The Chemical That Must Not Be Named

[depakid]

Delegates from 191 nations are on the verge of an agreement under the Montreal Protocol for faster elimination of ozone-depleting chemicals, but the United States insists it must continue to use the banned pesticide methyl bromide.



Even as another enormous ozone hole forms over the Antarctic this week, the rest of the world appears to be giving in to U.S. demands despite the fact that the use of methyl bromide in developed countries was supposed to have been completely phased out by Jan. 1, 2005 under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

‘It’s a black mark on this meeting. It is the chemical that must not be named,’ said David Doniger, climate policy director at the Natural Resources Defence Council, a U.S. environmental group.0921 07

‘There is a powerful lobby group of strawberry and vegetable growers in Washington,’ Doniger told IPS.

Methyl bromide is a highly toxic fumigant pesticide which is injected into soil to sterilise it before planting crops. It is also used as a post-harvest decontaminant of products and storage areas. Although it is highly effective in eradicating pests such as nematodes, weeds, insects and rodents, it depletes the ozone layer and poses a danger to human health.

While alternatives exist for more than 93 percent of the applications of methyl bromide, some countries such as the U.S., Japan and Israel claimed that because of regulatory restrictions, availability, cost and local conditions, they had little choice but to continue its use as a pest control. And so despite the ban, the Montreal Protocol allows ‘critical use exemptions’ for countries to continue to use banned substances for a short period of time until they can find a substitute.

In 2006, the United States received an exemption to use 8,000 tonnes of methyl bromide, compared to 5,000 tonnes for the rest of the developed world combined.

more: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/21/4008/
---------------

On a personal note, almost all of the strawberries produced sing methyl bromide are large, pretty and pithy, nearly tasteless berries. They look nice, but as the old saying goes- "there's no proof in the pudding...."

Now, taste a local organic strawberry- they may cost more, and not look as big and pretty, but what you get is a flavor explosion! If I want a strawberry, I want a real one- and I'm prepared to pay more and purchase less to actually enjoy them as they should be.

[kimmerspixelated]

1. Why in the world are the powers that be

so hell bent on poisoning us all? IT's not just pesticides. Almost all chronic diseases can be traced to a chemical imbalance that is disrupting hormones, in all of us. Ah, crap, don't get me started!

[TheWraith]

21. I think you've been reading too many "alternative medicine" websites.

Chronic diseases existed long before we had any significant understanding of chemistry, let alone the ability to deploy it on a massive scale. Some of our applications of chemistry these days do have the potential to cause cancer, but to attribute almost all chronic diseases to hormone imbalances is inaccurate.

[NNadir]

2. This is really horrible and bizarre.

[leebert]

3. Two ways to looks at this...

Even as another enormous ozone hole forms over the Antarctic this week, the rest of the world appears to be giving in to U.S. demands despite the fact that the use of methyl bromide in developed countries was supposed to have been completely phased out by Jan. 1, 2005 under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

‘It’s a black mark on this meeting. It is the chemical that must not be named,’ said David Doniger, climate policy director at the Natural Resources Defence Council, a U.S. environmental group.0921 07

‘There is a powerful lobby group of strawberry and vegetable growers in Washington,’ Doniger told IPS.

The alternatives for strawberries are already there ... Chloropicrin and Telone 2 (Dow Chemical's "Inline") work well.

Bromine is a far more aggressive ozone-destroyer than chlorine. It's been said, by the chap who called the alarm to ozone depletion back in the 1970's, that had the chem. co's. used bromine in refrigerants instead of chlorine, we might've all been dead - or living in strangelovian caves - by now.

There's real chicanery going on in China, with the intentional generation of ozone-destroying refrigerant variants that are also classified as global warming agents that - when destroyed - garner more salable carbon credits under the aegis of Kyoto.

Whether the effect of the USA's methyl bromide use is as bad as the rest of the world's continued production of ozone-depleting refrigerants might be a good question to ask, however, and it's hard to find a good info. on the comparative effects, by volume & total emissions. I would assume that ANY element halogen that can outgas, be long-lived and ionize other compounds is an ozone hazard.

[emmadoggy]

4. Is that why

I haven't had a decent strawberry since I was a kid on the farm and my mom had a huge strawberry patch in our garden?? It all makes sense now!

And, oh yeah.........freakin' ASSHOLES! Who ARE these people??

[leebert]

5. Some more links on Methyl Bromide (CH3Br)

Some Methyl Bromide (CH3Br) facts :

http://www.igac.noaa.gov/newsletter/19/butler.php

Not all methyl bromide is anthropogenic. Most CH3Br in the atmosphere is emitted by natural processes. CH3Br, however, is the source of 50 percent of the Br reaching the stratosphere Stratospheric bromine very efficient at depleting ozone - 50 or 60 times that of chlorine on a per-atom basis. That means that at 10 parts-per-trillion, CH3Br causes the equivalent damage of any one of the major CFC's at current atmospheric levels.

[razzleberry]

6. every Compact-Flouresent-Light, contains enough mercury to kill

off human civilization.
why are people worried about this
minor irritant?

[leebert]

8. My analysis shows that CH3Br is not the albatross

... that the enviros want to hang around Bush's neck.

see:
http://www.epa.gov/Ozone/ods.html
and
http://www.igac.noaa.gov/newsletter/19/yvon-lewis.php

The science has shown that the natural reuptake mechanisms sequester CH3Br at a natural reuptake-to-source rate of 1.4-to-1. Moreover only 43 percent of CH3Br is anthropogenically sourced (agricultural fumigant, biomass burning, gasoline). And while the largest bulk of human-generated CH3Br is from agricultural use (25 percent) the fumigant is only 17% of total natural & man made sources. Moreover, although CH3Br's Ozone-Depleting Potential is amongst the top 50 worst chemicals with ozone-destroying potential, it is ranked 42nd from the top, and taken alone it represents less than 1 percent (1%) of the total ozone-depleting potentials of all man-made Class I ozone-destroying chemicals.

Unless an economically equivalent chemical alternative can be found, the economic costs of CH3Br curtailment will be significant to tomato and strawberry producers in the southern USA. As only more expensive or more dangerous alternatives exist, and with the research on CH3Br leaning towards CH3Br's risk being lowered by larger reuptake mechanisims in the biosphere, the American government is not pursuing as aggressive a phase-out of CH3Br as many environmental groups have publicly commented as being prudent.

Balancing the managed risk of ozone depletion against that the economic costs of ozone damage the Bush administration asked for a slower phase-out of CH3Br in light of these other mitigating factors. Even though CH3Br has the chemical potential to be very aggressive in ozone depletion, agricultural CH3Br constitutes a small piece in overall ozone-depleting chemical outgassing. The overall global reuptake balance (CH3Br sinks) suggests that the phase-out is a greater measure of precaution as than imperative remedy.

The conflicted science of methyl bromide:

http://www.igac.noaa.gov/newsletter/19/batchelor.php

"...Methyl bromide is a significant ozone depleter with a 0.4 Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP), according to the most recent Scientific Assessment on Ozone Depletion . This means that, on a per molecule basis, its effectiveness in depleting ozone is about four times that of methyl chloroform and 40% that of CFC-11, two chemicals banned in 1996. Thus, the bromine in CH3Br, known to deplete 40-50 times more ozone than chlorine (atom for atom), makes CH3Br one of the more hazardous substances for the ozone layer listed under the Protocol, despite its low atmospheric concentration.

"...As the upper atmosphere lags behind by about 6 years, it is predicted that a similar trend will be recorded there next year.

However, the stratosphere is most vulnerable to ozone depletion today and will remain so for the next couple of decades . There is no evidence of replenished levels of ozone and this is not expected for another 20-30 years. For these reasons, countries are constantly reminded not to be complacent and to make every endeavor to continue to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals."

http://www.igac.noaa.gov/newsletter/19/crill.php

Biomass burning is another important source of tropospheric methyl halides . Biomass burning may inject into the troposphere an amount of CH3Br that is similar in magnitude to oceanic and industrial sources. The uncertainty in the estimates is such that burning could contribute about 20% of the total source.

http://www.igac.noaa.gov/newsletter/19/yates.php

CH3Br has been an important component of agricultural systems in the U.S. and its phase-out is expected to cause financial hardship to agricultural producers. Recent economic assessments estimate that more than $1.5 billion in annual lost production would occur in the United States alone .

"...As the CH3Br phase-out date approaches, some questions remain whether restricting CH3Br use will have a significant effect on stratospheric ozone levels . Further, it appears that methodology exists that would enable CH3Br emissions from fumigated soils to be reduced by at least one order of magnitude. This would reduce the global CH3Br contribution from agricultural use to less than 1% of the worldwide sources."

http://www.igac.noaa.gov/newsletter/19/yvon-lewis.php

Source Type Emissions (Gg y-1)
Oceans 56 (5-130)i
Fumigation - soils 26.5 (16-48)
Fumigation - durables 6.6 (4.8-8.4)
Fumigation - perishables 5.7 (5.4-6.0)
Fumigation - structures 2 (2-2)
Gasoline 5 (0-10)
Biomass Burning 20 (10-40)
Wetlands 4.6b (?)
Salt marshes 14c (7-29)
Plants - rapeseed 6.6d (4.8-8.4))
Rice Fields 1.5e (0.5-2.5)
Fungus 1.7f (0.5-5.2)

Total = 151g (56-290)

Sink Type Uptake (Gg y-1)
Oceans -77 (37-133)i
OH and hn -86 (65-107)
Soils -46.8a (32-154)
Plants h

Total = -210g (134-394)

=======

The aforementioned press release (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/21/4008) is naught more than anti-USA agitprop. What's shameful is how some environmental pundits manipulate their constituents with press releases designed to galvanize instead of inform.

The more some environmentalists game the dialectic the more they'll find it harder and harder to find industrialists and governments willing to negotiate in good faith with them, and the less benefit the public will derive from these organizations.

======

From: http://www.epa.gov/Ozone/ods.html
(tab delimited... hopefully the tabs will persist for cut&paste...)

Chemical Name Lifetime, in years ODP1 (WMO 20021) ODP2 (Montreal Protocol) ODP3 (40 CFR)
Group I (from section 602 of the CAA)
CFC-11 (CCl3F) Trichlorofluoromethane 45 1 1 1
CFC-12 (CCl2F2) Dichlorodifluoromethane 100 1 1 1
CFC-113 (C2F3Cl3) 1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 85 1 0.8 1
CFC-114 (C2F4Cl2) Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 300 0.94 1 1
CFC-115 (C2F5Cl) Monochloropentafluoroethane 1700 0.44 0.6 0.6
Group II (from section 602 of the CAA)
Halon 1211 (CF2ClBr) Bromochlorodifluoromethane 16 6 3 3
Halon 1301 (CF3Br) Bromotrifluoromethane 65 12 10 10
Halon 2402 (C2F4Br2) Dibromotetrafluoroethane 20 8.5 6 6
Group III (from section 602 of the CAA)
CFC-13 (CF3Cl) Chlorotrifluoromethane 640 1 1 1
CFC-111 (C2FCl5) Pentachlorofluoroethane 1 1 1
CFC-112 (C2F2Cl4) Tetrachlorodifluoroethane 1 1 1
CFC-211 (C3FCl7) Heptachlorofluoropropane 1 1 1
CFC-212 (C3F2Cl6) Hexachlorodifluoropropane 1 1 1
CFC-213 (C3F3Cl5) Pentachlorotrifluoropropane 1 1 1
CFC-214 (C3F4Cl4) Tetrachlorotetrafluoropropane 1 1 1
CFC-215 (C3F5Cl3) Trichloropentafluoropropane 1 1 1
CFC-216 (C3F6Cl2) Dichlorohexafluoropropane 1 1 1
CFC-217 (C3F7Cl) Chloroheptafluoropropane 1 1 1
Group IV (from section 602 of the CAA)
CCI4 Carbon tetrachloride 26 0.73 1.1 1.1
Group V (from section 602 of the CAA)
Methyl Chloroform (C2H3Cl3) 1,1,1-trichloroethane 5 0.12 0.1 0.1
Group VII (listed in the Accelerated Phaseout Final Rule)
CHFBr2 1 1
HBFC-12B1 (CHF2Br) 0.74 0.74
CH2FBr 0.73 0.73
C2HFBr4 0.55 0.55 0.55
C2HF2Br3 1.15 1.15 1.15
C2HF3Br2 1 1 1
C2HF4Br 0.95 0.95 0.95
C2H2FBr3 0.6 0.6 0.6
C2H2F2Br2 0.85 0.85 0.85
C2H2F3Br 1.15 1.15 1.15
C2H3FBr2 0.9 0.9 0.9
C2H3F2Br 0.65 0.65 0.65
C2H4FBr 0.09 0.09 0.09
C3HFBr6 0.9 0.9 0.9
C3HF2Br5 1.05 1.05 1.05
C3HF3Br4 1.05 1.05 1.05
C3HF4Br3 1.35 1.35 1.35
C3HF5Br2 1.45 1.45 1.45
C3HF6Br 2 2 2
C3H2FBr5 1 1 1
C3H2F2Br4 1.15 1.15 1.15
C3H2F3Br3 2.9 2.9 2.9
C3H2F4Br2 3.9 3.9 3.9
C3H2F5Br 1.15 1.15 1.15
C3H3FBr4 0.99 0.99 0.99
C3H3F2Br3 1.6 1.6 1.6
C3H3F3Br2 1.3 1.3 1.3
C3H3F4Br 2.35 2.35 2.35
C3H4FBr3 0.17 0.17 0.17
C3H4F2Br2 0.55 0.55 0.55
C3H4F3Br 0.44 0.44 0.44
C3H5FBr2 0.22 0.22 0.22
C3H5F2Br 0.44 0.44 0.44
C3H6FBr 0.36 0.36 0.36
Group VIII (from the Chlorobromomethane Phaseout Final Rule)
CH2BrCl Chlorobromomethane 0.37 0.12 0.12
--
Total ODP, non-CH3Br Class I compounds 78.39 71.38 69.11
--
Group VI (listed in the Accelerated Phaseout Final Rule)
Methyl Bromide (CH3Br) 0.7 0.38 0.6 0.6
--
All ODP totaled 78.77 71.98 69.71
--
CH3Br, percent, all ODP total 0.0048 0.0083 0.0086

From: http://www.igac.noaa.gov/newsletter/19/yvon-lewis.php

Source Type Emissions (Gg y-1) Gg y-1 Balance Gg y-1
Oceans 56 (5-130) 56.00
Fumigation - soils 26.5 (16-48) 26.50
Fumigation - durables 6.6 (4.8-8.4) 6.60
Fumigation - perishables 5.7 (5.4-6.0) 5.70
Fumigation - structures 2 (2-2) 2.00
Gasoline 5 (0-10) 5.00
Biomass Burning 20 (10-40) 20.00
Wetlands 4.6 (?) 4.60
Salt marshes 14 (7-29) 14.00
Plants - rapeseed 6.6 (4.8-8.4)) 6.60
Rice Fields 1.5 (0.5-2.5) 1.50
Fungus 1.7 (0.5-5.2) 1.70

Total = 151g (56-290) 151.00 151.00

Sink Type Uptake (Gg y-1)
Oceans 77 (37-133) -77.00
OH and hn 86 (65-107) -86.00
Soils 46.8 (32-154) -47.00
Plants h ?

Total = 210g (134-394) -210.00 -210.00

Total Global CH3Br Budget -59.00

(a negative number indicates a CH3Br "sink" reuptake function)

=====

see also ... how partisan enviros helped to torpedo a clean air bill:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_12_36/ai_n8643128/pg_1

[leebert]

10. compact fluorescent bulbs stink

If you have an old house (like I do) w/out a third ground wire throughout the house, those mercury-ladened compact fluorescent bulbs (CFBs) burn out earlier b/c their ballasts (transformer bases) can't isolate lightning or line spikes worth a damned. My friend has seen two of his CFB's arc through, presumably releasing mercury (Hg) into his house. I won't use them any more, they've never lasted even a half of their purported lifetime in our old house.

And to think there are enviros who want to ban incandescents b/c the net reduction in Hg on coal-powered grids would be 40%. What if my power grid isn't coal-based? I'm wandering, too, if CFBs were mandated whether old neighborhoods wouldn't end up increasing the net Hg in the environment b/c of the increased burn rate of CFBs on older wiring.

And what about recycling these CFBs? Are we supposed to let Suzie Q. Public tote them back to the grocery store in a bag that got crushed under Johnny's backpack? Who wants to see large return volumes of these mercury-ladened bulbs being (mis)handled by teen clerks in the same back room as the food stocks?

GE claims they're working on incandescent bulbs that'll be just as efficient as CFBs, contains no mercury and will still be longer-lived than a standard incandescent bulb.

Quo bono? Who'd benefit from CFB mandates? Not the incandescent bulb manufacturers in Mexico... Note that CFBs are still a patented tech.

Heh heh.....

[NNadir]

17. So, then, how is your electricity generated, if not by coal?

Is it your contention here that mercury is the only serious pollutant that results from coal burning?

I can buy CFL's pretty cheaply. I've used them for years, going back to when they were expensive. My house was built in 1959. When I moved into it, it still had fuses.

Of course, I don't have a stopwatch counting the lifetime of my bulbs, but my perception is that I almost never buy a bulb. I can't remember the last time I needed one.

In fact, I remember disposing of only two CFL bulbs. I threw them in the trash, if you must know, and felt pretty satisfied that I was not releasing as much mercury as I would have done by having an incandescent. I keep close track of whence my electricity comes. Where I live, in New Jersey, less than 20% of our electricity comes from dangerous coal. In fact, less than 50 percent of our electricity comes from any kind of dangerous fossil fuel. We are, I'm proud to say, better than 50% nuclear here, and we even get 1.4% of our energy from magical wonderful renewables.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/new_jersey.html

Still I'm convinced that I have saved mercury pollution. I could probably calculate as much, but somehow, I'm going to bet that isn't the real point.

I think I smell libertarianism.

I'm always a little suspicious when I see someone railing against generic "environmentalists" who are trying to "force" someone to do something. As it happens, everyone whether a generic environmentalist or just someone who complains about generic environmentalists, is forced to eat, breath and drink dangerous fossil fuel waste.

[leebert]

18. Lightbulbs, smoke ...

I think I smell libertarianism.

You say that as tho that were a bad thing.

I'm always a little suspicious when I see someone railing against generic "environmentalists" who are trying to "force" someone to do something. As it happens, everyone whether a generic environmentalist or just someone who complains about generic environmentalists, is forced to eat, breath and drink dangerous fossil fuel waste.

I've tried to work with multiple enviro groups & got fed up with the radical baloney. Maybe there's an enviro group out there that doesn't have a raft of people believing that 9/11 was an inside job, but I've yet to find one. I showed myself the door & haven't gone back since.

I live in Austin, TX. where our city-owned utility uses gas & oil, no coal. Other cities in Texas use lots of coal to gen. electricity, and yes the mercury & arsenic fallout is a real concern. We just had a big fight here about TxU building more coal-powered plants. The only answer to the quandary, AFAICT, are efficiency measures, cleaner coal-powered plants (as clean as is feasible, with deeper-scrubbing retrofit function planned) and renewables. Were we to not use coal or shale oil, the energy throughput required for the world to meet its growing power curve would either push the prices of declining oil & gas stocks sky-high & then you'd have old people freezing to death in the winter.

Unlike other posters on these fora, I'm willing to accept incremental progress in due course. Unless there is an imminent danger or a serious bioaccumulation issue that exceeds the ability to manage risk, the dilemma is a structural one - how to generate X amt of energy with diminishing oil stocks & limited renewables. I'm not sanguine, but I resist seeing this as a question of profiteering vs. environmental and health degradation.

[leebert]

20. Coal, mercury vs. compact fluorescent bulbs

Is it your contention here that mercury is the only serious pollutant that results from coal burning?

Gosh no. Nitrous oxides, sulfates, soot (you've caught my thing about soot, right?), arsenic, mercury, CO2, etc. Some of these can be scrubbed pretty well... soot, SO2 (a very successful cap&trade program within the USA, BTW). Apparently coal liquification might allow for removing the heavy metals, the SO2 & soot can certainly be scrubbed, CO2 sequestration is in its early pilots, hard to say. Is Clean Coal an oxymoron? I don't know enough to say either way, so I'm sitting the fence.

In fact, I remember disposing of only two CFL bulbs. I threw them in the trash, if you must know, and felt pretty satisfied that I was not releasing as much mercury as I would have done by having an incandescent. I keep close track of whence my electricity comes. Where I live, in New Jersey, less than 20% of our electricity comes from dangerous coal. In fact, less than 50 percent of our electricity comes from any kind of dangerous fossil fuel. We are, I'm proud to say, better than 50% nuclear here, and we even get 1.4% of our energy from magical wonderful renewables.

I know other people have had better successes with CFL bulbs, but as personal experience is sometimes a stronger teacher, and having had seen arc-throughs and premature burnouts first hand, I'd much rather the Hg point source NOT be in my kid's room as mandated by the gov't. Sure, call me libertarian on that point. With the grocery storeroom quandary (I think it was Calif. looking at MANDATING the things, compelling all the retailers to accept them & keep return stock).

As for whether you achieved a net negative offset in Hg emissions, I saw an EPA chart a while back that showed the exact coal-source mix whereby CFL bulb use would become efficacious in net Hg mitigation. If I recall correctly the benefit level was more than 20% Coal-generated electricity.

Remember the whole MBTE fiasco? It was mandated in gasoline to help clean up the air but its accumulation in the watershed & biological effects were worse than leaded gas. I'm circumspect of efforts to mandate CFL bulbs in the name of Hg mitigation. The whole thing looks daft to me, and yes, I'm a hard-headed crank when it comes to some new trends.

[Nihil]

23. You're looking in the wrong direction for safety issues.

> If you have an old house (like I do) w/out a third ground wire throughout
> the house, those mercury-ladened compact fluorescent bulbs (CFBs) burn out
> earlier b/c their ballasts (transformer bases) can't isolate lightning or
> line spikes worth a damned. My friend has seen two of his CFB's arc through,
> presumably releasing mercury (Hg) into his house. I won't use them any more,
> they've never lasted even a half of their purported lifetime in our old house.

Your problem isn't the miniscule amount of mercury in a CFL, it's the fact
that you don't care enough about your kids to get your house wired safely.

Save all your crap about "not putting CFLs in my children's bedroom" and
think about the real dangers that they face every day from unsafe wiring.

:grr:

[leebert]

24. LOL! How the heck did we all survive

without you safety freaks to save us from ourselves and our dangerous hot-neutral wiring? It must've been by a miracle that we're here at all!

Gee, it's hard to decide *WHERE* to start.

OK, how's this: YOU'RE WRONG!

I remember getting a few zings as a child from the sockets & the presence of a ground prong wouldn't have saved me had I somehow gotten the full 110 going through my thoracic cavity. Most kid's lamps and toys do not use the ground wire, so then under your standard all their electric toys are dangerous too!

GFCI's will work on 2-wire installations w/out a ground wire. Not all appliances (such as hair dryers) are 3-prong, and GFCI's can detect ground faults w/out the third ground wire. The third ground wire is only there for grounded appliances. And guess where *MOST* ground wires in *MOST* homes go anyway? Back to the neutral bar!

I know people who still have post & knob wiring under the joists in their house. They're still alive.

And as for "crap", & unsafe wiring, oh genius child, ever try to completely rewire a house including the ceiling lights? Most housing doesn't have conduit, the romex is stapled into place.

|RANT|
I'm so glad you know so much that you're free to tell strangers how to run our lives... and while you're at it, ban cigarette smoking, incandescent bulbs and backyard Bar-B-Q's, mandate health insurance coverage & shove your safety-fascist codebook up our (orifices usually reserved for egress) while you're at it, you miserable fascist do-good busy-body (expurgated gerund) limousine liberal PITA (Pain In The Acronym).
|/RANT|


C'mere. I wanna give you a hug....

[Nihil]

22. That post is so full of shit it makes a feedlot look healthy. (n/t)

:eyes:

[leebert]

25. Well... rb does tend toward provocatage

And I didnt' take him too seriously...

Now, the Americium in smoke detectors ... ever hear the story of the radioactive boy scout?

[The2ndWheel]

7. It figures Big Strawberry would get us in the end

[phantom power]

9. ....

:spray:

[depakid]

11. You almost knew that the sophists would be at it

posting about strawmen like mercury, or trying to obfuscate the science to run cover for American exceptionalists who refuse to comply with international treaties, even though other nations manage to do so without "wrecking their industries."

THE EC for example seems to be proceeding quite well without all of the whinging.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ozone/lisbon_conference.htm

[leebert]

12. Propping up the old American strawman

When the USA along with ELEVEN (11) other developed countries asked for the methyl bromide (CH3Br) extension, why are you claiming it's all the USA's fault & indicative of American sophistry?

READ the UNEP statements from your own citation:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ozone/conference/lisboa/measures/1.pdf

"...Methyl bromide approved for temporary uses
Montreal, 26 March 2004

– An intergovernmental meeting here on the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer has granted limited “critical use exemptions” to 11 developed countries facing a year-end deadline for phasing out methyl bromide.

The exemptions are intended to give farmers, fumigators and other users of methyl bromide some additional time to adopt cost-effective substitutes for this ozone-destroying pesticide, which is used to eliminate pests in such crops as tomatoes, strawberries, melons, peppers, cucumbers and flowers.

“The high demand for exemptions to the methyl bromide phaseout shows that governments and the private sector will have to work much harder to speed up the development and spread of ozone-friendly replacements,” said Executive Director Klaus Toepferof the United Nations Environment Programme...."

=========
If it were really URGENT that CH3Br be banned w/out an extension to the deadline, he would have said so. The Montreal membership assented to the extraordinary meeting with the explicit understanding that they were going to extend the cut-off deadline for CH3Br.

IOW, everything is OK, there are no "American Exceptionalists" (unless you want to say there are 10 other exceptionalist countries) and the UNEP was OK with it even though the directorate essentially implied that this would be the last extension he felt anyone should ever get for CH3Br.

This is why people believe environmentalists less and less, you're ruining your own reputations with agitprop tactics.

Please knock it off, it's making the science look stupid.

[depakid]

14. Read the article

In 2006, the United States received an exemption to use 8,000 tonnes of methyl bromide, compared to 5,000 tonnes for the rest of the developed world combined.

and don't be naive in thinking that the exemptions are to give agribusiness "more time" to phase out methyl bromide. If Bush and the far right- and their DINO enablers had their way, there wouldn't be any phase out. Indeed, one of the very first things the Republican Congress tried to do in 1994 was to abrogate the Montreal Protocols!

My thoughts on this are precisely the same as with American automobile manufacturers. They too whinge incessantly about not being able to meet responsible standards- yet the Japanese did it and could continue to do it.

The link I posted above shows that EC's moving along just fine in adopting alternatives. But the poor US just can't keep up- and won't keep up unless they know that they'll be held to their end of the bargain.

[leebert]

15. Right...

... so you're saying b/c SOME countries phased out sooner that other countries are bad for not doing so?

Has it occurred to you that there might be a perfectly decent & reasonable explanation that has nothing to do with corporate foot-dragging or environmental indifference?

Are you so sure of your interpretation of the facts that you're willing to risk someone else's business?

Note the conditions under which the US EPA grants continued use exemptions for use of MB: Ongoing battles against blight and other infestations, near outbuildings, AND for farms UNDER 100 acres.

SMALL FARMERS.

Would you rather take the chance that you're wrong & see someone else go out of business?

I had *NO* preconceived notions coming into this (see my earlier posts #5 & #3), but my reading has lead me to the conclusion that this is a tempest in a teapot.

But what I really loathe is agitating propaganda from either the right or the left wing. In the effort to defame each other and jockey for political positions, both defame science.

If we don't demand a higher level of discourse from partisan nonprofits, be they the American Enterprise Institute or the Natural Resources Defense Council, environmentalists will have only themselves to blame for rendering themselves completely ineffectual in their use of tactical polemics.

I'm sorry, but your refusal to look at the extenuating circumstances suggests to me you've already made up your mind that it's all an evil GOP plot to keep the chemical companies making poison, yadda yadda.

[depakid]

16. As to GOP "plots," all you'd have to do is look at Richard Pombo

et al.

How many would you need to see to accept what's going on on this issue and countless others?

[leebert]

19. No argument there...

... and I'm not shocked that some industry toady is trying to greenwash & loophole for big industry.

Here's the problem: Keeping them in line without losing sight of what's reasonable.

I think many fight-the-good-fight org's on all sides of the equation .. libertarian, conservative, environmental, etc., push maximum-position agitprop in order to galvanize their constituencies.

It's more about galvanizing their constituencies for fund-raising and tactical maneuvering than it is about science. The end-game is what happens at the negotiating table ... witness similar power plays in other venues. It may be utterly transparent to you when Rush Limbaugh does it, but it's quite facile to miss cynical polemics from nominal allies working our sympathies to their advantage.

I loathe this kind of tactical for a raft of reasons; loyal constituents are relegated to the edge function of useful idiots, but what really suffers is the reputation of activists who are - in exploiting short-term gains of the battle tacticians - are forfeiting their chance at bridge-building to moderate and skeptic groups down the road.

It's not the like-minded we need to galvanize, but the fence-sitting middle & skeptical opposition we need to win over.

Resorting to dialectic reifying tactics completely undermines the cause at hand, and the cause at hand - the planetary environment that everyone occupies - needs to be kept secularized from partisan politics.

If I don't leave my politics at the sangha door, then the other guy can't either. I feel that it's counterproductive to intentionally introduce additional political rancor into environmentalism or conservationism.

It's much too easy to strawman the other guy when he already epitomizes evil otherwise.

[leebert]

13. Get your facts straight ...

You almost knew that the sophists would be at it posting about strawmen like mercury, or trying to obfuscate the science to run cover for American exceptionalists who refuse to comply with international treaties, even though other nations manage to do so without "wrecking their industries."

THE EC for example seems to be proceeding quite well without all of the whinging.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ozone/lisbon_conference.htm

Note that the USA's MB use at 35 percent of its 1991 baseline cap. The USA is now capped at 9,857 tons under the extension. The TEN OTHER COUNTRIES included: http://www.ipm.osu.edu/fruit/04icm10.htm

Italy (2,351 tons)
Spain (1,167 tons)
France (449 tons)
Greece (205 tons)
Japan (313 tons)
Australia (160 tons)
Britain (142 tons)
Canada (62 tons)
Portugal (55 tons)
Belgium (52 tons)

OOPS. There's goes your pet theory that the EC is doing better than the USA. NOTE that SEVEN of the ELEVEN are members of the EC, with Italy, Spain, France and Greece taking 4 of the top 5 slots. Why... even groovy lil' Belgium, seat of the EU. I'm shocked! It's all those doggone tulip growers or something, flying their carbon-credit-eating flowers everywhere.

Every year these critical-use exemptions are single-year extensions, issued under the proviso that the USA (& the other 11 countries) are IN FACT looking for a better solution.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:r3D08XqIxTYJ:ipm.ncsu.edu/ncpmip/SEVegExpo05.ppt+methyl+bromide+%2211+countries%22+extension

* The amount of methyl bromide requested by the U. S. each year in CUE process is decreasing (39% to 37% to 29% of baseline)
* The amount of methyl bromide authorized by the Parties each year in CUE process is decreasing (37% to 32% to ? of baseline)
* The continued authorization of methyl bromide by the Parties is dependent on U. S. demonstrating progress toward development of alternatives

HELLO? The various nations who are asking for exemptions are working on it IN GOOD FAITH, *and* if they fail to work on it... THEY'LL FORFEIT EVER GETTING ANOTHER EXTENSION!

<>
We evil, conniving Americans. How wily and deceitful we are.
<>

==

http://cals.arizona.edu/crops/pesticides/pesticidenews.html
"...By adopting a "double-cap" concept that distinguishes exemption levels according to uses of old and new production of methyl bromide, more than 180 parties agreed the United States and the 10 other nations combined could be exempted for use of 13,438 metric tons of methyl bromide because of the lack of technically and economically feasible alternatives...."

And, as a matter of fact, HONEST SCIENTISTS are looking at the potential policy reversal that MB could actually be used in an ozone-friendly way. It's commented on here: http://www.igac.noaa.gov/newsletter/19/yvon-lewis.php
"...As the CH3Br phase-out date approaches, some questions remain whether restricting CH3Br use will have a significant effect on stratospheric ozone levels. Further, it appears that methodology exists that would enable CH3Br emissions from fumigated soils to be reduced by at least one order of magnitude. This would reduce the global CH3Br contribution from agricultural use to less than 1% of the worldwide sources."

You're more than welcomed to show me how I am wrong, in this or any of my other posts. I have science, undiluted, accurate science at my disposal. Let's see what you've got, mister "the sophists are at it again." I'm waiting to become suddenly more enlightened than I already am. Go for it.

And in case you're wondering, nobody has claimed the USA is cheating or subverting the Montreal Protocol. China on the other hand is not only cheating Kyoto but screwing the ozone layer & subverting Montreal while they're at it: http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL137011320070813

And I'll just assume that the record shows that neither I nor razzleberry have engaged in sophistry or obfuscation, just an attempt to put the record into perspective.

Oh, right, I forgot. I'm on DU.

Never mind..... I forget that avante-liberal hairshirt environmentalism requires the evil rich American ponzi artists all go bankrupt & the rest of us move back into the caves.

Naughty me! I want to save the planet without falling for the agitprop tactics of ideologues trying to galvanize the unsuspecting and unsophisticated do-good householders driving their groovy Priupuses.

[redqueen]

26. Welcome to DU.

Enjoy your stay.