- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,293
- Reactions
- 17,523
I don't want to sound like shooting you down over a technicality
We're still using lots of hydrocarbons today, commonly known as oil and gas, and indeed in some cases we're using hydrocarbons as a replacement for CFC's in solvent, propellant (aerosol cans), foam blowing and refrigeration applications.
A quick Google search finds that the composition of CFC use was approximately:
Aerosol cans as propellant = 26%
Refrigeration = 26%
Foam = 25%
Solvents = 16%
Others = 7%
So far as replacing with something else was concerned, in many cases it was straightforward and cheap, hence the relative lack of objection on economic grounds.
Aerosols = very easy to simply use butane or propane instead. Apart from being flammable (but then the other contents of the can are often flammable anyway so that's not generally a major issue), there's no real downside in the vast majority of applications. Propane and butane? That's the stuff commonly known in Australia as LPG - plenty of it and it's cheap.
Foam = various hydrocarbon based alternatives were suitable so again, it wasn't hugely difficult to just use a different gas to do the same job.
Those two "easy" replacements alone accounted for half the total CFC use. So a 50% cut was pretty straightforward.
Refrigeration and solvents were harder, but in due course various alternatives were developed first with less effect on ozone and later with none (so far as we know at present).
The hard bit was the last 7% and that includes things like fire extinguishers, some medical applications and so on. But we worked around it by just using different, albeit less effective in some situations, fire extinguishers and for a while there were exemptions for the medical applications. But still, getting rid of the vast majority of CFC use wasn't beyond our collective abilities.
In contrast, with CO2 it's very different since just about everything we do requires energy, and most energy in most places is from sources that emit CO2. There is several orders of magnitude greater impact economically when compared to the CFC issue.
When the issue first came to widespread public attention in 1988, solar and wind were both out of the question economically and it was just two years after the Chernobyl disaster which left nuclear power unpalatable to most. Here in Australia, it was also just 5 years after we effectively decided to wind up hydro development amidst huge controversy at the time, thus leaving us with "coal or nothing" for power generation and an already established national economic strategy of exporting increasing volumes of coal in order to offset the cost of importing expensive oil (an idea that came out of the 1970's oil crises).
Energy is intertwined with everything. Bottom line of a very complex subject is that if you raise the economic cost of energy then that's essentially a tax on the entire economy. The problem with CO2 is not a technical one, we already have the technology to cut emissions by about two thirds without major technical disruption to how we live, but rather it is a financial problem.