon. So, net, what is the really believable real reason for the laws against CFCs? Sure: Sell more working fluid and equipment for refrigeration, especially auto A/C. That the real reason is protecting the ozone layer? Smells like week old dead fish to me. Selling more A/C sounds much more believable. Or, take the other wise advice, "Follow the money.". Still, I'm sure it was some really nice chemistry. For NASA talking about this now? Hmm .... The White House likes to have the Administration talking about green things. Doing things? Not so much. Talking? Yup, lots of it. Why? Get political support from the greenies. Easy political support -- just have, say, NASA issue some press releases and get some support. Nothing real, just some simple politics. Do I believe that the NASA statement is really about the ozone or about White House politics? I come down on the side of White House politics; I'm sure that the White House cares much more about politics than ozone. Sorry 'bout that, but as a citizen I have to form opinions, and eventually I can smell week old dead fish and do believe in the importance of hidden agendas, following the money, and watching out for politics, all much more than ozone. Fool me once; shame on you. Fool me twice; shame on me. I've been fooled more than once already and don't want to be fooled again. By now I don't believe it's really about the ozone; not a chance. If NASA and the White House have some really good evidence, then they can trot it out. Else I will just move on. Now, has rational, engineering, scientific, skeptical Hacker News been converted into naive, sucker, gullible, politically correct,, brain-dead, anxiety-ridden. manipulated greenie news and propaganda? Are are some people getting paid for such propaganda?

CWuestefeld 12y ago

I find this interesting not so much regarding the CCl4 itself, but for its implications with respect to CO2 and climate change. Most of those clamoring for worldwide attention to climate change have as the foundation of their plans, international control on CO2 emissions. And one of the arguments against such plans is that getting all the polluters on-board is rather impractical. Such cooperation is pretty much unprecedented, with the only example I can think of being the treaty on emissions of CFCs. If even that one example - of something that is, in comparison to the burning of fossil fuels, barely a drop in the bucket - then it doesn't bode well for humanity's ability to get a handle on CO2 emissions.

graycat 12y ago

Okay, I'm trying to understand The Rules, rules of HN? (1) No jokes. Ever. (2) Global warming and climate change are real, no matter temperature measurements there are, not just flim-flam, fraud scams, are severe dangers to all life on earth soon, and are caused by evil humans releasing CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. People who disagree are deniers and are ignorant, irresponsible, or paid, say, by Big Oil or other forces of evil. This point is a catechism and is not to be questioned. (3) The ozone hole is also real, a severe danger to all life on earth, and caused by evil humans releasing CFC and maybe also NOx gasses. This point is a catechism and is not to be questioned. (4) The current administration is great and not to be doubted or questioned. Freedom of speech does not apply to the current Administration. More of the catechism. (5) Microsoft is evil. Windows is bad. Visual Basic .NET is silly and for wimps. Linux is good. All code should be open source. C is good. C++ is better; all real men love C++. Otherwise the best languages now are Ruby, Python, and Haskell. More catechism. (6) Electric cars are good. Gasoline powered cars are bad. Just any day now, electric cars with their great advantages will drive gasoline powered cars off the road. Similarly for trucks and buses. (7) For the electric grid, wind and solar are good. Fossil fuels and nukes are bad. Soon the world will have nearly all energy on the grid, for cars, home HVAC, etc. from just wind and solar. (8) Private cars are bad. Trains are good. If the US had any sense at all, then it would have 300+ MPH trains connecting all medium to large cities with really good service and really cheap tickets. Otherwise we just need bicycles, and they are very, very good. There need be only a few years of meager government subsidies to permit such trains, and then the trains would be economically self supporting just from the cheap ticket sales. (9) Gluten is bad. Sugar is much worse, is a poison and should be made illegal. People should drink only pure rain water and pure grain alcohol. Drinking anything else is giving in to a plot to pollute our precious bodily fluids. We should not eat red meat because it is poison, and the animals are ruining the pure, pristine, precious, delicate, 100% natural environment. We should not eat fish because fishing has nearly destroyed the oceans, and when the oceans have been destroyed humans will be destroyed. Instead we should eat only organic fruits and vegetables bought in farmers markets directly from the growers. There should be no brown paper bags; groceries should be carried in reusable sacks from renewable resources. (10) The first rule of HN is never talk about The Rules of HN. The HN audience is well informed, public spirited, fair, reasonable, tolerant, open minded, and objective, and all posts violating The Rules will be voted down to oblivion and not tolerated. I'm trying to understand The Rules. Since I didn't see any such rules in anything written by PG, I am looking for more information. What rules have I omitted?