File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1996/96-12-18.142, message 46

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:44:14 +0100 (MET)
Subject: Re: M-G: Re: The Bob-Rolf stick-the-ozone-hole-up-your-ass front

Siddharth wrote, on 15.12

- and here is something on an important technical issue that's
new to me; I shall have to check this out to see if I've been
making a mistake or not:
>On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, Rolf Martens wrote:
>> As to the *facts* of the matter - *is* there an ozone hole or not? -
>> you seem to be quite unable to make an independent judgement on that,
>> independent on what the big imperialists are saying, but I would
>> like to point out to you and others once more that you can rather
>> easily see it *is* a big bluff, a bluff in the dircetion of
>> planned genocide, because there's much more chlorine in nature than
>> ever could come from the freons. (Book by "LaRouche"s) 
>> Rolf M.
>I do not know whether you read the scientific literature or not but there
>is some evidence for the destruction of the ozone in the stratosphere
>(15-15 km in altitude) by chlorinated solvents (CFCs included) emitted
>on earth primarily by the industrialized north. 

I've tried to follow some of that literature. But unfortunately I
haven't read as much as would really be necessary on this and
some other subjects. Is there really "some evidence"? As far as
I've understood, there are different opinions on this.
>Ozone is formed in the upper atmosphere due to the dissociation of
>molecular oxygen into atomic oxygen by absorption of solar radiation of
>wavelengths shorter than 200 nanometers. The atomic oxygen then reacts
>with molecular oxygen to form ozone. The ozone in turn can photodissociate
>to form atomic and molecular oxygen and so on. This chain of reactions
>leads to the formation of the ozone layer in the stratosphere which
>absorbs the ultraviolet radiation harmful to life on earth.
>Chlorinated solvents that reach the upper atmosphere, photodissociate
>and release chlorine atoms that catalyze the destruction of ozone. These
>chlorinated solvents, unlike chlorine, are long-lived species and can
>therefore reach the stratosphere.

Yes, and then the "ozone depletion" theory says that these solvents
then dissociate in the stratosphere, giving rise to free chlorine
which is said to be a catalyst for destroying ozone.

>Your claim about there being more chlorine in nature than that caused
>by freons is misleading since it does not talk about what *type* of
>chlorine or chlorine compounds. Chlorine by itself, is highly reactive
>and poisonous, and is not likely to reach the upper atmosphere.

This was news to me. But I realize you must be right about the
difficulty of chorine from the ground to reach the upper atmosphere,
because of its high reactiveness. So then that argument I thought
so conclusively would refute the "ozone depletion" theory perhaps
does not hold at all? I shall try to check this out.

(One instant thought: How about chlorine compounds in nature
then, reaching the stratosphere and then dissociating? But
I admit, I don't know whether there in fact is much of such stuff.) 

This doesn't in itself make that theory correct, though. I still,
on the basis of 1)what technical knowledge I have (and I realize
it's not that great) and 2) conclusions reached by looking at
what forces are advocating the theory and what forces are opposing
it (there's uncertainty here too, I admit) believe it's *not*
correct. A matter-of-fact discussion on this would be a good thing,

>exact same statement that you make was made by a right-wing radio comm-
>entator, Rush Limbaugh, which was subsequently refuted by a news watch-
>dog group called FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting). 

Yes, I've read about this Rush Limbaugh on newsgroups, but I don't
know exactly what he stands for on various questions. I'm not
certain it's fair to call him "right-wing". The phoney 
"environmentalist" propaganda on the whole *is* extremely right-
wing, and those bourgeois forces that oppose it are somewhat
less reactionary in that respect, then.

>If you
>study the history of Air or Water Pollution Legislation, you will find
>that almost all the regulations were enacted due to strong grass-roots
>pressure and were fiercely opposed by the industrial bourgeoise. The
>US Enviromental Agency was established under the reactionary Nixon

If you mean legislation on *real* pollution, you're probably right.
But such things as one law which I believe is called "The Clean Air
Act", and which, if I'm rightly informed, contains provisions
against the emitting of carbon dioxyde and some other in fact
reactionary provsions, most definitely were *not* enacted because
of pressure from the masses. The "global warming" "theory" *is*
a hoax, and comes precisely from the reactionary US state and from
other reactionaries.

>The Montreal 2000 Protocol seeking to replace CFCs was enacted due to this

- pressure from the masses?? Certainly NOT! It was certain reactionaries,
one representative of whom is present US vice president Al Gore, who
did that!

>but it is not clear if this protocol will be met since some
>of the original signotories are opposing it at present. There has been
>a systematic effort by the corporations to take over the 'green'
>organizations and co-opt the 'green' agenda - that is correct. But that
>is just for PR purposes, i.e., to present the picture of an environmental
>friendly corporation (like the Dupont dolphins). In actual life, the very
>same capitalists are fighting every environmental regulation (i.e.,
>whatever is any barrier to profit making) tooth and nail. 
>Before you propound any conspiracy theories, you should examine the
>scientific evidence for ozone depletion. 

Yes, this I've already tried to do. It's difficult, of course,
to see through these things. But I shall continue trying.

As for "conspiracy theories", there very obviously *are* very
many and very B I G conspiracies going on, since 20 or 30 years
back, in the world, precisely motivated by phoney "environmetal"
concerns, in reality having extremely right-wing, counter-revolutionary
motives. One of them, the flagship of this whole fleet of 
conspiracies, is the anti-nuclear-energy campaign. Others are
the "global warming" hoax, likewise directed against eficient
energy sources (oil and natural gas, and coal which is still
needed in many countries), and the recent campaigns agaist even
hydropower, and the "ozone depletion" theory, I still hold, is
one of them too. But as I wrote above, let's discuss the technical
matters here.

>And stay way as far as possible
>from La Rouche.

No, I'll not. A warning on my part to you stay away from Al Gore 
etc would be more appropriate, I think.

Of course I have no intention of coalescing with the LaRouche
forces, which are bourgeois and thus against the proletariat.
LaRouche's wife, for instance, was in China earlier this year
hob-nobbing with the representatives of the revisionist,
fascist regime there. There are many other very reactionary
things I could mention which this group is doing. But one thing
it's doing is quite positive and favours the proletariat:
It attacks the arch-reactionary "green" propaganda on a
number of points, and brings information on various subjects
related to these questions that's important.

Of course, one must be careful about relying on that information,
and it seems that I've made one mistake here, on that question
of chlorine where you pointe out something in the above. But
much of it obviously has been correct and valuable. One big
problem for the extremely small forces trying really to
represent the interests of the great majority of people is
precisely their ignorance, on many scientific subjects for
instance. They constantly have to improve on that, in order
to combat correctly those "green" warfare campaigns I mentioned,
not least.

Rolf M.

     --- from list ---


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005