The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns

Perhaps most of us sit somewhere in-between, leaning more one way or another. Remember, mom always said if you lean too far you'll fall over!

A few years back the debate over CFCs was still in full rage. This was especially brought to light when Rush Limbaugh debated Al Gore and he famously stumped Al Gore with:

"Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in one eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical, and insensitive corporations in history"

Admittedly, stumping Al "I invented the Internet" Gore doesn't take a genius. Besides, the whole Bush vs Al Gore intelligence debate is really mute. Politicians are those able to get voting monkeys like us to put a checkmark beside insult poo-flinging stinkers like them.

The anti-CFC (Freon) people basically summarize their points as follows: 1) How does a heavier than air molecule like CFCs get into the stratosphere? HELLO! DUST STORMS ANYONE!? I think dirt is slightly heavier than air. How come nature does not destroy the ozone with volcanoes, which spew much more ozone depleting chemicals into the atmosphere than mankind artificially makes? How about you enviro-weenies protest one of those nasty polluting things instead and choose one that is threatening to explode! I'm so nice, aren't I?

The counter argument basically says air is fluid, thus heat and winds will raise heavier than air molecules, even all the way into the stratosphere given enough time. The other counter point is that volcanoes produce chemicals which are water soluble, meaning their pollution does not have time to reach the stratosphere to destroy the ozone unlike CFCs which can last for a century. Oh no, better put out another drinking water advisory alert!

I’m not going to debate this issue, as I’m simply not qualified to judge. That’s mostly the trouble with most of this science; most of the population is too ignorant to really know what to believe - including myself. Come on, admit it, you are about as dumb as Barbra Streisand is on coastal erosion photography on this subject! A charismatic leader such as Rush Limbaugh or an effective marketing campaign by the enviro-weenies is all it may take to sway public opinion with potentially harmful side effects if either is wrong.

Let’s presume for a moment the pro-CFC crowd is right. CFCs are actually not destructive (or enough to do any serious damage). If correct, then we are all burning more energy than before to produce that iced cappuccino latte. My understanding is that CFCs are actually more efficient than other refrigeration gases available on the market today, minus the gases that would explode or poison us when used. Instead of saving the Antarctic penguin from radiation, we are filling the air with more smog. Regardless of your position on global warming, spending any more cash than required on foreign fossil fuels hosted by hostile regimes should be enough for people to think twice.

Hydrogen is often announced as the saviour clean air fuel. The benefit of hydrogen is not as a fuel source, but rather as fuel storage. Unfortunately, hydrogen is a fuel that is largely derived from methane or from electrical reverse osmosis - the same electricity created often by burning fossil fuels. Hmm... seems that cow 'exhaust' may be powering future cars if we use the methane approach. More energy is used to create hydrogen than is created by burning the resulting hydrogen. We can't just dig up hydrogen or pull if from the air in quality at this time.

Hydrogen is way more efficient to store than electricity, which requires large non-environmentally friendly batteries and hydrogen does not pollute when burned. Hydrogen burns cleaner than hybrid cars, which still rely on fossil fuel. I’ve never understood the advocacy of hybrids with their massive batteries that don’t last forever. Please explain that one you enviro-weenies! In theory, hydrogen could be produced in massive quantities in remote highly environmentally efficient plants in non-populated locations, and brought to the local pump and fill. Yes, someone will likely protest such a plant for non-other than environmental concerns if that makes any sense. The way gas prices are going, creating hydrogen might actually become on cost par with burning of fossil fuels. The solution to pollution is right at our door step!

Well, not so fast. See hydrogen doesn’t always burn completely just like fossil fuel and a certain percentage of hydrogen will be released during its production and transportation. What happens to this hydrogen leakage? This lighter-than-air molecule easily reaches the upper parts of our atmosphere and depending on the qualities involved, leakage could have devastating results to the ozone. Who knows what other consequences await.

I sure wish I could trust science. With the amount of scientific snobbery that exists, scientists are quick to dismiss and debunk anyone not part of their elite group. What ever happened to actually testing both sides of a theory? Why is it that scientists seem more like advocates and never seem interested to see if the other side may have a point? Look you bunch of clipboard-carrying pocket-protecting white trench coat-wearing nerds, you truly don’t have a reason to be such snobs to those whom don’t share your educational pedigree!

While I do think the environment is a bit more resilient than the "sky is falling" people believe, I’ve never much enjoyed breathing in air from a smoking car. Yes, another pet peeve to come on that one! So what's the solution and whom do we believe? Policy based on incomplete science will either cause needless economical woes, or a potential ecological disaster.