There are 22 million people in Australia alone exposed to higher UV from the damaged ozone layer. This equates to 1,600 deaths every year and $400million in costs. Survivors may suffer ongoing pain and disfigurement. These are official Australian figures, not exaggerations. I lived in Sydney for over a decade and a large percentage of Australian-born adults I knew had a skin cancer biopsies. Sadly, some were malignant.

To think that because CFC molecules are heavier than nitrogen or oxygen, they cannot reach the stratosphere in significant quantities is incorrect. The forces of wind (turbulence) are strong enough to fully intermix gases in the atmosphere. CFCs are heavier than air, but just like argon, krypton and other heavy gases with a long lifetime, they are uniformly distributed throughout the turbosphere and reach the upper atmosphere. The initial curbs on CFCs were in the mid-70s. It was under the leadership of Regan (that lefty alarmist!) that the US joined other countries in a total ban. The Anatartic hole can shift with turbulence. It was not out of love for Australians but out of fear for Americans that the US acted on CFCs.

I have moved across various continents over the past couple of decades and consequently have had to make an unusual number of purchases of refrigerators. I can attest the cost (in terms of hours of work required to purchase one — based on *average* local salaries) has gone DOWN since 1980, especially when adjusted for quality (which has improved greatly). In fact, refrigerators have become so cheap that now the working poor of Kolkata, India (one of the places I visit frequently) can afford fridges.

Eliminating CFCs has not resulted in higher costs of manufactured products and I challenge the assertion that it has lead to deaths (as noted, lower costs and better technology have enabled more poor people to access refrigeration). The depletion of the ozone layers has halted and the hole is healing (by 33% since 1976). This will help save lives in Australia in particular and also eliminates a risk for the Asia Pacific and potentially much of the planet (i.e. if we just kept pumping CFCs the Antarctic hole was expected to widen and that heightened the risk for many more nations, especially if a turbulent re-distribution of gases in the atmosphere moved the ozone deplete area),

Air quality trends in the US have indeed improved since 1980, according to the EPA. This is encouraging and to gain further improvements (1980 is not a natural benchmark year!) emissions need to be improved as the number of cars increases with the poputlation. We don’t want to let pollution increase through passivity (do we?) The pollution levels in Kolkata (and other developing places I visit) has increased dramatically over the last 25 years. The number of friends and family suffering from respiratory ailments in Kolkata has increasesed (and this is reflected in general health statistics). Premature death related to respiratory conditions is also naturally increasing. Even on short term visits the change is palpable — neighborhoods that used to seem clean and healthy now make my eyes and lungs burn within minutes of landing. I expectorate black mucus. I wipe layers of soot from my skin several time day. People age more quickly and die earlier because of the pollution. If I stayed in Kolkata full-time, it would be equivalent to smoking several packs of cigarettes a day and my life expectancy would be shortened by many years.

Toxic fumes in the air is not only unsightly and smelly — it is deadly. Babies given formula mixed with dirty water die. Australians and Bengalis cannot be dismissed as because they are far away and not American. We all share the same air, the same atmosphere, and the same planetary water system. The flow of particulants (wheter natural from a volcanic eruption or man-made e.g. above ground nuclear testing) can be measured and traced. It is astonishing how quickly an atmospheric event is manifest across the globe.

The reality I observe lead me to think that lowering pollution saves lives, encourages innovation, and makes life more enjoyable.

I’m glad you brought up the Ozone layer, as it is a prefect example of what I’m talking about. In this case, CFCs were to blame for destroying the Ozone layer, but that’s only half the story. CFCs are very heavy, so they require strong upwards winds in order to reach the Ozone layer, which is in the stratosphere, higher up than most rain clouds. It turns out there are only two places on Earth with these winds, the North and South Poles, and even then those winds are seasonal (namely, during the winter). Considering that so few people live in either location, and that not a single illness or death can be attributed to CFCs’ destruction of the Ozone layer, how can you argue that getting rid of them was beneficial? Indeed, refrigerants and fire-supressors, to name a few of CFCs’ uses, are now much more expensive and less effective (according to experts in these fields, not me). In developing countries especially, this has led to a significant increase in food poisoning and fire-related deaths. Many people paid for CFCs’ removal not only with their money, but with their lives.

Instead of worrying about over-exagerated so-called “environmental disasters,” we should be worrying about the actual deaths being brought about in the name of “science” (I put quotes around it because the way it is commonly practiced today is not science).

Why were my previous comments removed when I cited successful action to combat CFC that nearly destroyed our protective ozone layer? I could also add the successful curtailment of acid rain in the 1980s. Both our powerful example that environmental disasters can be avoided without destroying the US economy (by the way, if we didn’t have an ozone layer in our atmosphere, we wouldn’t have an economy to worry about!).

“”The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus … that tells us the earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity,” said another government scientist Jane Lubchenco. A marine biologist and climate researcher, she heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. . . .
Sensenbrenner said the 2006 National Academy study showed Mann’s hockey stick was incorrect and that Mann’s theory was discredited. But Holdren said the NAS study had quibbles with Mann’s methods but agreed with his results.”

The chairman of the Academy of Science panel, Texas A&M University atmospheric scientist Gerald North, confirmed in an interview Wednesday that Holdren was right, not Sensenbrenner.

Why on earth does the FRC support climate skeptics? Just suppose that the vast majority of climate scientists are right — why risk the lives of the already born? Even if there is no problem, it is sure nicer walking along a road when cares have lower emissions. Why doesn’t FRC want to improve the lives of asthmatics or anybody else that wants to enjoy clean air?