Is 8,000 tons a lot in this context? The Wikipedia article on CFCs list estimates for the illegal production, but no estimates of how large the production was before regulation.
Since 2013, annual emissions of a banned chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) have increased by nearly 8,000 tons from eastern China, according to new research published in Nature by an international team of scientists from the United Kingdom, South Korea, Japan, the United States, Australia, and Switzerland.
Is 8,000 tons a lot in this context? The Wikipedia article on CFCs list estimates for the illegal production, but no estimates of how large the production was before regulation.
Further detective work in China by the Environmental Investigation Agency in 2018 seemed to indicate that the country was indeed the source. They found that the illegal chemical was used in the majority of the polyurethane insulation produced by firms they contacted.
One seller of CFC-11 estimated that 70% of China's domestic sales used the illegal gas. The reason was quite simple - CFC-11 is better quality and much cheaper than the alternatives.
Probably relying on already existing infrastructure to produce the stuff. It's entirely possible that the per unit cost is cheaper in regards to HFC's vs CFC's, as @babypuncher said. But upgrading...
Probably relying on already existing infrastructure to produce the stuff. It's entirely possible that the per unit cost is cheaper in regards to HFC's vs CFC's, as @babypuncher said. But upgrading factories and putting them into compliance is expensive and time consuming, especially if the infrastructure is older. Which means time and money that your competitors don't have to worry about if they chose not to do the right thing.
I'm certain many people even in America wouldn't see the point if they thought the government would do nothing to coerce them.
grist has some additional reporting on this, which adds a few details on china's ongoing problem in trying to quash issues like this and pollution in general:
grist has some additional reporting on this, which adds a few details on china's ongoing problem in trying to quash issues like this and pollution in general:
How could the Chinese government allow the production of such a potent pollutant for over seven years? Dongsheng Zang, an associate professor and director of Asian law at the University of Washington, believes we may never know due to a lack of transparency in Chinese environmental regulation.
“In the past 30 years,” Zang said, “there have been different versions of the Environmental Protection Law, but the mechanism of enforcement has been fairly weak.” He pointed out that NGOs and private citizens are limited in what they can do to push for enforcement.
[...]
A 2018 study looked at data from almost 300 Chinese cities between 2003 and 2010, and found little evidence that environmental regulations were curbing air pollution. Moreover, the trends they observed supported the “pollution haven” hypothesis — that polluting industries, instead of complying with regulations, will simply move to areas with less stringent regulations.
Recently, China’s economic growth has been the slowest in almost 30 years, and coincidentally, the country has also seen higher pollution levels. While local governments say the temperamental weather is to blame for the smog, some environmentalists suspect that reducing air pollution may be on the backburner until the economy bounces back.
Last paragraph of the article: I expected something more specific than "Eastern China" as "the source".
Last paragraph of the article:
While this new study cannot determine which industry or industries are responsible, it provides a clear indication of large increases in emissions of CFC-11 from China in recent years. These increases, likely from new production, account for a substantial fraction of the concurrent global emission rise.
I expected something more specific than "Eastern China" as "the source".
Me neither. But I think many people already thought "China" in response to the earlier reports of CFC emissions from "somewhere". I certainly did. Reading this title I was hoping for something...
Me neither. But I think many people already thought "China" in response to the earlier reports of CFC emissions from "somewhere". I certainly did. Reading this title I was hoping for something more concrete than a 50% cut-down of that general area :-P. Plus some idea of what process they are being used in and why, if possible.
I mean this is good, concrete confirmation makes action and further pinning down possible, but still. Disappointing to see its still a general direction, not a specific source.
Is 8,000 tons a lot in this context? The Wikipedia article on CFCs list estimates for the illegal production, but no estimates of how large the production was before regulation.
What benefit are these companies getting from CFCs when HFCs are cheaper and less likely to get you in trouble?
From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48353341
Probably relying on already existing infrastructure to produce the stuff. It's entirely possible that the per unit cost is cheaper in regards to HFC's vs CFC's, as @babypuncher said. But upgrading factories and putting them into compliance is expensive and time consuming, especially if the infrastructure is older. Which means time and money that your competitors don't have to worry about if they chose not to do the right thing.
I'm certain many people even in America wouldn't see the point if they thought the government would do nothing to coerce them.
grist has some additional reporting on this, which adds a few details on china's ongoing problem in trying to quash issues like this and pollution in general:
Last paragraph of the article:
I expected something more specific than "Eastern China" as "the source".
Me neither. But I think many people already thought "China" in response to the earlier reports of CFC emissions from "somewhere". I certainly did. Reading this title I was hoping for something more concrete than a 50% cut-down of that general area :-P. Plus some idea of what process they are being used in and why, if possible.
I mean this is good, concrete confirmation makes action and further pinning down possible, but still. Disappointing to see its still a general direction, not a specific source.