Tim Worstall

Flic Everett

Flic Everett manages to explain just why the eco-movement is at such an impasse. Years ago:

We had clear figureheads
to rally round – people who appeared on the news and gave rousing
speeches, who convinced us that the future of the ozone layer lay in
our capable hands. Jonathon Porritt of Friends of the Earth was the
voice of sanity; Anita Roddick of The Body Shop was the voice of
passion. And Greenpeace still looked like a viable career choice.

And now:

Even the lone
eco-warriors such as Swampy, who kept the tabloids and public amused –
and therefore, mildly interested – for a few years, have grown up and
climbed down from their trees. Anita Roddick is just a businesswoman,
Jonathan Porritt is just a nice man, and today’s favoured teenage
career choice generally involves money, fame and a very big car.

And the solution:

Without a charismatic
figurehead to guide us, to demonstrate exactly what we should be doing
with our water, our deodorant and our fossil fuels, we’re adrift on an
oily sea of ennui and confusion.

I can certainly sympathise, old Georges Monbiot is hardly one to take to the barricades for now is he? Hasn’t had an original idea since a Blueprint for Survival came out.

But I think I can pinpoint the problem, provide a more rational explanation for the situation. Sheer ignorance.

I know that CFCs destroy
the ozone layer, but I find the ozone layer itself hard to picture – in
my mind, it vaguely resembles a gaseous vanilla slice hovering above
Antarctica – so I spray my hair and armpits and worktops with noxious
chemicals, and assume that my tiny domestic emissions won’t make the
mysterious hole any bigger.

Mmmhm, hmm. CFCs. That would be the Montreal Protocol then. The one that came into force in the early 90s, the one that means your hairspray and deodorant no longer contain CFCs. Unless you’re using pre-2000 stock your choice of scent to disguise body odour has about as much influence on the ozone layer as Beethoven’s Fifth does.

Not really sure whether this tells us something about the environmental movement or Guardian columnists. Ignorant, both groups.

In

4 responses

  1. angry economist Avatar
    angry economist

    Yet more proof that a large proportion of the environmental lobby is dependent on sloganised policicking and spin? I think so.
    Frankly, I have heard a lot of these so called figureheads talking absolute pish which is at odds with the nature and scale of environmental problems in terms of scientific evidence.
    Is environmentalism a religion, political movement or a science?

    Reply
  2. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    Well, if it’s a religion, it’ll soon be illegal to criticise it.

    Reply
  3. David Gillies Avatar
    David Gillies

    I’ve lost count of the number of people I’ve met who are unaware of the difference between ozone depletion and anthropogenic global warming. The fact is, most people don’t have the mental acuity or technical knowledge to be able to make a contribution to the debate. The eco-freaks depend on this, of course. It’s the Green version of Donald Luskin’s ‘Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid’.
    CFC’s were some of the greatest industrial chemicals ever developed. Non-flammable, non-toxic, non-carcinogenic, non-teratogenic, almost totally inert in the environment and cheap—well-nigh perfect. Hardly anyone is aware of the nefarious involvement of the chemical industry, notably Du Pont, in lobbying for adoption of the Montreal Protocol. Outlaw a vitally important class of substances and what do manufacturers do? Search around for substitutes; substitutes which, mirabile dictu, Du Pont just happens to have up its sleeve.
    In the early nineties, I was working as an engineer in an electronics factory. One of our pieces of equipment was a ‘vapour-phase degreaser’, which was used to remove the corrosive solder flux residue from circuit boards. It used a CFC (strictly a CFHC) as the solvent. It had to be scrapped and replaced with a unit that cost thousands of pounds and had three times the consumables costs. To add insult to injury, its performace was dreadful compared to the old machine, the solvent was significantly more hazardous and it required more maintenance.

    Reply
  4. Nik Avatar
    Nik

    Pretty sure I read somewhere (sorry to be so vague) that manmade CFC’s were actually denser than our atmosphere and therefore did not rise to the ozone layer and cause it’s hole. Unlike the perfectly natural CFC’s which exist in the atmosphere and DO break down ozone.
    The Du Pont angle was an interesting one that I have not heard before – guess I need to do a bit more investigation.
    Tim adds: That was a point that Dikie Lee Ray used to bang on about. Interesting writer with a lot of good things to say. But I fear she was wrong on this particular point.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading