🚀 go-pugleaf

As we all know by now, manufacture of all CFCs is prohibited in the US
after the end of this year, because of the harm they cause to the
environment.  But how safe for the environment is the EPA's favored
replacement, a hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) called HFC-134a?

There was an interesting article published in the Los Angeles Times on
Thursday, July 27.  It is titled "Alternatives to CFCs May Harm Wetlands",
and was written by Marla Cone, the Times Environmental writer.  The
article reports on a study published in the journal Nature that shows that
HFCs and HCFCs "can damage sensitive wetlands, especially in arid urban
regions such as Southern California".  According to the study quoted in
the article, "CFC substitutes react in the atmosphere with ozygen to form
acidic rain that could be toxic" to seasonal wetlands in highly populated
urban areas.  

"The study focused on three alternative chemicals that produce the acid,
including HFC-134a, a refrigerant for automobile air conditioners that is
expected to approach 300,000 tons produced per year by 2025", according to
the Times article.  An EPA spokesperson is quoted in the article as saying
that the study is "interesting...but it will probably not change EPA's
perspective on HFC's and HCFCs".

Is the EPA leading us from the frying pan into the fire?