I am conducting a survey for our school project. So it would be very helpful if you provide me with your educational level, experience, background and age.
HFC is an alternative of CFCs in refrigerators and air conditioners and it doesn't harm ozone layer. But HFCs are greenhouse gases.
CFC substitues such as propane, isobutane and butane are extremely flammable.
Every compound has its risks. Do you think it was reasonable to ban CFCs when its alternatives also have enough risks?
2007-11-30 04:53:32 · 9 answers · asked by maidaonline2k 1 in Environment ➔ Alternative Fuel Vehicles
Yes because it harms the enwiroment
2007-11-30 04:58:25 · answer #1 · answered by nonster 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The CFC was not actually a problem. The CFC molecule is far too heavy to damage the ozone layer . The ozone layer is farmed by the earth's magnetic field where the solar winds collide. This is at the very edge of space and very few molecules are light enough to get there .
2007-11-30 14:57:40 · answer #2 · answered by JOHNNIE B 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
well CFC are harmful to environment. They are used because they are very cheep as compared to alternative compounds. There are surely some alternatives but they are much more expensive for consumer products.
Main risk from CFCs is from consumer products. So it is very difficult to discard CFC use completely. So i think it's not reasonable until you come out with stunningly affordable alternatives.
2007-11-30 13:58:37 · answer #3 · answered by VeRyDiScReEt 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, because CFCs were shown to be causing the hole in the ozone layer.
HFCs are not a significant contribution to global warming, and butane and propane are low-risk as long as they're handled carefully.
2007-11-30 13:23:16 · answer #4 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Educational level: 4th year high school student
Experience: NA
Background: Male, Filipino
Age: 16 yrs. old.
ANSWER: Yes. It's because it might do a lot ore danger and harm not oly to th environment but also to the people...thus there would be an imbalance in nature...
2007-12-01 23:05:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was time to get rid of them. The way they were phased out wasn't as effective as it might have been. An effluence tax would have been more effective in containing the gases during the phase-out (which is still going on, btw).
2007-11-30 13:29:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah - because as you stated, CFC's are dual-action gases, they destroy the ozone AND contribute to global warming simultaneously.
2007-11-30 16:49:13 · answer #7 · answered by rabble rouser 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes because harmed are enviroment
2007-11-30 18:21:43 · answer #8 · answered by cubfan1794 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
without a question
2007-11-30 14:27:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋