Roy, The whole article is beyond satire.
the countries that first signed the Montreal Protocol 17 years ago failed to recognize that CFC users would seek out the cheapest
available alternative.Finally, the first formal, secret talks on the subject were held in Montreal last month.
While one person blames “big commercial interests,” others note that
safety and energy efficiency are also important reasons not to use some
of the alternatives:
“If there’s a leak in a residential line, it can ignite ? you have a
potential bomb,” said Stephen Yurek, general counsel for the
Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute.“If it’s going to increase the amount of energy used to operate a piece
of equipment, you’re actually worse off because you’re going to be
pumping more CO2 (carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere.Few [supporters of the Montreal agreement] want to acknowledge anything
could be wrong with a treaty that is on track to fix at least one major
environmental problem.
And to top it all, North Korea is one of the biggest beneficiaries of UN and World Bank funds to replace CFCs.
