Do Farrah Fawcett hairdos give climate change a boost?
Yet another reason not to waste time trying to copy the late Farrah Fawcett's inimitable trademark tousled tresses: hair sprays have hair-raising emissions to match, according to new research by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
In fact, hair sprays, air cons and fridges contain a greenhouse gas that can be 14,800 times more effective at warming the climate than carbon dioxide, says Guus Velders, the lead author of the study.
If that's not enough to make you start pulling your hair out (a novel form of negative feedback, surely?), listen to this.
By 2050, hydrofluorocarbons (or HFCs, as they're known to their friends) could account for up to a fifth of global warming.
The irony is that it's all the green movement's fault, writes Jonathon Leake over at the Times. They're the ones who convinced the world to get rid of ozone-destroying CFC gases in the 1980s and replace them with the 'greener' option, HFCs. Listen out for the collective "d'oh", right about... now.
Follow up: Ozone hole has unforeseen effect on ocean carbon sink
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~30~RS~)
Comments
Those that campaigned against the ozone destroying CFCs didn't promote any particular alternative; the aim was to stop the use of CFCs.
It was policy makers and business that adopted HFCs as the alternative on the basis they didn't deplete ozone. CFCs were greenhouse gasses too, and also more potent than CO2.
HFCs are potent greenhouse gasses (The amount in a typical fridge being equivalent to up to 200 kilograms of carbon dioxide.) - as are PFCs [Perfluorocarbons ]. There is also a suspected link between PFCs used in household products and infertility in women.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=common-chemicals-known-as-pfcs-link-2009-01-28
All these gasses CFCs/HFCs/PFCs are synthetic, they don't exist in nature. (The F stands for fluorine, the chemical element shared by all of them.)
The three main HFCs [Hydrofluorocarbons] are HFC-23, HFC-134a and HFC-152a, with HFC-134a being the most widely used refrigerant and also used in air conditioning.
Most HFCs are released during their manufacture, from the filling of and leakage from refrigeration equipment and from its end of life destruction. They also are released by aerosol cans containing HFCs and some asthma inhalers. Since 1990, when it was almost undetectable, concentrations of HFC-134a have risen considerably.
HFCs are also used in expanded plastic foams, where if trapped inside rigid plastic bubbles they can provide very effective insulation, thereby making buildings very energy efficient. Again the problem lies in end-of-life disposal. There are however alternatives.
There are alternative refrigerants to HFCs, such as hydrocarbon based coolants (hydrocarbons are compounds based on carbon and hydrogen) in particular Isobutane (C4H8) used as refrigerant and Cyclopentane (C5H10) used for foam insulation. Though GHGs these are much, much less potent than HFCs.
They are promoted under the trade name of 'Greenfreeze technology' and are already in commercial use and used in more than 300 million refrigerators worldwide.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2008/2008-10-01-092.asp
http://www.nat-energy.com.sg/hydrocarbon.html
Denmark has already got regulations in place to phase the use of HFCs out by 2011.
However all countries face a problem in the amount of HFC refrigerants already in use, even if replaced by other gasses the solution (as with CFCs) is to dispose of them without releasing them into the atmosphere; there are proven means of doing this.
It is also being suggested that the Montreal Protocol (which banned CFCs) could be adapted to also phase out the use of HFCs over time.
Complain about this comment
My Dear Shanta,
Thank you yet again for another wonderfully insightful article; althought, I doubt most people got the picture (their collective d-oh wll come later.
Here we have (yet another) case of the supposedly "green" movement forcing us to discontinue use of CFC (Chloro-Flouro-Carbons) because they are "bad" - and without doing the "hard research" force us to move to HFCs (Hydro-Flouro-Carbons). Having just spent $7000 on a "high efficiency A/C unit for my home (and I live in Texas, where A/C is pretty much a requirement) - I was forced to purchase a unit which depends upon HFC-134A for the cooling medium. Which, incidentally drove up the cost of my "high efficiency" unit by about $2000. I am now told that HFC should be "banned by 2011".
Yet another case of the "greenie-weenies" saying "this is bad" - and forcing change without doing the proper science. So, now we are in the position of "well gee, that was bad, this is worse...".
Another favorite example: Rachel Carson (the mother of modern "green activism"), in her book, "Silent Spring", describles the evils of DDT. Well, DDT was used in the US to eliminate Malaria. And now, 50 years later, we don't find all that DDT "existing forever" in the environment - nor do we find that it has "killed all the frogs" nor anything else - except the larva of Malaria carrying mosquitos (and believe me, we have a lot of mosquitos in Texas...). Even in the face of overwhelming evidence that DDT was not the "world killer" presented to be, the EPA banned DDT in the US in 1976. The WHO has recently given in to the "failed science" of the "greenie-weenies" and banned the use of DDT in Africa, where hundreds of millions suffer the effects of Malaria every year. Their suggestion: use mosquito nets. So, should all Africans spend their lives wrapped in "mosquito nets" from head to toe for their entire lifes? Can we have another collective d'oh? Oh wait, we'll have to wait another 20 years for that...lol. It would be laughable if it were not so serious.
Before we engage in proposing and implementing alternatives, should we not do the "hard science" and really understand what we are trading? Are we trading bad for worse?
Another example, which chaps my hide is the "green windmill" thing. It would be funny if it was not so ridiculous. The greenies would force lawsuit after lawsuit against the building of a coal plant, but rush through environmental assessments for building windfarms across massive expanses of undeveloped land. Texas has more windmills "in production" than any other state in the Union. The windmills are noisy, disrupt wildlife, scar the landscape and all 130,000+ of them produce less electricity than a single coal fired plant situated on 15 acres of land. Lets not forget that Texas is probably the "greatest superhighway" for migrating birds" - and the windmills are quite detrimental to the birds. And lets not forget ALL the wires spread across the countryside required to connect these 130,000 windmills to the grid. Nor the fact that we still have to have the coal plant up and running, to pick up the slack when the wind dies (usually in the evening, during peak demand). Another case of not considering all the consequences before running off the deep-end (can we have another collective d'oh, now?). I for one (and I am from Texas, home of T Boone Pickens) - am of the opinion that if T. Boone Pickens thinks its a good idea - then he has a plan to "line his pockets with cash" - and it is in fact a terrible idea for everyone except Mr. Pickens and his cronies.
My point in all this rambling: We need to do a lot more research before we can say "this is bad" or "this is better" with regards to most of the "green agenda" and what changes need be made.
BTW, I did away with sprays and went with pumps many years ago. Pumps don't require CFC, HFCs or any of these other gasses for propellants. And as I presently have no hair - I don't need hair spray at this point anyway...lol
PS - Dear Shanta, why is it that there are no pictures of you on the BBC website? We find plenty of photos of Richard Black and all the rest...where is your picture?
Again, cheers for yet another insightful article - I do love your wit.
Complain about this comment
LArry was obviously too ecstatic over another branch to beat the "enviro-nazis" up with he didn't read Sam's post.
"The windmills are noisy, disrupt wildlife, scar the landscape "
As opposed to the drills?
"and the windmills are quite detrimental to the birds."
Far less so than the glass buildings abounding in Houston, Larry.
"And lets not forget ALL the wires spread across the countryside required to connect these 130,000 windmills to the grid."
Uh, why do you think they are putting those 130,000 windmills all distant from each other?
Complain about this comment
#2 Hardly fair to blame 'greens' for 'forcing' people to use HFCs, it was the pharmaceutical industry that came up with both CFCs and their replacement, HFCs.
The pharmaceutical industry prefers the HFCs because they could patent them;
The 'Greenfreeze technology' I mentioned in post one above was actually developed by Greenpeace in conjunction with a German fridge manufacturer, DKK Scharfenstein back in 1992. Greenfreeze cannot be patented which is why other fridge manufactures have adapted the technology. The 'Greens' actually developed a less harmful alternative.
As for why we abandoned CFCs, the chemists that worked out how CFCs deplete ozone in the high atmosphere won a Nobel prize for their work, so you can't say there was no real 'hard research' into that. The detailed chemistry is on the web if you search for it.
As for the role of the Ozone layer and its role in reducing the amount of UV-B reaching earth, again there has been a lot of 'hard research' into its role and importance. (Can UV be harmful? If you've ever had sunburn that's from UV rays reaching your skin.)
No one disputes that HFCs are greenhouse gasses; whether or not you believe that increasing the concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere will warm earth, with a resulting knock-on effect on climate, is the subject of debate and why this bloom blog exists.
Re: DDT. One problem with DDT is that it a toxin that can suppress the human immune system, particularly amongst children. Another is that mosquitoes can develop immunity to it; you get diminishing returns from its use. There are other health related issues as well as issues to do with its impact on other wildlife. It is a toxin after all.
Those that advocate its use would serve their case better by recognising that DDT can also be harmful to humans and wildlife. (I doubt you'd be willing to drink it in any quantity or have in injected into your bloodstream.)
Prior to its ban DDT was used indiscriminately and in large concentrations. I have some sympathy with using it under controlled conditions to help eradicate malaria (along with other measures), but as with a lot of things it's a question of balancing both known risks and benefits. But that's just my opinion.
Complain about this comment
The bio-fuels fiasco is the latest green fad to backfire.
It really does start to feel like a 1970s student union is in charge now.
Complain about this comment
Sitting somewhere in the middle I could innocently ask if the commercial sector's record is blameless then?
Welcome to the Anthropocene. ('The biosphere itself, at all levels from genetic to the landscape, is increasingly a human product': (Allenby, 2000))
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/anthropocene.htm
http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1130%2FGSAT01802A.1&ct=1
Complain about this comment
@SheffTim,
Contrary to what you might think, I would actually (and have) agree with most of what you have to say. With regards to CFCs and HFCs, you are correct - there were plenty of companies lined up to support this change. One in which they could "appear to be green" AND "make a lot of money". My point is that WE WERE FORCED to abandon CFCs in favor of HFCs. I am also very familiar with the Ozone layer, its natural reflective properties as well as its benefit to life on earth. My point is that before we jumped ship on CFCs, would it not have made more sense to evaluate alternative technologies more thouroughly as opposed to moving so quickly to HFCs? Its the whole "WE MUST ACT NOW" rhetoric which I deplore - particularly when the science is not "settled". There was a recent article about the fact that some HFCs are as much as 11,700 times as powerful as CO2 as a GHG. The article went on to suggest that perhaps we should use C4H8 (iso-butane) or C5H10 (pentane) as the cooling medium for our air conditioning and refrigeration systems. Never mind the fact that both are highly combustable. So, should your air conditioner or fridge spring a coolant leak (a very common occurance) - you can expect an explosion to follow...gee that sounds like a great idea to me...(can we now have a collective d'oh?) oh and lets not forget that as the iso-butane or pentane explodes (burns) - the by products will be CO2 and H2O...hmmm. Can we agree that we need do significant research before we (yet again) begin such a massive undertaking? Please also note, that I personally did away with "sprays" which use chemical propellants in my home due to my fears related to possible damage to the Ozone layer (which is essential for life to exist on this planet as we know it).
With regards to DDT - thank you, I am quite familiar with the science. My point is that (most) of the claims made by Rachel Carson were shown by scientific study to be false. No, I would not care to inject DDT (or any other pesticide) into my veins, nor drink it by the glassful. I wouldn't mix a few teaspoons of Amdro (we use that for controlling fire ants here) in a glass of water and drinki it. Nor would I suggest "indescrimant spraying" of DDT - nor have I. I mearly assert that I believe that the benefits of using DDT, under prescribed guidelines, outweigh the consequences. There are benefits and detriments to everything we do - it is up to us to weigh the benefits and consequences and make our choices. Is it not?
See, we actually agree on some things - absolutely amazing.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@SheffTim writes:
"Sitting somewhere in the middle I could innocently ask if the commercial sector's record is blameless then?"
My opinion would be that the commericial sector's record is far from blameless. Just take a look at the whole "climate change" thing. There are thousands of companies jumping on the bandwagon, spending billions in lobbying governements of the world, in an effort to shape legislation so as to maximize thier profits. They aren't doing this for alturistic reasons - they are doing it to maximize profits for their shareholders. What do you expect them to do? SHow me a "Green" company and I'll show you a company poised to profit from the "current green agenda"...would you not agree?
I also enjoyed your links in the post. I believe they point to the fact that we face many environmental issues, the world over, other than "climate change" and AGW. There are so many urgent things we need to do to protect and restore our environments the world over.
Cheers for that.
Complain about this comment
I shall iterate from a previous post:
"My point in all this rambling: We need to do a lot more research before we can say "this is bad" or "this is better" with regards to most of the "green agenda" and what changes need be made."
Complain about this comment
@Jack
Quite right! Thanks for that. (biofuels)
BTW - The 70's student union is not quite in charge yet, but they are working very hard on it...
Complain about this comment
@yeah_whatever:
"LArry was obviously too ecstatic over another branch to beat the "enviro-nazis" up with he didn't read Sam's post.
"The windmills are noisy, disrupt wildlife, scar the landscape "
As opposed to the drills?
"and the windmills are quite detrimental to the birds."
Far less so than the glass buildings abounding in Houston, Larry.
"And lets not forget ALL the wires spread across the countryside required to connect these 130,000 windmills to the grid."
Uh, why do you think they are putting those 130,000 windmills all distant from each other?"
------ end of yeah_whatever post -------------------------
First, who is Sam? I see no post from Sam?
Second, call me an enviro-nazi. I would actually advocate the closure of fisheries on a large scale for periods of 5 to 10 years in order to allow those fisheries to recover from unsustainable fishing. I would also advocate international agreements to close fisheries in international waters and would like to see those agreements rigorously enforced (i.e. US Navy uses illegal fishing trawlers for target practice...lol).
With regards to drills - the drills require far less land to produce much greater yields of energy than do your "windmills". Also, I don't believe I have ever heard of birds striking oil derricks to their detriment. As for the "glass buildings" in Houston - as one who spent many years working in those "glass buildings" (usually in an office with a glass window in back and an assistant in front), I have never seen a bird strike the window. I have seen a lot of birds nesting on the ledges, but not flying full force into the windows. The birds appear to be smarter than you.
With regards to the placement of the windmills - first, might I point out that the most desireable location for the windmills is in the middle of the US, a region stretching from the border of Western Texas with Mexico, northward, to Canada. Not only spread out from each other - but also a VERY long way from where the power is needed (along both coasts) - that IS a lot of wires. Also note, they tend to spread out the windmills in the hopes that while the wind may die in one area, it will blow in another. So, not only do you have to have all these windmills - you have to have extras, spread out in hopes that somewhere, the wind will be blowing...oh, and by the way you still have to have the coal and natural gas fired plants, up and running and on standby to pick up the load when the wind dies. Doesn't sound very efficient to me from whatever perspective you choose to view it from.
Cheers
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS