IT CANNOT be disputed that a lot of the work carried out by environmental campaigners has stopped, checked or at least reined-in some of the 'dirty'excesses of this industrial world but when does a hatred of big business clash with a desire to do what is best for the environment?
We got rid of CFCs because of a link between the gas and ozone depletion.

Less damaging, but for the same reasons, we now see HCFCs on their way out.

Their replacement, HFCs, have also come under pressure for their global warming potential, hence the implementation of the F-gas regulations and the European decision to phase out R134a in vehicle ac systems.

DuPont and Honeywell have come up with HFO-1234yf from a potential new family of fourth generation fluorocarbons - the hydrofluoro-olefins - which appears to tick all the boxes. It is non-ozone-depleting, has a GWP of just 4, is efficient, non-toxic and only mildly flammable.
You would expect loud cheering from environmental groups around the world, wouldn't you?

Not a bit of it.

The DUH, a German environmental group, has criticised 1234yf for its mild flammability, seemingly ignoring the fact that some environmentalists were earlier backing highly-flammable hydrocarbons for this same purpose - a campaign which lost momentum when one of their number managed to blow himself up and injure a number of bystanders by igniting propane/isobutane canisters in an experiment designed to prove its safety.

Although car manufacturers' tests have so far given 1234yf a clean bill of health on the flammability front, the environmentalists continue to put their weight behind CO2 as the ideal replacement.

While German car manufacturers have also backed CO2, other manufacturers are concerned at the extra cost of CO2 systems, its efficiency and its likely effect on the fuel efficiency of the vehicles in which it is installed.

They prefer DuPont/Honeywell's 1234yf for the fact that it is a 'near' drop-in replacement and claim it is more efficient.

The DUH now also objects to 1234yf on the basis of their claims that it is four times the cost of R134a and, as such, they say, will prove a disincentive for developing countries to replace 134a.
There really is no pleasing some people!

It seems to me that the chemical industry could come up with a refrigerant tomorrow that actually healed the ozone layer, destroyed CO2, was so cheap the chemical companies would pay you to use it, encouraged rainforest growth, helped old ladies across the road, saved the whale and cured cancer - and the environmentalists would still find a reason to reject it!

Could it be that the laudable desire to 'save the planet' has been hijacked by people more intent on attacking big business, blocking globalisation and dismantling the current political structure?

Further indications of the politicisation of the environment comes in a 'survey' by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) into supermarket refrigeration systems and their impact on global warming.

Now, I'm no great lover of supermarkets. In my opinion their effect on our local high street and the reportedly unfair pressure exerted on suppliers leaves a lot to be desired.

In contrast, I do have great respect for the EIA (their report into CFC smuggling a couple of years ago was an excellent, well-researched investigation, ground-breaking in its subject matter), but this latest 'report' is at best wishy-washy and, if it hadn't been for the fact that it has been taken so seriously in some quarters, it would be downright laughable.

Based merely on responses to a questionnaire sent out to all the leading supermarkets and a dip into each of their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reports, the EIA has come up with findings which would be bettered by most year-seven science projects. If this was a bomb designed to embarrass the supermarkets, then I'd like to think that it's exploded in the EIA's face. The reality, of course, is that large sections of the media and some of our leading institutions have given it credibility.

Based upon, from what I can make out, the extent to which the supermarkets are reliant on HFCs, rather than changing to so-called natural refrigerants, the compilers of the EIA report have even concocted a laughable league table based on the replies to their 'survey'.

Acting like petulant schoolgirls, the compilers of this report relegated three supermarkets to the bottom of the table merely because they hadn't responded and had no CSRs available.

The report is lacking in depth and substance. No mention is made of the kind of money required for supermarkets to change their entire systems to natural refrigerants and, more importantly, there is no analysis of the supermarkets' financial reports to suggest where they might find this money.

The compilers admit that there aren't the trained engineers available to work on CO2 systems but make no suggestions as to how this situation could be addressed.

The most accurate statement in the report is the disclaimer: 'It should be noted that although objectivity has been strived for EIA does not in any way claim this survey to be a scientific analysis - the results simply represent EIA's perspective on the issue.'

Might I suggest that, if that is the case, the EIA could have saved the footling amount of money they dribbled into the compilation of this report and saved everybody's time because I suspect that their perspective before the report was the same as it was after.

Is this not further proof that the whole subject of the environment has become nothing more than a political football?

It makes you weep.